Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 00:42:27 +0300 Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua wrote: Thank you very much for that detailed explanation. So you think if debian user reports the bug in upstream tracker I should send him back into debian BTS so debian will know that the bug really exists and bothers debian users? If I knew that earlier I would do so instead of fixing all those bugs. :) No, I'm expecting some users to use upstream and some users to use downstream - Debian. Having said that, it is useful if the two can work together more, so there is an argument for filing the bug in both places if the bug can be demonstrated in both. And don't expect those bugs in BTS be closed after release, most of them were fixed in upstream this spring/summer so they will stay still Outstanding until release 1.0 will come into Wheezy somehow. Not true. Bugs are closed in unstable, not stable. The users raised that problem already in upstream bugtracker so as an upstream developer I test if the libfm/pcmanfm can be compiled and ran as expected with any currently supported distributions (that includes stable debian release, LTS ubuntu releases and other of the same age) so thank you for mentioning, I'm aware of it. So last three debian users who have submitted the bug reports to upstream was told to overwrite their files from debian squeeze by doing 'make install'. When the Debian recommendation would have been to upgrade to a newer package in testing or unstable. During a release freeze, that updated package would be best in experimental. I thought there are few months before release yet. Am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong. The freeze happened over a month ago. The criteria are about the freeze, not the eventual release. The release happens when the rest of the frozen packages are in a suitable state and this myth that there is always testing time between the freeze and the release is just that - myth. All of this just *delays* the release because it is a *distraction* from fixing the real problems which *are* delaying the release - all the other frozen packages which do have release critical bugs filed in Debian already. There is no sense in changing packages which are not demonstrating release critical bugs in Debian during the freeze - it just delays everyone else. If more people stopped worrying about updating stuff which isn't broken and actually fixed the stuff that IS broken, we'd be able to get from freeze to release that much quicker and then the new stuff could go back into unstable and thence into Jessie as normal. Wheezy is frozen - packages without bugs in Wheezy will not get updates, that's what a freeze means. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpMmIP8j8acI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2012-09-03 00:10, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote: Hello! Ansgar Burchardt has written on Sunday, 2 September, at 22:04: Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua writes: Tell me, please, how I can achieve the inclusion of stable version of libfm/pcmanfm into next debian release? BTW, next release of Ubuntu will have 1.0 (or even 1.0.1) versions included. Why debian should not? There were a few mails about libfm 1.0 on lxde-deb...@lists.lxde.org in July[1] and August[2]. [1] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-July/date.html [2] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-August/date.html Yes, I know about those and every question you've raised is fixed already. The problem is LXDE maintainers are very busy this summer so I've decided to help them but I'm new in this area unfortunately. And as the freeze date and release date of 1.0 did not work out as we would hope I for one accepted the fact that the next Debian stable will be shipped with the same version as has been in the archive for a long time. I don't see this as a bad thing, the new version sure is better but the current version works and is good enough. Introducing a new untested version at this stage (or earlier during July or August) was not even on the map if you ask me. I like the current relationship between upstream LXDE and Debian (and Ubuntu and Fedora and OpenSUSE) and I like Debian to have the best possible version of the LXDE components ofc, but when the releases and freeezes do not align these things happens. There will be new pcmanfm and libfm releases soon, pushing for 1.0 now and then have new releases and start pushing for their inclusion? Not really. Upstream LXDE must continue to do good stuff and release at it's own plan and Debian need to stick to another schedule. Maybe we will backport and support pcmanfm and libfm in Debian backports. Maybe not. - -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQRGavAAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7J+oH/0wlddO4B409VTiuAp9FqDWK LZ6MWPeMoretspBGvU9XEJ0qgwIAVCVFGtTKWWalriayZcOEKPHuKUq38zyfWOg7 m83SKmExMVfm6Re4UQ9z6KQ0E4pf82U4kw6YdoSJKU83dk+tezxdWlWDFafF3qcw eAWU/pJctrrXClQHeIKrUzdqCsMQAmBLdgKDD5i23af/y7ut8RCh3WLxvKYa+sTK OgxV1cdD8fP+rbE3nPk8H5SdfBxU1E+H6U7FkhfaCmHV2EYqTN6jglvJ/+4Q6AKE oEYorHe3YXkK+5iwxv7zQS4NeT0ScmfFsltm7JSRDRNJkM2bBjcEOt930choE0g= =M48o -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: http://lists.debian.org/504466af.1020...@bsnet.se
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
I'm long time user of pcmanfm (though I'm using it under fluxbox) and I didn't have any REAL problems with it since... 10 months or so? While there are some bugs here and there (like not being able to run 2 instances of it, even under different users (sometimes I like to run it as a root in order tom quickly copy something from damned ntfs)) I would be one of the last persons to call such trivia RC bugs (well, depending on use case that may be RC bug). -- darkestkhan -- Feel free to CC me. jid: darkestk...@gmail.com May The Source be with You. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACRpbMjpiAWWiamFXx+Bp=DGBuhmfKnhWFSNWXfQ3xQ=per...@mail.gmail.com
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
Hello! darkestkhan has written on Monday, 3 September, at 19:15: I'm long time user of pcmanfm (though I'm using it under fluxbox) and I didn't have any REAL problems with it since... 10 months or so? While there are some bugs here and there (like not being able to run 2 instances of it, even under different users (sometimes I like to run it as a root in order tom quickly copy something from damned ntfs)) I would be one of the last persons to call such trivia RC bugs (well, depending on use case that may be RC bug). So it seems those bugs with crashes and everything are rare enough to not bother most of people. Such relief. So let it stay as it is now until release. I hope that will help Wheezy to be released earlier. :) Cheers! Andriy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120904001532.ga14...@rep.kiev.ua
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:30:31 +0300 Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua wrote: The version libfm 0.1.17 and pcmanfm 0.9.10 have few tens of critical bugs. Some of them are: None of which appear to have been filed against the Debian packages. It could be that no-one else has experienced such problems or the problems do not affect Debian. I've used LXDE from Debian on a couple of boxes without experiencing critical bugs. Full list of bugs fixed since those versions will take pages of text so I didn't list all of them but just main categories. There's plenty of room in the BTS to give full details in each bug report. No need to detail the issues here - report bugs against the Debian packages with all supporting details *if* the bugs can be reproduced using Debian. And since pcmanfm is one of core components of LXDE to have lot of critical bugs in it is very bad thing you know. Unreported bugs cannot be fixed. Bugs which are meant to affect the versions of packages in a Debian stable release have to be demonstrated in Debian before the package can be fixed in Debian. The first stable versions 1.0 of both libfm and pcmanfm are released almost a month ago. Debian has been in release freeze for over a month now. New upstream releases are not included automatically during a release freeze. Each change needs to be reviewed with respect to the current code in Debian testing. Only 1 critical bug was discovered since 1.0~rc1 was released (what happened 2 months ago) so it's really stable and even well documented. And there are 15 important and normal bugs in the Debian bug tracker about pcmanfm, which are fixed already I believe. There's no time to test a new upstream release in Debian. If the bugs are reproducible in Debian, then the fixes should be backported to the versions already in Debian testing. To make inclusion of those obsolete versions info wheezy worse How can something released *after* the freeze began be considered obsolete? aren't supported by any of developers anymore and never will since there was too many fixes so backporting only one of them doesn't worth all that efforts. Those issues which are deemed release critical by the Debian maintainer / release team will have to be fixed. Tell me, please, how I can achieve the inclusion of stable version of libfm/pcmanfm into next debian release? BTW, next release of Ubuntu will have 1.0 (or even 1.0.1) versions included. Why debian should not? New upstream releases are not accepted into Debian testing during a Debian release freeze. Specific fixes can be considered but there are no RC bugs filed against either package in Debian currently. Show that the bugs affect the Debian packages, file the bugs and work with the maintainer(s) to fix the bugs. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpeVdveTD6M1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
Hello! Neil Williams has written on Sunday, 2 September, at 19:17: On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:30:31 +0300 Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua wrote: The version libfm 0.1.17 and pcmanfm 0.9.10 have few tens of critical bugs. Some of them are: None of which appear to have been filed against the Debian packages. It could be that no-one else has experienced such problems or the problems do not affect Debian. I suppose it's just because people submit bugreports directly into pcmanfm bugtracker instead of bugreporting into debian. It's may be my classification of bugs is wrong - as developer I classify the bug being critical if it hangs desktop, if application crashes, if an application eats all available memory, etc. All those issues were caused and proven to happen on debian (in fact, I fixed some of them exactly in debian environment - on the testing distro). I've used LXDE from Debian on a couple of boxes without experiencing critical bugs. You are more lucky than some other users then. :) Unreported bugs cannot be fixed. Bugs which are meant to affect the versions of packages in a Debian stable release have to be demonstrated in Debian before the package can be fixed in Debian. There are lot of bugs in the BTS already - just take a look at this: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?dist=unstable;package=pcmanfm Half of them are about crashes (even on very start) despite of being put into Important or Normal category. The first stable versions 1.0 of both libfm and pcmanfm are released almost a month ago. Debian has been in release freeze for over a month now. New upstream releases are not included automatically during a release freeze. Each change needs to be reviewed with respect to the current code in Debian testing. The exact date of publishing 1.0~rc1 (release-candidate) version was July 08. It's a week later than a release freeze but unfortunately it cannot be helped. To make inclusion of those obsolete versions info wheezy worse How can something released *after* the freeze began be considered obsolete? There is probably misunderstanding here. I meant as obsolete the versions that are in testing currently, not last released ones. Those versions (libfm-0.1.17 and pcmanfm-0.9.10) are about of year old and about of 1/10 of project's APIs was changed since - there was a big code revision made between releases. It's why upstream developers just cannot accept bugreports for those versions anymore. I'm sorry. Tell me, please, how I can achieve the inclusion of stable version of libfm/pcmanfm into next debian release? BTW, next release of Ubuntu will have 1.0 (or even 1.0.1) versions included. Why debian should not? New upstream releases are not accepted into Debian testing during a Debian release freeze. Specific fixes can be considered but there are no RC bugs filed against either package in Debian currently. Show that the bugs affect the Debian packages, file the bugs and work with the maintainer(s) to fix the bugs. Maintainers were aware of the upstream release coming in the very beginning of July and some of them even told me release team was notified about this. Since developers team of LXDE is small enough nobody of them have enough time to accept any bugreport for libfm/pcmanfm older than version 1.0. I'm sorry but if we cannot find a solution for this problem then all the current bugs in Debian BTS will be there for very long time. You may hate me saying this but that's sad fact. If you think it's normal then I'll shut up and let users ask you why their bugreports are never fixed. And upstream will tell them how to run 'make install'. :) Andriy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120902193314.gb12...@rep.kiev.ua
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua writes: Tell me, please, how I can achieve the inclusion of stable version of libfm/pcmanfm into next debian release? BTW, next release of Ubuntu will have 1.0 (or even 1.0.1) versions included. Why debian should not? There were a few mails about libfm 1.0 on lxde-deb...@lists.lxde.org in July[1] and August[2]. [1] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-July/date.html [2] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-August/date.html Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx18ry1u@deep-thought.43-1.org
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:33:14 +0300 Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua wrote: The version libfm 0.1.17 and pcmanfm 0.9.10 have few tens of critical bugs. Some of them are: None of which appear to have been filed against the Debian packages. It could be that no-one else has experienced such problems or the problems do not affect Debian. I suppose it's just because people submit bugreports directly into pcmanfm bugtracker instead of bugreporting into debian. It's may be my classification of bugs is wrong - as developer I classify the bug being critical if it hangs desktop, if application crashes, if an application eats all available memory, etc. All those issues were caused and proven to happen on debian (in fact, I fixed some of them exactly in debian environment - on the testing distro). None of that normally matters but during a Debian release freeze, only bugs reported within Debian are going to affect packages moving into Debian testing during the freeze. Different users report bugs in different places - many users would not be comfortable setting up yet another account to use for the upstream bug trackers of the hundreds of packages installed on their machines. That's why we have the Debian BTS and Debian maintainers who can go to individual upstreams where that would be useful. Only a tiny fraction of bugs in the BTS ever get forwarded upstream. We also have other upstreams, like me, who push code to SF and freshmeat/freecode but use the Debian BTS as the upstream BTS. I'm upstream and maintainer for certain packages. If some random user/distribution comes to me and moans about a bug in an old version which I fixed in a more recent version then it's not my problem to go back to the old code or backport the change. I can choose to do that but the main goal will be to get the reporter to upgrade via whatever mechanisms are available. As upstream, I don't care what versions are packaged for Gentoo or Fedora or Ubuntu. I care about the latest upstream version, I don't spend time supporting previous upstream versions. In Debian, it's different - if the same package has a problem in stable which I've fixed in unstable, then I will see about a backport because I'm a Debian Developer, I'm the maintainer and I know how to do that properly (and it has nothing whatsoever to do with upstream). I have no idea or desire to know how to do that for any other distro - I know I couldn't do it properly. Unreported bugs cannot be fixed. Bugs which are meant to affect the versions of packages in a Debian stable release have to be demonstrated in Debian before the package can be fixed in Debian. There are lot of bugs in the BTS already - just take a look at this: I know there are some bugs in the BTS but none are of release-critical severity, as determined by the maintainers. Most packages in Debian have some bugs, many have quite a lot of bugs but only a portion of those are considered with regard to changing the version of packages in the release. Half of them are about crashes (even on very start) despite of being put into Important or Normal category. That would make me think that the bugs only affect a limited number of users or that the number of people who actually care about LXDE is in decline. big code revision made between releases. It's why upstream developers just cannot accept bugreports for those versions anymore. I'm sorry. That doesn't matter either. It is up to bug submitters and the maintainers to handle bugs which are closed by new upstream releases being introduced into Debian. The new upstream release could go into experimental but it's up to the maintainers to put it into unstable once the Wheezy release is complete. From there, it can migrate into the next version of testing (Jessie) and from there it could also go into backports, if there is a request. If the Debian maintainers want to talk to upstream about some bugs, it is up to the Debian maintainers to make their questions relevant to upstream - that doesn't affect the way that existing bugs are handled. version 1.0. I'm sorry but if we cannot find a solution for this problem then all the current bugs in Debian BTS will be there for very long time. Possibly, possibly not. When the next release turns up in Debian, the maintainers may choose to ping the submitters of the existing bug reports to see if their problems are now fixed. Debian does not assume that Debian bugs are fixed by the next upstream release unless the bug has already been explicitly forwarded upstream and can be tracked to an upstream bug report. Even then, the bug has to be shown to be closed in Debian, irrespective of whether upstream think it's fixed. You may hate me saying this but that's sad fact. If you think it's normal then I'll shut up and let users ask you why their bugreports are never fixed. And upstream will tell them how to run 'make install'. :) That's a complete misunderstanding of the role of upstream.
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
Hello! Neil Williams has written on Sunday, 2 September, at 21:51: On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:33:14 +0300 Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua wrote: You may hate me saying this but that's sad fact. If you think it's normal then I'll shut up and let users ask you why their bugreports are never fixed. And upstream will tell them how to run 'make install'. :) That's a complete misunderstanding of the role of upstream. Bugs in Debian are fixed via unstable, not stable. Important fixes can be backported after the release, if there is a request to do so but as the existing user base have not reported any release critical issues in these packages, there is no reason to change the release status of the packages. Existing bugs will be handled in the normal way - once the release process is complete. Thank you very much for that detailed explanation. So you think if debian user reports the bug in upstream tracker I should send him back into debian BTS so debian will know that the bug really exists and bothers debian users? If I knew that earlier I would do so instead of fixing all those bugs. :) And don't expect those bugs in BTS be closed after release, most of them were fixed in upstream this spring/summer so they will stay still Outstanding until release 1.0 will come into Wheezy somehow. Also, 'make install' might not work on systems running newer versions anyway because upstreams tend to rely on latest versions of other dependencies, some of which are probably in exactly the same situation where version 0.2.3 is in testing and will be released but 0.3.0 is in some random VCS / as a tarball on a random download site. Therefore, nothing is likely to happen until all of the relevant dependencies are updated in unstable *after* the Wheezy release. The users raised that problem already in upstream bugtracker so as an upstream developer I test if the libfm/pcmanfm can be compiled and ran as expected with any currently supported distributions (that includes stable debian release, LTS ubuntu releases and other of the same age) so thank you for mentioning, I'm aware of it. So last three debian users who have submitted the bug reports to upstream was told to overwrite their files from debian squeeze by doing 'make install'. BTW it's nothing to do with me, I have used LXDE before (gradually moving to XFCE instead), I'm not a maintainer of LXDE and don't really care about either package specifically. I'm just looking to get Wheezy released without people expecting new upstream releases to be included at this late stage. And I'm looking to get Wheezy released without very old unstable software while there is one considered stable. You telling late stage. I thought there are few months before release yet. Am I wrong? Andriy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120902214227.gc12...@rep.kiev.ua
Re: libfm and pcmanfm in debian
Hello! Ansgar Burchardt has written on Sunday, 2 September, at 22:04: Andrej N. Gritsenko and...@rep.kiev.ua writes: Tell me, please, how I can achieve the inclusion of stable version of libfm/pcmanfm into next debian release? BTW, next release of Ubuntu will have 1.0 (or even 1.0.1) versions included. Why debian should not? There were a few mails about libfm 1.0 on lxde-deb...@lists.lxde.org in July[1] and August[2]. [1] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-July/date.html [2] http://lists.lxde.org/pipermail/lxde-debian/2012-August/date.html Yes, I know about those and every question you've raised is fixed already. The problem is LXDE maintainers are very busy this summer so I've decided to help them but I'm new in this area unfortunately. With best wishes. Andriy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120902221019.gd12...@rep.kiev.ua
