Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Hello, On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: Ready. The new package at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-4~2.dsc Uploading to master (via ftp to ftp-master.debian.org): stunnel4_4.20-4.dsc: done. stunnel4_4.20-4.diff.gz: done. stunnel_4.20-4_all.deb: done. stunnel4_4.20-4_arm.deb: done. stunnel4_4.20-4_arm.changes: done. Successfully uploaded packages. Please check http://buildd.debian.org/stunnel4 for further information. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 06:37:36AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: Should I upload with just the change from (1)? Yes. I agree with your reasoning. Ready. The new package at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-4~2.dsc -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 11:11:05AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Package looks fine. I'm currently updating my local pbuilder base and will upload when that is done. Unfortunately, I just realised that there are a few more changes that I think you should make! 1. I think it is better to use $(MAKE) -C src and $(MAKE) -C doc instead of the cd src; $(MAKE) and cd doc; $(MAKE) constructs. Done, but not uploaded yet. install -p -m 0644 tools/stunnel.conf-sample\ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf # mv executables into /usr/bin, with propper names mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/stunnel \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/bin/stunnel4 mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/stunnel3 \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/bin/stunnel3 rmdir $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/ # Move docs into propper dir mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel4 2. Since you use debhelper, I think it is better if you use debhelper's .install files to move/install files in the correct places (man dh_install). Sorry, I disagree here. The problem is I'm not only moving things around, I'm also renaming files and getting rid of empty dirs left behind. man dh_install explicitely states that dh_install cannot rename files or directories, it can only install them with the names they already have into wherever you want in the package build tree. Thus, if use dh_install for this, I'd still have to leave commands to rename, completely negating the point of using it, as I'd still have pretty much the same clutter in debian/rules *and* I'd split the handling of this files over several places. Should I upload with just the change from (1)? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Hello, On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: Should I upload with just the change from (1)? Yes. I agree with your reasoning. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 11:11:05AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Package looks fine. I'm currently updating my local pbuilder base and will upload when that is done. Unfortunately, I just realised that there are a few more changes that I think you should make! While looking through your debian/rules I found under the install rules: cd src; $(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr cd doc; $(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr 1. I think it is better to use $(MAKE) -C src and $(MAKE) -C doc instead of the cd src; $(MAKE) and cd doc; $(MAKE) constructs. Agreed, but only because you use cd ; make instead of cd make. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Hello, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Package looks fine. I'm currently updating my local pbuilder base and will upload when that is done. Unfortunately, I just realised that there are a few more changes that I think you should make! While looking through your debian/rules I found under the install rules: cd src; $(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr cd doc; $(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr ln doc/stunnel.8 doc/stunnel4.8 # Manpages will be installed by dh_installman rm -rf $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/man rm -rf $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/man install -p -m 0644 tools/stunnel.conf-sample\ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/etc/stunnel/stunnel.conf # mv executables into /usr/bin, with propper names mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/stunnel \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/bin/stunnel4 mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/stunnel3 \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/bin/stunnel3 rmdir $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/sbin/ # Move docs into propper dir mv $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel \ $(CURDIR)/debian/stunnel4/usr/share/doc/stunnel4 1. I think it is better to use $(MAKE) -C src and $(MAKE) -C doc instead of the cd src; $(MAKE) and cd doc; $(MAKE) constructs. 2. Since you use debhelper, I think it is better if you use debhelper's .install files to move/install files in the correct places (man dh_install). Sorry for the late realisation. Thanks and regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Hello, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: I have uploaded a new version with the suggested fixes. Following your sugestion I used 3:4.20-4~1 as version. If you consider it worthy of upload, please change it to -4. And please build with -v3:4.20-2 Thanks for pointing this (-v3:4.20-2) out or I might have forgotten! http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-4~1.dsc Package looks fine. I'm currently updating my local pbuilder base and will upload when that is done. I've been playing with both kinds of repositories, with and without upstream sources, in my packages, but I'm not sure yet which workflow is easier. Do you have some description on pros/cons from others, to help decide? I have moved towards repositories that contain *only* the debian/ directory. I find it easier to keep track of my own changes that way. As far as I know this is the recommended approach. It is relatively easy to setup something like debian/rules get-orig-source to get the upstream source (though I have not done this for some of my packages!). Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 08:03:04PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3:4.20-3 of my package stunnel4. I have some fixes/suggestions for you. Since this would be the first package that I would sponsor, I hope we can learn from each other! :) I have uploaded a new version with the suggested fixes. Following your sugestion I used 3:4.20-4~1 as version. If you consider it worthy of upload, please change it to -4. And please build with -v3:4.20-2 Thanks http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-4~1.dsc General remark: === Please go through the package completely *as if* I were the person who had done the packaging and you were the person performing the sponsor-ship. Experience says that the time of adoption is probably the time when the maximum effort is/can be put into cleaning up packaging issues. Thanks, that's a good idea. It actually prompted two more changes: * Remove empty /usr/sbin dir. * Avoid linking to libz.so. configure checks for an specific function from it, required by openssl. But, as stunnel itself does not use the library, the generated dependency in zlib1g was bogus and marked as such by the checklib report. http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/index.html http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Must fixes: == - The author of debian/StunnelConf-0.1.pl is not mentioned in the debian/copyright file. I have *not* checked all the files in your tree. Please check each file of the unpacked source and the debian/ directory to find relevant attributions. - Please fix the debian/copyright file. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html Specifically, one thing that *is* missing is the dates of the copyright assertion by the upstream author. Done. - Avoid patching tools/script.sh in your diff. Use quilt instead. Ups. That was a mistake, I intended to do that from the start. In fact your collab-maint repository should ideally only contain the debian/ directory. I've been playing with both kinds of repositories, with and without upstream sources, in my packages, but I'm not sure yet which workflow is easier. Do you have some description on pros/cons from others, to help decide? - linda complains about the empty directory /usr/share/lintian/overrides/ I am not sure what you are using overrides here for. I just think it's easier to have debian/rules try to install the overrides file always, instead of adding/removing the snippet whenever the file gets empty. Anyways, the directory creation *is* a mistake. Fixed. - This changelog entry is not clearly written. * Use less cmd line args to debhelper commands in debian/rules. An alternative may be * Rewrite dh_* invocations in debian/rules. Or * Shorten dh_* invocations in debian/rules. Done Optional fixes: == - IMHO the README.Debian file needs better organisation. Perhaps three or four sections. One Upgrading from stunnel to stunnel4, two Sample Stunnel configurator, three Howto create Tunnels, four Howto create SSL keys for stunnel. Done - debian/StunnelConf-0.1.pl could perhaps be placed in /usr/share/doc/stunnel4/contrib/ as it is not a document but contributed code. Done - The preferred debian/changelog entry format seems to be. New maintainer. Closes: #416955. rather than Adopt package (closes: #416955). Done - I (have learnt to) prefer changelog entries that clearly indicate which files were changed rather than those that just describe the effect of the changes. Done. Kind of. I think some of the entries were explicit enough already. Not sure aspects: === - I am not sure that the warnings in the doc/ directory are enough of a warning for those who have so far been using stunnel3. Since stunnel starts network tunnels through init.d or inetd someone could suffer quite a bit in the transition. We should think about this some more ... I don't think there's much problem. Any automatic tunnel the user had will continue to work, thanks to the wrapper compatibility script. No new automatic tunnels will be created, because that requires manual enabling. -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Hello, On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3:4.20-3 of my package stunnel4. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-3.dsc Looks nice. I have some fixes/suggestions for you. Since this would be the first package that I would sponsor, I hope we can learn from each other! General remark: === Please go through the package completely *as if* I were the person who had done the packaging and you were the person performing the sponsor-ship. Experience says that the time of adoption is probably the time when the maximum effort is/can be put into cleaning up packaging issues. Must fixes: == - The author of debian/StunnelConf-0.1.pl is not mentioned in the debian/copyright file. I have *not* checked all the files in your tree. Please check each file of the unpacked source and the debian/ directory to find relevant attributions. - Please fix the debian/copyright file. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html Specifically, one thing that *is* missing is the dates of the copyright assertion by the upstream author. - Avoid patching tools/script.sh in your diff. Use quilt instead. In fact your collab-maint repository should ideally only contain the debian/ directory. - linda complains about the empty directory /usr/share/lintian/overrides/ I am not sure what you are using overrides here for. - This changelog entry is not clearly written. * Use less cmd line args to debhelper commands in debian/rules. An alternative may be * Rewrite dh_* invocations in debian/rules. Or * Shorten dh_* invocations in debian/rules. Optional fixes: == - IMHO the README.Debian file needs better organisation. Perhaps three or four sections. One Upgrading from stunnel to stunnel4, two Sample Stunnel configurator, three Howto create Tunnels, four Howto create SSL keys for stunnel. - debian/StunnelConf-0.1.pl could perhaps be placed in /usr/share/doc/stunnel4/contrib/ as it is not a document but contributed code. - The preferred debian/changelog entry format seems to be. New maintainer. Closes: #416955. rather than Adopt package (closes: #416955). - I (have learnt to) prefer changelog entries that clearly indicate which files were changed rather than those that just describe the effect of the changes. Not sure aspects: === - I am not sure that the warnings in the doc/ directory are enough of a warning for those who have so far been using stunnel3. Since stunnel starts network tunnels through init.d or inetd someone could suffer quite a bit in the transition. We should think about this some more ... I hope some other mentor can clarify the last issue. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3:4.20-3 of my package stunnel4. It builds these binary packages: stunnel- dummy upgrade package stunnel4 - Universal SSL tunnel for network daemons The package is lintian/linda clean. It is not piuparts clean because it does not remove logfiles on purge, but I don't really want to do that, as I consider it a data loss, and policy only has it as a should (section 1.8). The upload would fix these bugs: 382099, 416955, 419842, 432304 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stunnel4/stunnel4_4.20-3.dsc This upload will deprecate the stunnel source package, which contains upstream's version 3. I will be glad if someone uploads this package for me. -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
