Bug#1061157: RFS: mini-httpd/1.30-7 -- Small HTTP server
Control: owner -1 ! Hi Alexandru, Happy New Year! I'll sponsor this one. In the future please use "reportbug sponsorship-requests" and enter my email at the "Enter any additional addresses this report should be sent to; press ENTER after each address. Press ENTER on a blank line to continue" step, because the method you use doesn't let the additional recipient[s] reply to the bug. If you want to use another method, please add the following pseudoheader: X-Debbugs-Cc: additional@recipient addresses@list ie@me Gentle reminder not to push tags until the package has been accepted into the archive. It would also be nice to see you use end punctuation again. Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi! On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 14:13:07 +, Aidan wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, wrote: > > …regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd > > still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool > > upstream. :) > I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections > I'm going to rename it to: > "debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container" That looks better, yes, and thank you for considering doing that! (Also the pic part also evokes into my mind "image" which seems apt in this context. :) Thanks, Guillem
Bug#1061157: RFS: mini-httpd/1.30-7 -- Small HTTP server
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mini-httpd": * Package name : mini-httpd Version : 1.30-7 Upstream contact : Jef Poskanzer j...@mail.acme.com * URL : https://www.acme.com/software/mini_httpd * License : BSD-2-clause * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mini-httpd Section : web The source builds the following binary packages: mini-httpd - Small HTTP server To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/mini-httpd/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mini-httpd/mini-httpd_1.30-7.dsc Changes since the last upload: mini-httpd (1.30-7) unstable; urgency=medium . * Modified mini-httpd.postinst to not copy /usr/share/doc/mini-httpd/examples/index.html into /var/www/html/index.html if it's not readable, fixing weird edge cases where docker's dpkg cleans up /usr/share/*/examples beforehand, (Closes: #1061070) * Created 0011-fix-typo-in-documentation-maxage which clears confusion regarding the maxage config & cli option, the actual name for the variable being max_age in mini_httpd.c. The patch modifies documentation and help output to reflect this reality. (Closes: #1018900) Regards, -- Alexandru Mihail signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Thanks for taking the time to comment Guillem. On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 23:14:49 +, Aidan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +, Aidan wrote: > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": > > > > > > Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was > > > subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would > > > like to call into question the naming of the package/application… > > > > > > There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels > > > wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), > especially > > > if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see > > > no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that > > > "just" works with Docker. > > Just by chance I had seen the mail on the mentors list, but thanks for > the heads-up, because I tend to look there very sporadically! > > My reaction was pretty similar TBH. There's enough confusion with > things like dpkg-reconfigure and dpkg-preconfigure and other packages > that have also grabbed from the dpkg-* namespace, which I'd like to > reduce. In this case, it would remove the possibility to use such name > in the future, creates confusion, and it looks like a layer violation, > because it's setting up apt, containers and stuff which should be > sitting on top and not below dpkg. > That's a good point about it looking like a layer violation. > > > > As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its > > > easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it > > > anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on. > > > Thanks for taking a look David. > > For the name I choose "dpkg'' because it stands for "debian package" and > > dpkg-buildenv is intrinsically related to debian packaging. > > However I understand the usage of dpkg may imply the package has been > > officially created and maintained by the dpkg developers. > > Yes, see above. I also appreciate naming is hard, :) but all other > similar implementations could have claimed the same about using dpkg-*, > and I think josch questions are also relevant, even though I also > understand that even among all other options, none might seem > completely suitable to you. But… > > > If the package's name was the last blocking issue preventing adoption in > > Debian then I would spend the time to rename it. > > …regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd > still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool > upstream. :) I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections I'm going to rename it to: "debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container" > > Thanks, > Guillem >
