Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/09/14 20:46, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Daniel Pocock: c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. [...] I hope this is a joke. Not entirely I was not suggesting people would pay to have their packages approved. Only that there would be payment for consideration. I recall that the last time we went through this sort of argument, numerous people have stated quite unequivocally that as soon as there is any sort of direct monetary compensation for participating in some Debian tasks, they're outta here. I don't think that has changed, and thus I believe that the net amount of work done for Debian is most likely to *de*crease if somebody does that kind of thing. TL;DR: Do Not Go There. Well, I did give the disclaimer that this was just a list of ideas to start discussion - it would be really helpful to have other potential ideas too. There is already the appearance of commercial activity in derivatives and it can also undermine motivation for people when they upload something to Debian and they see it in a commercially funded derivative distribution before it passes the NEW queue and appears in Debian itself. In the case of one of my own uploads, this appeared to be pure co-incidence but I can imagine cases where the packager may get a bad impression. One way to deal with this may be to suggest that if something is accepted by Ubuntu while waiting in NEW and if it passes an automated scan for binary content and blacklisted license texts, it could be automatically accepted in Debian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUCsCyAAoJEGxlgOd711bEosUQAJfL62+H0r0FsbHTuMZQ9Fbs Lzg/umTgZ8qcS81g09EW0LqiuYiXAD+tvsF8OoktxvmBWspUEOd3xj2tA0ZstaG0 v7ZWgK6wfiXoQmWqs9viUy1nrHguM1FbNpSCsYRsM56w7jsLqwroxLJGTN/vPrjI bRgeaw4HGGG3hY0Ln4sEAYI+ehJ3XOu2MDIqpEfsdvSOuoA6Y/FF0cH7Enk6zaQ+ 5Dx2+PBLY5MP2pr0zV0zGnLsZuNSWoBFvqYHCu8qCS1mbFcfloaOLTftYTIYgAzg ktXZL5HEM3H7HQsVup9j7JZIvU4z69v47/5UqkfK0GwmViz730G9TksJHURLDMmc 9SLOQty9Ga3m4JgK+G2vtJs4lmJ06ghUGktGIbeiTzCKYHzI6fIYOCIHYs6OGG6x H4DrzolOPDBcibVIQSHnkSma1u2ORVP3+0kXHvdOIGmOBg+kkEXEvmIey/f8kG63 kCnISbtHa5VgPS4syA1fvAFnAruaKHL0G3QEtrMTdRp9s1vIVZSTbP0G0VlV1TKh E8l9mr0Ol5N38uLNKjm4JXiLkte+b3QF0vUfClre7add96XeJeLOlBjJ8KBdOknF xobrlmmhr8VkSe1cpOJJKMiHDoWVII1hKY/VPSPtMsIgz/7GkcM7J378UmNg70aI S420ykwhPJ5TWK7BMAuR =CPJk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540ac0b2.5000...@pocock.pro
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Le Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:09:09PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : grep -ir copyright * Do that over your source and then compare what you have in debian/copyright. You might be surprised how often that turns up missing stuff. Check your own packages at least as carefully as you expect the FTP Team to check it. Hi Scott, FTP team and everybody, to have a perfect match between the names listed in debian/copyright and the names found in the copyright statements in the upstream source files requires a considerable amount of work, and in the case of some licenses this work is not necessary for compliance. It has been sometimes argued that this work is useful for the review process, to prove that the source files have been inspected systematically and in details. However, when I reviewed some packages in the NEW queue (https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview), I found little value for this information: what really matters is when license statements are missed. I therefore propose to focus the review of the NEW queue on license compliance, since this the point where errors can have the broadest consequences on Debian as a whole. In my impression from what I read on this mailing list, there is a positive opinion in general about the fact that packages are more throuroughly checked by the FTP team, as it increases Debian's quality, and indeed I agree that if we could get this with little effort it would be great. But in practice we can see that it does not scale and the consequence is that packages need monthes for being reviewed. Therefore, let's not ask for the impossible; instead, let's seek for the same level of quality through other processes. In other distributions like Fedora, new packages are peer-reviewed in a public issue tracker, in a way that is not unlike the requests for sponsorship (RFS) on the debian-mentors mailing list. I think that it would be reasonable to require such reviews in Debian as well. The existence of such a review would not increase the work load of the FTP team if the inspections in the NEW queue would be focused on license compliance, that can be done independantly without reading the all the messages generated during the peer review. In summary, a radical way to reduce the work load generated by the NEW queue would be to split that work, leaving only licence compliance checks and approval of new Free licenses to the queue, and transferring the checks for DFSG compliance (missing source files, non-free licenses, ...) and quality in general to another stage of package production. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906090810.gf31...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Daniel Pocock writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): There is one package I recently uploaded where I meant to use a repackaged tarball to get rid of an embedded binary toolchain JAR. This is a more nasty mistake of course but thanks to the diligence of the FTP masters it was spotted. Perhaps you were just unlucky. If so then one REJECT out of many ACCEPTs is not going to be a problem for you. If you were not just unlucky then the expected error rate in your NEW uploads is too high. It is your responsibility to fix that, not the responsibility of the rest of the project to help you, or to deal with the fallout, or to bear the costs of unnecessary re-review. This also brings up one other concern about a procedure that deliberately defers processing of some items in the NEW queue: My proposal does not deliberately defer processing of any NEW items. I'm proposing _prioritising_ NEW processing, biasing it in favour of (a crude predictor of) packages likely to be ACCEPTed and therefore likely to quickly improve Debian by their presence. it may give an advantage to derivative distributions that are cherry-picking the best things from NEW and appear to be getting them faster than Debian. I don't understand why you think this is less likely to be a problem with the packages that my proposal prioritises than with the packages tht my proposal deprioritises. It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem. But it appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to deal with poor submissions. If we can fix that, we can fix the long queue. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21513.56124.749649.483...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On 05/09/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote: It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem. But it appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to deal with poor submissions. If we can fix that, we can fix the long queue. This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and good for the project. Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these, but they are just some things that come to mind): a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code themselves. People abusing this privilege would lose it. b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100% free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements. c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. Uploaders and interested third parties can bid for packages to be reviewed. If they reject a package, it goes back to its original place in the queue unless somebody pays for them to spend more time on it. Some people may feel that this will deter the FTP masters from reviewing packages unless all uploaders start paying while other people may feel that this funding would give the FTP masters more time. Maybe the fee could include a surcharge of 33% to cover regular queue processing, so for every 3 packages that pay, one package is taken from the front of the queue as well? The rate of the surcharge could be variable to keep the backlog within a 2 week target range. d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue software. Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such packages before they reach FTP masters? Do the FTP masters publish statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things to scan and reject automatically? Are there other alternatives that people can think of? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5409e308.3080...@pocock.pro
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Daniel Pocock writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and good for the project. I agree. Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these, but they are just some things that come to mind): a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code themselves. People abusing this privilege would lose it. b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100% free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements. I think both of these are, mostly, ad-hoc ways of prioritising certain packages. (Since the effort of setting up such systems and monitoring compliance etc. is probably not less than that of reviewing the packages in question and coming to a judgement.) A more flexible approach along the same lines would be to allow packages to skip manual NEW review if countersigned by N DDs (who would presumably lose countersigning privileges it was later discovered that the package should have been rejected). c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. [...] I hope this is a joke. d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue software. Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such packages before they reach FTP masters? Do the FTP masters publish statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things to scan and reject automatically? I'm sure the ftpmasters will welcome your patches to their decision support software. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21513.59577.820658.49...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On Friday, September 05, 2014 18:21:28 Daniel Pocock wrote: On 05/09/14 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote: It is true that long NEW processing queues is a big problem. But it appears that a substantial amount of core team effort is being used to deal with poor submissions. If we can fix that, we can fix the long queue. This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and good for the project. Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these, but they are just some things that come to mind): a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code themselves. People abusing this privilege would lose it. b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100% free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements. c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. Uploaders and interested third parties can bid for packages to be reviewed. If they reject a package, it goes back to its original place in the queue unless somebody pays for them to spend more time on it. Some people may feel that this will deter the FTP masters from reviewing packages unless all uploaders start paying while other people may feel that this funding would give the FTP masters more time. Maybe the fee could include a surcharge of 33% to cover regular queue processing, so for every 3 packages that pay, one package is taken from the front of the queue as well? The rate of the surcharge could be variable to keep the backlog within a 2 week target range. d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue software. Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such packages before they reach FTP masters? Do the FTP masters publish statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things to scan and reject automatically? Are there other alternatives that people can think of? e) Stop uploading crap packages to the archive. I know there are lots of ways to go wrong and it's time consuming and annoying and you're busy. Imagine how much more annoying it is to have to deal with all of it. The low quality of package uploads is (at least for me) demotivating. As an FTP Assistant, I want time I invest in reviewing a package to result in something going into the archive. Every time it doesn't I feel like I've had my time wasted. Here's one tip I've given people before: grep -ir copyright * Do that over your source and then compare what you have in debian/copyright. You might be surprised how often that turns up missing stuff. Check your own packages at least as carefully as you expect the FTP Team to check it. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4113890.BhKOUnD99M@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On 05/09/14 18:45, Ian Jackson wrote: Daniel Pocock writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and good for the project. I agree. Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these, but they are just some things that come to mind): a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code themselves. People abusing this privilege would lose it. b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100% free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements. I think both of these are, mostly, ad-hoc ways of prioritising certain packages. (Since the effort of setting up such systems and monitoring compliance etc. is probably not less than that of reviewing the packages in question and coming to a judgement.) A more flexible approach along the same lines would be to allow packages to skip manual NEW review if countersigned by N DDs (who would presumably lose countersigning privileges it was later discovered that the package should have been rejected). c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. [...] I hope this is a joke. Not entirely I was not suggesting people would pay to have their packages approved. Only that there would be payment for consideration. If the payment was completely transparent, if it motivated more people to join the FTP team and if it increased throughput without compromising quality then it may be worthy of discussion. If it meant packages of a non-commercial nature were never getting looked at then I personally would feel that is a loss for Debian. d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue software. Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such packages before they reach FTP masters? Do the FTP masters publish statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things to scan and reject automatically? I'm sure the ftpmasters will welcome your patches to their decision support software. I'd be happy to comment on that further if anybody could point me to statistics about the types of things to look for. Maybe this could also be a good idea for an OPW project? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540a035d.1010...@pocock.pro
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Hi, Daniel Pocock: c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell their time through an auction process. [...] I hope this is a joke. Not entirely I was not suggesting people would pay to have their packages approved. Only that there would be payment for consideration. I recall that the last time we went through this sort of argument, numerous people have stated quite unequivocally that as soon as there is any sort of direct monetary compensation for participating in some Debian tasks, they're outta here. I don't think that has changed, and thus I believe that the net amount of work done for Debian is most likely to *de*crease if somebody does that kind of thing. TL;DR: Do Not Go There. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On 03/09/14 17:47, Ian Jackson wrote: Daniel Pocock writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): It may not simply be the person Somebody uploading packages where they are also the upstream may know the copyright situation inside out and just cut and paste debian/copyright from one package to the next and it is always correct. Somebody ambitious who works on packages they are less familiar with or really monstrous packages may well miss things from time to time and be deterred by such a system. Then we have less people willing to attack such monstrous packages. There is a tradeoff here, between 1. the interests of users and developers of the `monstrous' package, and 2. the interests of ftpmaster and the users and developers of everything else. That depends on the extent to which you consider all packages to be independent of each other or if you believe that a collection of packages, big and small, is worth more than the sum of the values of each individual part. The costs of such a `monstrous' package should be borne by those who are working on it and want to see it in Debian. It is true that that means that such packages are less likely to be in Debian than smaller or easier ones. We should not try to fix that by redirecting core team effort to fix big and difficult packages. I'm certainly not arguing that work on monstrous packages should be offloaded onto the ftp masters. I was only thinking about very small errors, like missing the fact that some particular file has a slightly different license that is otherwise fully compatible with the license of the overall package. There is one package I recently uploaded where I meant to use a repackaged tarball to get rid of an embedded binary toolchain JAR. This is a more nasty mistake of course but thanks to the diligence of the FTP masters it was spotted. What is fascinating though is that other developers made exactly the same mistake with exactly the same source package - uploading it directly into Ubuntu, binary JARs included[1], before it had passed through the Debian NEW queue. In fact the Ubuntu changelog[2] mentions at least three other developers who also didn't notice the same embedded JAR in the source. This also brings up one other concern about a procedure that deliberately defers processing of some items in the NEW queue: it may give an advantage to derivative distributions that are cherry-picking the best things from NEW and appear to be getting them faster than Debian. 1. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/primary/+files/libphonenumber_6.0%2Br655.orig.tar.gz 2. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libphonenumber/+changelog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54083f7f.9020...@pocock.pro
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Daniel Pocock writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): It may not simply be the person Somebody uploading packages where they are also the upstream may know the copyright situation inside out and just cut and paste debian/copyright from one package to the next and it is always correct. Somebody ambitious who works on packages they are less familiar with or really monstrous packages may well miss things from time to time and be deterred by such a system. Then we have less people willing to attack such monstrous packages. There is a tradeoff here, between 1. the interests of users and developers of the `monstrous' package, and 2. the interests of ftpmaster and the users and developers of everything else. The costs of such a `monstrous' package should be borne by those who are working on it and want to see it in Debian. It is true that that means that such packages are less likely to be in Debian than smaller or easier ones. We should not try to fix that by redirecting core team effort to fix big and difficult packages. For the packager of such a `monstrous' package, there is a simple answer: get someone else to review the package until you are sufficiently confident about the package that the risk to your own reputation is acceptable. In general, if you are not confident that your package's copyright licensing (and whatever else ftpmaster would be concerned about) is correct, it is not fair or reasonable to upload it anyway and rely on ftpmaster to find and fix your problems. Ultimately, the person who made the package may be using it anyway and such delays may only inconvenience other users of a package, including the rest of the community. That is of course a matter for them. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21511.14354.468506.754...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Charles Plessy writes (Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg): there is one thing that we can do: increase the quality of the packages that we submit to the NEW queue. Acording to one member of the FTP Master team, up to 80 % of the packages have a problem [0]. Indeed, when I and others have checked packages in the queue, it was not too hard to find imprecisions or omissions in the debian/copyright file. I think we need a reputation system here. Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months --- number of ACCEPT or REJECTs from uploader in last 12 months + 1 If you did that, someone who submitted several bad packages to NEW would have to get another DD or DM to sponsor their NEW uploads. That might well deal with the quality problem quite quickly... Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21492.38577.255301.431...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On Aug 20, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: I think we need a reputation system here. Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months --- number of ACCEPT or REJECTs from uploader in last 12 months + 1 If you did that, someone who submitted several bad packages to NEW would have to get another DD or DM to sponsor their NEW uploads. That might well deal with the quality problem quite quickly... This looks like a great idea. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/08/14 16:39, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 20, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: I think we need a reputation system here. Eg, you could sort the NEW queue by something like number of REJECTs of uploader's packages in last 12 months --- number of ACCEPT or REJECTs from uploader in last 12 months + 1 If you did that, someone who submitted several bad packages to NEW would have to get another DD or DM to sponsor their NEW uploads. That might well deal with the quality problem quite quickly... This looks like a great idea. It may not simply be the person Somebody uploading packages where they are also the upstream may know the copyright situation inside out and just cut and paste debian/copyright from one package to the next and it is always correct. Somebody ambitious who works on packages they are less familiar with or really monstrous packages may well miss things from time to time and be deterred by such a system. Then we have less people willing to attack such monstrous packages. Ultimately, the person who made the package may be using it anyway and such delays may only inconvenience other users of a package, including the rest of the community. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT9N94AAoJEGxlgOd711bEMVcP/jUutpWoz82uDNLK1jzb/e4L LfluobflwG0npCAA/jQawET0wi6PZEQfRgTo2kT5k3w99rmwmxbUOpS4+BM/HgEe JYt/Ne2E5THdJBx061/TcAoBI4pISSOHKn8KXH/voAFaaepmW5XQ7kWOk7a3RBgQ K6xKdlNAGGsHkOvW2ZMAB4kzw0+dk+tW39jn5cxQY1bi3r9Y7J77TeWJjjppBHTs DxQtlG4SMFxiA8RLGV79H1USx5Dbd8Dm6VPbU/Qhv0KeZPkMyXfBhxQvATAw1voZ 7BwRYdjn5miQpqUKunSBOPBPLUkqAXVzaQnuW+8L0iLGqCNl9WB1tsAxyIFGy1Qf yqslGhLcv7EjOUKUM90Uvd7lwB9qzzH0tmVNrkvdvzd7qpDpNO57LF/dpcfjO6OM Uc+FmzjtfON+bzxT5v9b6M1QUnkMatU2B7/KFJlL9va6/5+TP/peDrPQaGYkqCUs 4c+ukB+RdaOevjpz45Ccp/Y+QypYZ0P1MjKexdtlIjl+rNzOFEFAE2jViloypdCC dlcppCBqgWutk28Oq2fd//IkO8GwXh4Q4PJEesB8+6WGsY8ZkZku+LTM1kmXw70w R+yHSKGlrsJcwuxkzZmrij7wwfzqn8l0J9ZaXCICspNQylG5eH2zFgHnsxK/HRz1 Ro+uevciP6z7/9fJ2e5Y =Z9br -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f4df78.2040...@pocock.pro
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net): However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Hello, That seems to be one of the cases where we suffer from the slow processing of the NEW queue. New packages have to be checked and approved by the Debian FTPmaster team. They doing a very thourough job in checking packages (particularly licensing) and, from what I witnessed during the last months, it takes more manpower than the team has (considering that the FTPmaster team has several other duties). There is not much you can do, indeed, except patiently waiting. I had to wait for such a long time for a package of mine (openambit) to enter the archive, recently. But, given that I can't really offer the FTPmaster team what they need the most (help), my only option isto be patient PS: please notice that in case the package is rejected for some reason, I noticed that it seems that the FTPmaster team prioritizes checking reuploaded packages (at least this is what happened with my recent NEW packages). We're sometimes desperatly lacking manpower on some key positions in Debian, I'm afraid. (and I use this opportunity to thank the ftpmasters for their work and commitment) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net): However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Le Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:09AM +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit : There is not much you can do, indeed, except patiently waiting. I had to wait for such a long time for a package of mine (openambit) to enter the archive, recently. But, given that I can't really offer the FTPmaster team what they need the most (help), my only option isto be patient Hello Amir and everybody, there is one thing that we can do: increase the quality of the packages that we submit to the NEW queue. Acording to one member of the FTP Master team, up to 80 % of the packages have a problem [0]. Indeed, when I and others have checked packages in the queue, it was not too hard to find imprecisions or omissions in the debian/copyright file. Peer review can help, by making sure that the final controllers (the FTP Master team) do not waste their time reporting defects that others could have found. You can find a process for peer review at the URL below. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview Have a nice day, [0] https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1408060907090.9...@jupiter.server.alteholz.net -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813072057.ga28...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Hi! Thanks for the response. I've had review on my license by the SFLC and the FSF. See their responses here: https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/Libbitcoin/License Also I have emails from the Debian mailing list on this issue which I can contribute. Is there anything I need to do to pass that link to the FTPmaster team, or will they see it here? Thanks! On 13/08/14 08:57, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net): However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Hello, That seems to be one of the cases where we suffer from the slow processing of the NEW queue. New packages have to be checked and approved by the Debian FTPmaster team. They doing a very thourough job in checking packages (particularly licensing) and, from what I witnessed during the last months, it takes more manpower than the team has (considering that the FTPmaster team has several other duties). There is not much you can do, indeed, except patiently waiting. I had to wait for such a long time for a package of mine (openambit) to enter the archive, recently. But, given that I can't really offer the FTPmaster team what they need the most (help), my only option isto be patient PS: please notice that in case the package is rejected for some reason, I noticed that it seems that the FTPmaster team prioritizes checking reuploaded packages (at least this is what happened with my recent NEW packages). We're sometimes desperatly lacking manpower on some key positions in Debian, I'm afraid. (and I use this opportunity to thank the ftpmasters for their work and commitment) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53eb105c.2030...@riseup.net
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
Thank you. On 13/08/14 09:20, Charles Plessy wrote: Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net): However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Le Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:09AM +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit : There is not much you can do, indeed, except patiently waiting. I had to wait for such a long time for a package of mine (openambit) to enter the archive, recently. But, given that I can't really offer the FTPmaster team what they need the most (help), my only option isto be patient Hello Amir and everybody, there is one thing that we can do: increase the quality of the packages that we submit to the NEW queue. Acording to one member of the FTP Master team, up to 80 % of the packages have a problem [0]. Indeed, when I and others have checked packages in the queue, it was not too hard to find imprecisions or omissions in the debian/copyright file. Peer review can help, by making sure that the final controllers (the FTP Master team) do not waste their time reporting defects that others could have found. You can find a process for peer review at the URL below. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview Have a nice day, [0] https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1408060907090.9...@jupiter.server.alteholz.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53eb1221.6000...@riseup.net
RE:2 months and no upload for pkg
Hello Charles Peer review can help, by making sure that the final controllers (the FTP Master team) do not waste their time reporting defects that others could have found. You can find a process for peer review at the URL below. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview I like a lot the idea, but don't you think that when entering the New Queues a package should be automatically tag with copyright-review-requested. this way it should be possible to add these bugs in how-can-i-help. even better A script could automaticaly download two random packages, one with no review and one with already one review when you have 20 minutes for Debian during the day. I find that the time spent to find a package for review is a pain. it should be as simple as: how-can-i-help --review download 2 packages ... review reportbug --review to fill the report and tag accordingly. Cheers Frederic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/a2a20ec3b8560d408356cac2fc148e53b1ed5...@sun-dag3.synchrotron-soleil.fr
Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
It has now appeared in the repos! Thanks everyone. https://packages.qa.debian.org/libb/libbitcoin.html On 13/08/14 09:20, Charles Plessy wrote: Quoting Amir Taaki (gen...@riseup.net): However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Le Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:57:09AM +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit : There is not much you can do, indeed, except patiently waiting. I had to wait for such a long time for a package of mine (openambit) to enter the archive, recently. But, given that I can't really offer the FTPmaster team what they need the most (help), my only option isto be patient Hello Amir and everybody, there is one thing that we can do: increase the quality of the packages that we submit to the NEW queue. Acording to one member of the FTP Master team, up to 80 % of the packages have a problem [0]. Indeed, when I and others have checked packages in the queue, it was not too hard to find imprecisions or omissions in the debian/copyright file. Peer review can help, by making sure that the final controllers (the FTP Master team) do not waste their time reporting defects that others could have found. You can find a process for peer review at the URL below. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview Have a nice day, [0] https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1408060907090.9...@jupiter.server.alteholz.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
2 months and no upload for pkg
Hi! A Debian developer Jonas Smedegard has worked with me to package my software since I first opened an ITP in April 2012. Finally we finish to resolve all the outstanding issues after some months, and I was very happy to see it pushed ready to be uploaded on 17 June. https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/libbitcoin_2.0-1.html It's been 2 months. I communicated with the maintainer and he told me to wait a bit but we saw nothing happen yet. I didn't yet contact anyone and wait patiently because I understand Debian devs are busy. However, I think maybe this might have slipped through the cracks and has been missed. Any information would be much appreciated. The responsible team (Debian Bitcoin Team) seems to be dead judging from their mailing list. Thanks very much. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
