Re: Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
On 16.01.2012 23:57, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me. But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made similar experiences. It's just too common to be the default route. I know what you mean. I am a Debian Maintainer by myself and I'm in the same situation as you are. Several Debian developers are perhaps quite annoyed by me as well, as I was complaining a lot about the sponsor situation in Debian in the past. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg00753.html This one? But please understand, the Debian Maintainer status does not guarantee you privileged access to Debian archives just because you have been advocated to such a role. It only means you went through a simple procedure where someone confirmed you have some skills and you deserve to work a bit more autonomously. Let's see. I've a bunch of apache2 modules, where DMUA already allowed. Do you think it's a good idea to confirm my skill again just for packaging a new module (and in comparison, a very simple one)? The same is valid for php-memcached. Second, every DD has own standards of the simple procedure. Does it make sense to go through NM Tasks and Skills process every time you do some packaging work for Debian? Probably, DD familar with me, can more easily set DMUA header (again, that is my expirience). It is not a good idea to abuse people you know (they may be not interested in this particular pice of software, after all). So, you have dilemma: annoy people in private or ask for upload in d-m@l.d.o and start the game again. However, I am sure one ore two more uploads of your package will change the situation again for you. I don't think so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me. But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made similar experiences. It's just too common to be the default route. I know what you mean. I am a Debian Maintainer by myself and I'm in the same situation as you are. Several Debian developers are perhaps quite annoyed by me as well, as I was complaining a lot about the sponsor situation in Debian in the past. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg00753.html This one? Hmm, it was very interesting thread [1]. Thank you for a link. Best regards, Boris [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/thrd2.html#00753 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/793781326810...@web148.yandex.ru
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:48:52PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: Hi, before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get the bug fixed. in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting DMUA on public sponsoring requests. I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this control field. Droped. I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. E.g. by looking in QA? There are other people where I promised and failed to look at prior work. I'd never try to do something like this again when I don't know if I can take the time to do it for sure. I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file? Yep. But I'm not aware on the release plans for apache. Anyway, *right now* the NEWS file looks as a wrong place for the deprecation warning stuff. Agreed. I've no idea if we currently have that as a policy or not. No. Actually most packages seem to stick to the mod_foo.c naming but there is at least the alias_module which diverts. $ fgrep -R 'IfModule' /etc/apache2/apache2.conf /etc/apache2/mods-available/|grep _module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_prefork_module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_worker_module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_event_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/alias.conf:IfModule alias_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/reqtimeout.conf:IfModule reqtimeout_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/deflate.conf:IfModule deflate_module These all are core modules. Yeah looks like the anticipated mixture. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116150910.ga11...@sho.bk.hosteurope.de
Re: Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get the bug fixed. Thank you. I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this control field. Droped. I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. E.g. by looking in QA? There are other people where I promised and failed to look at prior work. I'd never try to do something like this again when I don't know if I can take the time to do it for sure. Looks like DM does not make sence at all :( I'm waiting for upload for months just in case of very simple changeset (e.g. for rpaf or php-memcached). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116162839.gi31...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sergey, On 16.01.2012 17:28, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: Looks like DM does not make sence at all :( I'm waiting for upload for months just in case of very simple changeset (e.g. for rpaf or php-memcached). You seem to misunderstand the DM status. It is not a Debian Developer Lite. It does not mean you, as a DM, are trusted to upload any given package to Debian at any time. If you got DM status you can earn trust of a sponsor for a _particular_ package by getting upload rights for that package only. This means, your sponsor trusts you to upload and manage _this particular_ package all alone. It does not mean, he trusts you to manage any package. Thus, you need to start from scratch for every new package again and convince any sponsor of a that package again that you're deserving upload rights for that package. That's also why many people are upset if DMs set the DMUA flag for the very first upload themselves. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPFFdbAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtp1wP/3tK5DFHorRI9fVxSJM0QQGA VgFGTpJPsOIVHe+AKPOH61Nq/drOnz75CACfvIB2MtC1CIdcgwcQ61qXqP7pb6pv fUeR+xRy6SeEdI9+Tfg4SmnQR6ET5+BdbZxLKUuJdStk9mEaGHNAfvuU9rwg69vV 4O00BIRmaOcy0SdNQK+5IeIIUfwtHcD6I3v6R9kgq7fosqYCvkuIBTSwykgmIbGe Itsm6FDExhsEOfObS1/VId3MxfGhQs1bP0adgdnKaF+mTz2D2JapKLD2zx0jLO5M 6n7F5Sun7fDnxLLMjX8YUtrgxU84g/H7jPo/5hYICVbaGAk5B/+MBfuAevyR2zxj hPvqmRGcmRkRXeM1OFBtjyUSalTMoKezuQOkYnt4WHp+5ihUKjQNhyyMd45xGtrE oPqfjMad1XRACG3/gR3iS81tDRu3FhnzeQykL8Cdqic9SnnrDIlc1qPJC806UpOT F7uT3cg8ICUMV/HnTb0ydTd+gYw/ifzTrCb+eWygvLU4IqLvzotMllTFG0hiotmY 1Z2VYA+6QFlxobC/HyQ9pih0JszucoXYZSBxpScB+AYWLqhu5qp6MZuu3KAM51ld 9Y3BRSztG2kiy8C1y1f40IhSbuIz3Im7DGgrU0taJHG1HfozYJvtJkEBquDa0ZlR 5I7HqU9Nn9OX6Lqz67+w =L50b -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f14575b.4010...@toell.net
Re: Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
You seem to misunderstand the DM status. I don't think so, but thank you for explanation. It is not a Debian Developer Lite. It does not mean you, as a DM, are trusted to upload any given package to Debian at any time. It just a meaningless thing for now. See below. If you got DM status you can earn trust of a sponsor for a _particular_ package by getting upload rights for that package only. This means, your sponsor trusts you to upload and manage _this particular_ package all alone. It does not mean, he trusts you to manage any package. Thus, you need to start from scratch for every new package again and convince any sponsor of a that package again that you're deserving upload rights for that package. That's also why many people are upset if DMs set the DMUA flag for the very first upload themselves. For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me. But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. At the end, there is a lot of Linux distributions. Bureacracy tends to disappoint people, not vice versa. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116225732.gk31...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sergey, On 16.01.2012 23:57, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me. But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made similar experiences. At the end, there is a lot of Linux distributions. Bureacracy tends to disappoint people, not vice versa. I know what you mean. I am a Debian Maintainer by myself and I'm in the same situation as you are. Several Debian developers are perhaps quite annoyed by me as well, as I was complaining a lot about the sponsor situation in Debian in the past. But please understand, the Debian Maintainer status does not guarantee you privileged access to Debian archives just because you have been advocated to such a role. It only means you went through a simple procedure where someone confirmed you have some skills and you deserve to work a bit more autonomously. For a particular package you still need to earn your sponsor's trust before he allows you to upload a package yourself. That's especially bad if you had to switch sponsor for some reasons, but that happens sometimes. I'm sorry for you, but threatening does not help anyone. However, I am sure one ore two more uploads of your package will change the situation again for you. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPFLjZAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtfBIP/iB2TWlo3p31RD5xXFhLQo5S iP6/w/3cv3DMsUsUd5wNByvftONNC89zJiKG2J0YFmDZ79/K6VbgGm8onDC8FX2Y 6ZgG+eNLIGZ4WkIV21bmu7f92a24uhC0t1AUxaH2M2M4CNiHpqMcoN7PRhkaBBzd SzjBtvqzo62Ly0dUH/+XLQr+n2IDXMj2eR8vzjEvteBygo/Nny+QxOzULof5s0iy TFw8jRvv/xn7fCEGe+E9pAI0tAwQbncqXEhGia7ZJCk+YDqZMXyIt9uOoX7fuX5k 3RqJmfFj6CPBS6YNE3y4OHRZJ/UPUe3L9iYq94cDo6c8jFBJj3OJM8MRyZ70tdCi TR3uWzbv6oFqoXBZPZ1+H0Hiw9TuzFy1Q6Caq7+bYeEj28F4aIozVRFHmcYIjQsK 7tF//m2pnpkpQN/NPrNpx4ormrpq42WO3jH/d4jSU2jlr8e6fkOkKeWgilGkJLan bGp7D2dpzN79l2bGg1LDvg3p0zTw2sCMbeCx3g9azQzFwuSPlZrvrgA04qbes58d WBDovjI0jJDZtHoPM8oTX4ZoIi36mZAAd/0bejYG6bF1eSw/jgUdgkN8rjaAnZXV 2JzqRkDzMevQahLsuAwoORssugl5oI8CmdY0HBqArtdpzEloBrjmEphG+Xb6MnCo KELwOmEVUr/uMwzKwFZy =i5ix -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f14b8d9.7010...@toell.net
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
Hello, in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting DMUA on public sponsoring requests. I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this control field. I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. E.g. by looking in QA? I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file? Yep. But I'm not aware on the release plans for apache. Anyway, *right now* the NEWS file looks as a wrong place for the deprecation warning stuff. The other issue is the module naming. I adopted the crazy file renaming from the original package just to keep the usual mod_foo.c naming. Do you mean in the conf file? I've no idea if we currently have that as a policy or not. No. Actually most packages seem to stick to the mod_foo.c naming but there is at least the alias_module which diverts. $ fgrep -R 'IfModule' /etc/apache2/apache2.conf /etc/apache2/mods-available/|grep _module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_prefork_module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_worker_module /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:IfModule mpm_event_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/alias.conf:IfModule alias_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/reqtimeout.conf:IfModule reqtimeout_module /etc/apache2/mods-available/deflate.conf:IfModule deflate_module These all are core modules. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120103094852.gg31...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:36:51PM +0300, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: Hi, It builds those binary packages: libapache2-mod-rpaf - module for Apache2 which takes the last IP from the 'X-Forwarded-For' header in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting DMUA on public sponsoring requests. It's IMHO something different if we've some history of working together but on a maybe onetime upload I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. But maybe someone else has a different opionion on how DMUA should be used. Ok now back to the technical stuff: I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file? But maybe that can wait until we acutally have it in Debian. The other issue is the module naming. I adopted the crazy file renaming from the original package just to keep the usual mod_foo.c naming. I've no idea if we currently have that as a policy or not. Actually most packages seem to stick to the mod_foo.c naming but there is at least the alias_module which diverts. So this is not a show stopper. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120102103810.gb6...@sho.bk.hosteurope.de
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On 02.01.2012 11:38, Sven Hoexter wrote: I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file? But maybe that can wait until we acutally have it in Debian. Httpd 2.4 is due very soon. We're starting to work to package 2.3 very soon too, which will maybe end up in Experimental if 2.4 is not released until we're done with it. Once 2.4 is released (for those who don't know: Apache follows an old-Linux-like versioning scheme with odd numbers denoting unstable releases) we will make a transition and remove the 2.2 package slowly. For now, we have no immediate plans to break existing packages though. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPAb5AAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtfvkP/ie45kGHpKtUjUL7oTSFje1B ps9xwYDCSYZGS2x/62ol5cyHO6/FAI5Pzc0ft8m3L/b+SKZrREyS+tJembGnwyKP UPXGTq4Jjw7CQOrFC/7CQDFjhAqNXrDdjo74TQ1pB0hMJv3HIFDddwqmpRoNhiU2 PVUIPJjtAndZFwMxAhT9johDeH9mbO8SoRw9WENhp4Kz9DyuJYlGCZpc26idno7G fTemiP3zHBOjn9Fz+hieQS/TioSVJeqUqzxnpGpJdeYxPKA+OA1u6MaIDmpw+m5t 4NHMjsdXJpE+9uJqUWRdpJgIxshEQ2mrlqePmuzX/xR10A52SRHZbzY9xph5agbj fHUhonO2e9Q1/L1Kjp0VZyE50DLo2sV7JyA1YBpfLIXkOvelTVFliRRQXQKytaEn 5xvP4SUpP1ZMfqEoordqSMMRAyjkUFLlSHFX0p97k6Hn9qgLWJh0lbYEl76zeAYT g55E1udbRiB1J8aQ5mGKasPB6qtELG7GECa+apCmfcLlb7oMXRH8zf0KW9mv+hHM Lxg4/3HOzpaykeZNa9mnyOMCnP64gkZKYy1X57eClwtgUVJNeQ8DAlBkIARdo08d 2Tkg2IcaCgk8ByyJTVxfUbkBs42GtFjduTfGVpqu53uqkuVN7T4wZgz1rVcJ7Xy/ Q2YGfhvp0wnRDFzd46uB =iGE3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f01be40.4090...@toell.net
RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libapache2-mod-rpaf. Package name: libapache2-mod-rpaf Version : 0.6-3 Upstream Author : Thomas Eibner URL : http://stderr.net/apache/rpaf/ License : Apache Section : httpd It builds those binary packages: libapache2-mod-rpaf - module for Apache2 which takes the last IP from the 'X-Forwarded-For' header To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libapache2-mod-rpaf Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/liba/libapache2-mod-rpaf/libapache2-mod-rpaf_0.6-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAO+do4CuGpJDxmLrKkcR1kzgvaWL+7zA=v3kq1mpfg-g0nq...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the NMU version 0.6-0.2 of my package libapache2-mod-rpaf. It builds these binary packages: libapache2-mod-rpaf - module for Apache2 which takes the last IP from the The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libapache2-mod-rpaf - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libapache2-mod- rpaf/libapache2-mod-rpaf_0.6-0.2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Ivan Borzenkov signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
