[pkg-go] Bug#799128: ITP: golang-github-juju-ratelimit -- Efficient token-bucket-based rate limiter module for Go

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tim Potter 
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-go 

* Package name: golang-github-juju-ratelimit
 Version : 0.0~git20150619
 Upstream Author : Roger Peppe
* URL : https://github.com/juju/ratelimit
* License : LGPL-3 with static linking exception
 Programming Lang: Go
 Description : Efficient token-bucket-based rate limiter module for Go

The ratelimit package provides an efficient token bucket
implementation in Go. The token bucket algorithm implements a
method for ensuring a reader or writer does not exceed a
specified rate limit when reading or writing.

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 14 Sep 2015, at 3:09 am, Tianon Gravi  wrote:
> 
> On 13 September 2015 at 10:07, Paul Tagliamonte  wrote:
>> To -alpha or ~alpha?
> 
> Also, upstream has nice version tags[1], so why are we packaging a
> snapshot instead of using debian/watch and a direct release version?
> Is there a package that needs newer commits?  If so, have we asked
> upstream to tag a new version? :)
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/bitly/go-simplejson/releases

I believe a new version is needed, hence the unreleased upstream version 
snapshot.
I’ve just filed a github issue for a proper 0.5.0 release.


Tim.

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 14 Sep 2015, at 5:11 am, Tianon Gravi  wrote:
> 
> On 13 September 2015 at 12:00, Tianon Gravi  wrote:
>> To be more clear: I'm working on renaming the source package now, but
>> would appreciate if you'd clarify the reasoning for the license
>> mismatch. :)
> 
> Same set of comments for "golang-revel" (which is a dep of bugsnag-go). ;)

Relicensed as per the other packages.  

Trying to rebuild it just now and there’s a missing package 
github-robfig-go-cache, a fork of github-pmylund-go-cache which is, according 
to github, 
35 commits behind and 1 commit on top.  

The commit in question is here:

https://github.com/robfig/go-cache/commit/9fc39e0dbf62c034ec4e45e6120fc69433a3ec51

and unfortunately it’s not compatible with the direction that pmylund-go-cache 
has taken.  )-:

I guess this means robfig-go-cache need to be packaged alongside 
pmylund-gocache 
unless someone wants to port revel to use it.


Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 11 Sep 2015, at 10:09 pm, Dmitry Smirnov  wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 10 September 2015 23:30:54 Potter, Tim wrote:
>> This should be ready for uploading now.
> 
> Tim, upstream do not have copyright attribution anywhere in source so I can't 
> find where "Copyright: 2012-2015 Matt Reiferson" came from. It would be best 
> to open bug about it with upstream and, once resolved, include a URL with 
> evidence to Comment field in "debian/copyright”.

Good catch!  I’ve opened a github issue about this with upstream.


Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Thoughts on the golang-go package for arm64?

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 10 Sep 2015, at 7:41 am, Michael Hudson-Doyle  
wrote:
> 
> arm64 support is new in 1.5, which afaik isn't in debian yet. It can
> be bootstrapped with gccgo, which is what we did for Ubuntu:
> 
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+source/golang
> 
> (based on stuff that Tianon and Paul did).

Hi Michael.  Thanks for the tips.  I discovered yesterday that the alioth 
version of the golang repo was recently updated to 1.5 but hasn’t been uploaded 
yet.  I might take a look at how that works as well.


Tim.

> 
> Cheers,
> mwh
> 

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Thoughts on the golang-go package for arm64?

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

Hi everyone.  I’m curious about the status of Go for arm64.  According to 
d/control there is a pkg-golang-devel address on alioth, but the archives seem 
pretty empty.  Also the uploaders are basically the usual suspects on this 
list.  (-:

I believe there is some kind of self-hosted building arrangement with the 
latest version of Go, so it might be a bit tricky to get the initial arm64 
version going.  I have access to some actual arm64 hardware and have also 
successfully debugged packaging problems using the qemu-system-aarch64 and some 
chroot, although this is pretty slow.


Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-bugsnag-go

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 3 Sep 2015, at 11:56 pm, Tianon Gravi <tia...@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On 26 May 2015 at 18:53, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)
> <timothy.pot...@hp.com> wrote:
>> I had a chat to tianon on the weekend and he suggested that libcontainer did 
>> not need to be split out from golang-docker-dev so bugsnag and a couple of 
>> other packages I’ve done will not need to be uploaded.  I’ll send out an 
>> update email today.
> 
> Heh, I'm working on packaging "notary" now (as a dep for Docker 1.8+)
> and it depends on bugsnag.  Any chance you'd be interested in renaming
> the source/binary packages there and updating the packaging? :)

Sure thing!  I think Dmitry has done this for most of the other packages I did 
as part of this work (thanks Dmitry!) but according to my DDPO page there is 
still bugsnag and a couple of dependencies to go.


Tim.

> 
> ♥,
> - Tianon
>  4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36  4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-bugsnag-go

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 9 Sep 2015, at 10:46 am, Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 08 September 2015 22:55:13 Potter, Tim wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2015, at 11:56 pm, Tianon Gravi <tia...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2015 at 18:53, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)
>>> <timothy.pot...@hp.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I had a chat to tianon on the weekend and he suggested that libcontainer
>>>> did not need to be split out from golang-docker-dev
> 
> Actually I think it might be a good idea to ship standalone "libcontainer" as 
> part of it successor "runc" (which is already in NEW)…

Well, if that turns out to be the case then most or all of the dependencies 
should
be already packaged for this.  From memory I managed to build libcontainer
but several big unpackaged pieces were required, notably bugsnag and revel.  I
think we’re well on our way to getting that done though.

>>> Heh, I'm working on packaging "notary" now (as a dep for Docker 1.8+)
>>> and it depends on bugsnag.  Any chance you'd be interested in renaming
>>> the source/binary packages there and updating the packaging? :)
>> 
>> Sure thing!  I think Dmitry has done this for most of the other packages I
>> did as part of this work (thanks Dmitry!) but according to my DDPO page
>> there is still bugsnag and a couple of dependencies to go.
> 
> I've just uploaded "bugsnag-panicwrap" and "bugsnag-go" will follow once 
> "panicwrap" is accepted. I specifically updated names of all binary packages 
> for policy compliance.

Great!  I’ve done some more work and renamed the following packages that
are also required for bugsnag:

* golang-github-juju-loggo
* golang-github-bitly-simplejson

I’ll send out separate RFS’s for them.

Also required is an update to golang-gocheck, which I’ve filed a bug for ages
ago and pushed the required update to alioth already:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=785772


Tim.

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-juju-loggo

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
renaming
it and testing against the new naming policy.

Could someone please review and upload?


Thanks,

Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
renaming
it and testing against the new naming policy.

Could someone please review and upload?


Thanks,

Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-juju-loggo

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 9 Sep 2015, at 1:36 pm, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:29:04AM +0000, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
>> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
>> renaming
>> it and testing against the new naming policy.
>> 
>> Could someone please review and upload?
> 
> Same Vcs-* bug here

D'oh - fixed now.


Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Processing of golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git20141111-1_amd64.changes

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 9 Sep 2015, at 10:37 am, Debian FTP Masters 
 wrote:
> 
> golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git2014-1_amd64.changes uploaded 
> successfully to localhost
> along with the files:
>  golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git2014-1.dsc
>  golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git2014.orig.tar.gz
>  golang-bugsnag-panicwrap_0.0~git2014-1.debian.tar.xz
>  golang-github-bugsnag-panicwrap-dev_0.0~git2014-1_all.deb
> 
> Greetings,
> 
>   Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)

Unfortunately this package needs to be re-uploaded, as there was a missing 
rename
of an install dependency.  I’ve fixed and pushed to alioth.  Could someone 
please upload
the new version?


Thanks!

Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: a clutch of small go packages

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

[Resend as first try was bounced as spam]

> On 27 Aug 2015, at 7:42 am, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) 
> <timothy.pot...@hpe.com> wrote:
> 
> n 27 Aug 2015, at 2:26 am, Michael Stapelberg <stapelb...@debian.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your work on these packages!
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)
>> <timothy.pot...@hpe.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone.  I’ve put together a couple of packages for review.  Hopefully 
>>> these
>>> are ready to go as they’re quite small.  Could someone please review and 
>>> upload?
>>> 
>>> * golang-github-coreos-go-iptables
>> 
>> Uploaded, but I can’t push the tag…?
> 
> Thanks Michael!  I've fixed up the permissions on this repos - sorry about 
> that.
> 
> Will let you know when it's safe to upload dhcp4client.

Hi Michael.  The -dhcp4 package has made it to unstable.  Could you please 
upload the -dhcp4client package?


Thanks!

Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] RFS: New upstream version of golang-gocheck (Closes #785772)

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

Hi everyone.  I filed bug #785772 in May but it hasn’t received any attention.  
A newer version of
gocheck is required for bugsnag, and this update also closes another bug.

Could someone please review and upload?


Thanks,

Tim.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] RFS: golang-github-bitly-simplejson

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 9 Sep 2015, at 1:34 pm, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:28:59AM +0000, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
>> Hi everyone.  This package is required for bugsnag and I’ve just finished 
>> renaming
>> it and testing against the new naming policy.
>> 
>> Could someone please review and upload?
> 
> Ah, your RFS was missing a -go :) -- package name is
> golang-github-bitly-go-simplejson for those at home -- as a result, your
> Vcs-* headers look a bit off :)

Yes - sorry about that.  The extra -go is necessary.

I've updated the Vcs-* fields now.


Tim.

> 
> I'll take a closer look in a minute
> 
> Cheers,
>  Paul

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#796862: ITP: golang-github-d2g-dhcp4client -- DHCP client written in Go

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, 
pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tim Potter t...@hpe.com

* Package name: golang-github-d2g-dhcp4client
 Version : 0.0~git20150520
 Upstream Author : Dan Goldsmith
* URL : https://github.com/d2g/dhcp4client
* License : BSD-3-clause
 Programming Lang: Go
 Description : DHCP client written in Go

A DHCP4 client implemetation written in Go using AF_PACKET
support.
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#793518: Bug#793518: Bug#793518: FTBFS: TestString fails: ini_test.go:167: Dict cannot be stringified as expected.

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 30 Jul 2015, at 5:08 pm, Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) 
 timothy.pot...@hp.com wrote:
 On 28 Jul 2015, at 5:14 pm, Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org wrote:
 
  So, yes, if you could work with upstream on a proper solution and then we 
  could just package a new upstream snapshot, that’d be great.

[…]

 Once upstream accepts your patches, please update the packaging git 
 repository and let me know, I’ll gladly sponsor this upload.
 
 I’m also open to granting you DM upload privileges on individual packages, 
 but I’d like to have a few more interactions with you before that :).

Hi Michael.  Upstream accepted and merged my patches, and I’ve updated the 
packaging on alioth.

Could you please take a look and upload if you think it’s OK?


Thanks,

Tim.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#793518: Bug#793518: Bug#793518: FTBFS: TestString fails: ini_test.go:167: Dict cannot be stringified as expected.

[Potter, Tim (Cloud Services)]

On 28 Jul 2015, at 5:14 pm, Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org wrote:
 
 Chris, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense! I totally missed the 
 fact that there were not-yet-uploaded changes in git.
 
 Tim, I just tried packaging the new upstream snapshot, and the fix you got 
 upstream to merge was indeed not enough. My first guess is that exampleStr 
 requires section1 and section2 to be serialized in order, but Dict.format() 
 does not sort the keys when iterating over the map.

Yes that’s correct.  I think that entire test needs to be rewritten - perhaps 
by deserialising the generated string and then making assertions against the 
dict.

 It’s surprising that this hasn’t caused issues elsewhere yet.

It doesn’t happen very often so perhaps the failure is easily missed if the 
tests aren’t run often and automatically.

 So, yes, if you could work with upstream on a proper solution and then we 
 could just package a new upstream snapshot, that’d be great.

OK - I’ll work on that then.


Tim.

 
 On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) 
 timothy.pot...@hp.com wrote:
 On 28 Jul 2015, at 6:35 am, solo-debianb...@goeswhere.com wrote:
 
  On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 07:26:10PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
  control: tags -1 + unreproducible
 
  Chris, was this an issue on your end? Or am I misinterpreting something?
 
 
  The problem seems to have gone away.  I was running local builds in
  response to errors on the reproducible-builds builder.  Their builder
  has rebuilt sucessfully since then, and I have also just rebuilt
  sucessfully.  Perhaps it was fixed by dependency changes?
 
  Proof I'm not mad: my build log from local:
  https://paste.debian.net/286717/
 
 Hi everyone.  I think this bug is due to this test  relying on the ordering 
 of keys retrieved from
 a hash being the same as they were inserted.  This seems to work most of the 
 time (at
 least on amd64) but occasionally the keys come out in a different order and 
 the test breaks.
 
 I could disable the test so things work and work with upstream for a proper 
 fix.  Would that
 help out some?
 
 
 Tim.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
 Michael



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers