Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hugo, I think that makes sense. I will get the dependencies packaged and follow up with the go packaging team. Thanks so much for your time spent on this! Stephen On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@fr33tux.org wrote: Hi Stephen, I've had a last look at the source code of the package, and, unfortunately I found something quite annoying: there are lot of external snippets and external libs in the vendors folder. Debian's way of thinking packaging isn't in accordance to it. We should package every piece of code separately; otherwise it may create security and organisational problems. If I upload the package in its current state, it may be rejected by FTP Master. Moreover, it will be hard to maintain this package in the future. The main problem is that packaging these snippets separately will take quite a lot of time and won't be a simple task. I don't have the time to sponsor so many packages. Thus, I'd advise you to get in touch with the Go Packaging Team[0] (#debian-golang on irc.debian.org). They will surely help you to find a solution for your package. They might also decide to upload it. Of course, don't hesitate to ping me if you need some quick review, I'm not far away. :-) Regards, Hugo [0] https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, I've had a last look at the source code of the package, and, unfortunately I found something quite annoying: there are lot of external snippets and external libs in the vendors folder. Debian's way of thinking packaging isn't in accordance to it. We should package every piece of code separately; otherwise it may create security and organisational problems. If I upload the package in its current state, it may be rejected by FTP Master. Moreover, it will be hard to maintain this package in the future. The main problem is that packaging these snippets separately will take quite a lot of time and won't be a simple task. I don't have the time to sponsor so many packages. Thus, I'd advise you to get in touch with the Go Packaging Team[0] (#debian-golang on irc.debian.org). They will surely help you to find a solution for your package. They might also decide to upload it. Of course, don't hesitate to ping me if you need some quick review, I'm not far away. :-) Regards, Hugo [0] https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hugo, Sounds good. New package uploaded in the same place (http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-lfs/git-lfs_0.5.4-1.dsc http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-lfs/git-lfs_0.5.4-1.dsc) with the new copyright file. What are the next steps? Stephen On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@fr33tux.org mailto:hugo6...@fr33tux.org wrote: Hi Stephen, (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. I completely understand that. My point was that I think it is beneficial to keep the version requirements there in case someone wants to backport it. That way they will not run into unexpected problems. If you don't think that is beneficial I can remove it. Anyway, I'm nitpicking. Let it if you want. I've made a new review of your package and I've found a last problem in your d/copyright file: The Expat license paragraph is malformed. I've attached a correct version. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org http://www.hugo6390.org/ 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E copyright.txt
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. I completely understand that. My point was that I think it is beneficial to keep the version requirements there in case someone wants to backport it. That way they will not run into unexpected problems. If you don't think that is beneficial I can remove it. Anyway, I'm nitpicking. Let it if you want. I've made a new review of your package and I've found a last problem in your d/copyright file: The Expat license paragraph is malformed. I've attached a correct version. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: git-lfs Upstream-Contact: supp...@github.com Source: https://github.com/github/git-lfs Files: * Copyright: 2013-2015 GitHub, Inc. and Git LFS contributors License: Expat Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015 Stephen Gelman ssg...@gmail.com License: Expat License: Expat Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: . The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. . THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Responses inline. New package available at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-lfs/git-lfs_0.5.4-1.dsc. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@fr33tux.org wrote: Hi Stephen, Here are some remaining problems I'd like to see solved before sponsoring the package. (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. I completely understand that. My point was that I think it is beneficial to keep the version requirements there in case someone wants to backport it. That way they will not run into unexpected problems. If you don't think that is beneficial I can remove it. (2) debian/changelog: - - Why have you increased the debian revision number ? This package is the first debian release, so the complete package version number should be 0.5.4-1. - Why have you made three changelog entries ? This package haven't been uploaded to the Debian archive so, only one entry is allowed. - Usually, the changelog entry for an initial release looks like: * Initial release. (Closes: ITPBUG) I increased it as I was updating the package and publishing to mentors. In retrospect that was not necessary or correct. I have pushed 0.5.4-1 which incorporates all these changes. (3) debian/copyright: - - Please, specify an e-mail adress after your name in the Copyright field of d/copyright, like so: Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015 Stephen Gelman ssg...@gmail.com License: Expat Email added. Thanks ! Regards, Hugo [0] http://backports.debian.org/Contribute/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, Here are some remaining problems I'd like to see solved before sponsoring the package. (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. (2) debian/changelog: - - Why have you increased the debian revision number ? This package is the first debian release, so the complete package version number should be 0.5.4-1. - Why have you made three changelog entries ? This package haven't been uploaded to the Debian archive so, only one entry is allowed. - Usually, the changelog entry for an initial release looks like: * Initial release. (Closes: ITPBUG) (3) debian/copyright: - - Please, specify an e-mail adress after your name in the Copyright field of d/copyright, like so: Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015 Stephen Gelman ssg...@gmail.com License: Expat Thanks ! Regards, Hugo [0] http://backports.debian.org/Contribute/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Responses inline. In addition I updated the version to 0.5.4-2 at http://mentors.debian.net/package/git-lfs (dsc: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-lfs/git-lfs_0.5.4-2.dsc) Stephen On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@fr33tux.org wrote: Hi, Here is a quick review of your package. (1) debian/control: --- - Please, write a longer extended description. Done - It isn't necessary to specify git (= 1.8.0), Debian has squeeze - 1:1.7.2.5-3; squeeze-backports - 1:1.7.10.4-1~bpo60+1; wheezy - 1:1.7.10.4-1+wheezy1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+2; jessie-kfreebsd - 1:2.1.4-2.1; jessie - 1:2.1.4-2.1; stretch - 1:2.1.4-2.1; sid - 1:2.1.4-2.1; experimental - 1:2.1.4+next.20141218-2; experimental - 1:2.4.3+next.20150611-1; sid - 1:2.4.6-1; experimental - 1:2.5.0~rc2+next.20150720-1. - It isn't necessary to specify golang-go (= 1.3.0), Debian has wheezy - 2:1.0.2-1.1; wheezy-backports - 2:1.3.3-1~bpo70+1; jessie - 2:1.3.3-1; stretch - 2:1.4.2-3; sid - 2:1.4.2-3. I included these in case one wanted to backport this to wheezy (which was particularly useful to me when building the package). Is that not considered good practice? If so I will remove. - Please, run 'wrap-and-sort -a’. Done - Please, specify Vcs-Browser and Vcs-* fields if you are using a Vcs for your Debian work. If not, consider using one. Moved source into github and added. (2) debian/copyright: - - You aren't mentioned in the copyright file. You should add a paragraph for debian/* that mentions you work. Added - Since you aren't providing any upstream e-mail adress in the Copyright field, it might be a good idea to specify an Upstream-Contact field. Makes sense. Added (3) debian/changelog: - - Please, use urgency=low. Done (4) debian/watch: - - Please, write a watch file. Done - Optionally, it could be a good idea to ask git-lfs' upstream to provide signed releases. I asked the git-lfs maintainer to sign releases in the future and he seemed willing. (5) debian/rules: - - 'rm -f debian/debhelper.log' should be automatically done by dh_clean. Why are you specifying this rule ? You are correct. I have removed it. I’m not quite sure why it ended up there, likely something I was testing but never removed. - Lintian reports 'P: hardening-no-fortify-functions'. If this warning is justified, you should fix it. Otherwise, this warning must be overriden with an informative comment. Override added (6) debian/docs --- - Some additionnal documentation is provided in the source code (like README.md), you should consider integrating it in the package. Extra docs are now integrated into the package (7) sourcecode -- - codespell reports some spelling errors in the source code. You should consider fixing them: ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:81: occured == occurred ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:154: transfered == transferred ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/spf13/cobra/README.md:65: libary == library ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/ogier/pflag/bool_test.go:54: requred == required All typos submitted upstream. Thanks for your work ! Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadf5890-3f04-4c06-a2e6-700c3e57a...@gmail.com
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi, Here is a quick review of your package. (1) debian/control: --- - Please, write a longer extended description. - It isn't necessary to specify git (= 1.8.0), Debian has squeeze - 1:1.7.2.5-3; squeeze-backports - 1:1.7.10.4-1~bpo60+1; wheezy - 1:1.7.10.4-1+wheezy1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+2; jessie-kfreebsd - 1:2.1.4-2.1; jessie - 1:2.1.4-2.1; stretch - 1:2.1.4-2.1; sid - 1:2.1.4-2.1; experimental - 1:2.1.4+next.20141218-2; experimental - 1:2.4.3+next.20150611-1; sid - 1:2.4.6-1; experimental - 1:2.5.0~rc2+next.20150720-1. - It isn't necessary to specify golang-go (= 1.3.0), Debian has wheezy - 2:1.0.2-1.1; wheezy-backports - 2:1.3.3-1~bpo70+1; jessie - 2:1.3.3-1; stretch - 2:1.4.2-3; sid - 2:1.4.2-3. - Please, run 'wrap-and-sort -a'. - Please, specify Vcs-Browser and Vcs-* fields if you are using a Vcs for your Debian work. If not, consider using one. (2) debian/copyright: - - You aren't mentioned in the copyright file. You should add a paragraph for debian/* that mentions you work. - Since you aren't providing any upstream e-mail adress in the Copyright field, it might be a good idea to specify an Upstream-Contact field. (3) debian/changelog: - - Please, use urgency=low. (4) debian/watch: - - Please, write a watch file. - Optionally, it could be a good idea to ask git-lfs' upstream to provide signed releases. (5) debian/rules: - - 'rm -f debian/debhelper.log' should be automatically done by dh_clean. Why are you specifying this rule ? - Lintian reports 'P: hardening-no-fortify-functions'. If this warning is justified, you should fix it. Otherwise, this warning must be overriden with an informative comment. (6) debian/docs --- - Some additionnal documentation is provided in the source code (like README.md), you should consider integrating it in the package. (7) sourcecode -- - codespell reports some spelling errors in the source code. You should consider fixing them: ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:81: occured == occurred ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:154: transfered == transferred ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/spf13/cobra/README.md:65: libary == library ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/ogier/pflag/bool_test.go:54: requred == required Thanks for your work ! Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package git-lfs Package name: git-lfs Version : 0.5.2-1 Upstream Author : Github URL : http://git-lfs.github.com License : Expat Section : vcs It builds those binary packages: git-lfs- Git Large File Support To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/git-lfs Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-lfs/git-lfs_0.5.2-1.dsc More information about git-lfs can be obtained from http://git-lfs.github.com. Regards, Stephen Gelman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2015072123.1024.38642.report...@debian8.vagrantup.com
