Bug#767653:

2014-11-26 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Hi Tobi,

* Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-25 20:53]:
 built  uploaded!

Thanks!

 Please apply for the unblock.

Done: #771053

 (Note that I s/UNRELEASED/unstable in d/changelog; make sure to do this
 to in your repository)

Done.

Cheers Jochen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#767653:

2014-11-25 Thread Tobias Frost
 Hi Tobi,

 * Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-24 22:12]:
 Ok, pulled from the git and comparing to the version currently in
 Jessie:
 As we are in the freeze, you need to create targeted fixes for RC Bugs
 only.* So the doxygen one isn't.

 This seems to be coming from a new Doxygen version and is only needed
 for debclean , but I can revert it without problems.

  And be more detailed in freeze time:

 Will do.

 I'd write Do not ship but create at install time the files ...
 Is the register modules change needed for 767653? (I assume yes, but
 then the changelog should make that clear too)

 That's actually all part of one change, but ended up in two commits, so
 git-dch made two lines out of it. Will change the changelog.

 Why are you moving the util-binaries to the libary package? I would find
 it better to depend on the utils package instead, (especially as you
 should consider implement multi-arch for Jessie+1)

 openni-utils contains sample applications depending on libopenni0.
 Leaving niReg/niLicense in there would generate a circular dependency,
 as we need them in the libopenni0 postinst. Is there an other option?

Declaring a circular dependency is not a problem here and well handled by dpkg.
When postinst is called, both packages are guaranteed to be unpacked, so the
library / binaries are in place at this point of time. (See Policy §7.2)

 Cheers Jochen



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-25 Thread Tobias Frost
 Hi Tobi,

 * Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-24 22:12]:
 Ok, pulled from the git and comparing to the version currently in
 Jessie:
 As we are in the freeze, you need to create targeted fixes for RC Bugs
 only.* So the doxygen one isn't.

 This seems to be coming from a new Doxygen version and is only needed
 for debclean , but I can revert it without problems.

  And be more detailed in freeze time:

 Will do.

 I'd write Do not ship but create at install time the files ...
 Is the register modules change needed for 767653? (I assume yes, but
 then the changelog should make that clear too)

 That's actually all part of one change, but ended up in two commits, so
 git-dch made two lines out of it. Will change the changelog.

 Why are you moving the util-binaries to the libary package? I would find
 it better to depend on the utils package instead, (especially as you
 should consider implement multi-arch for Jessie+1)

 openni-utils contains sample applications depending on libopenni0.
 Leaving niReg/niLicense in there would generate a circular dependency,
 as we need them in the libopenni0 postinst. Is there an other option?

 Declaring a circular dependency is not a problem here and well handled by
 dpkg.
 When postinst is called, both packages are guaranteed to be unpacked, so the
 library / binaries are in place at this point of time. (See Policy §7.2)

 Cheers Jochen


I wanted to point you to Policy §8.2 as well, but forgot in the rush. -- it is
actually forbidden to have the binaries in the libary package. (-- some
simpications applied; the Policy has details.)


--
tobi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-25 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Hi Tobi,

thanks for the clearifications, I've pushed a new version. Can you have
a look again?

Cheers

Jochen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#767653:

2014-11-25 Thread Tobias Frost
Hi Jochen

built  uploaded!
Please apply for the unblock.

(Note that I s/UNRELEASED/unstable in d/changelog; make sure to do this
to in your repository)

--
tobi
Am Dienstag, den 25.11.2014, 12:21 +0100 schrieb Jochen Sprickerhof:
 Hi Tobi,
 
 thanks for the clearifications, I've pushed a new version. Can you have
 a look again?
 
 Cheers
 
 Jochen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-24 Thread Tobias Frost
Hi Jochen

 Hi Tobi,

 * Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-23 14:31]:
 can you please check if you committed everything?
 Especially I'm missing changes to d/changelog...

 I've just pushed the changelog as well and tested the build.

 Is this a team upload? A NMU? I assume you are on the multimedia team,

 I'm part of the Debian Multimedia Maintainers on Alioth and helped
 packaging OpenNI but I'm not a DD, so Hans did all the uploads.

 have your patch been discussed there?

 I've discussed them with fsateler on #debian-multimedia and he proposed
 to ask in #debian-devel to have a look (but no one answered). Otherwise
 he was ok with them and would do the upload as well. If you could verify
 them as well, that would be great.

 What is the relation to openni when this bug is reported against
 libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0 / libopenni-sensor-primesense0 ?

 The files in question (/var/lib/ni/{licenses.xml,modules.xml}) are
 deployed by openni, but modified by libopenni-sensor-*. So the fix
 needs to be in the openni package.

 Cheers Jochen

Thanks for the feedback. However, you should reassign this bug to openni then,
as you should not close bugs not in your pacakge.
(You mark libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0, libopenni-sensor-primesense0 as
affected)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-24 Thread Tobias Frost
Hi Jochen

Ok, pulled from the git and comparing to the version currently in
Jessie:
As we are in the freeze, you need to create targeted fixes for RC Bugs
only.* So the doxygen one isn't.
 And be more detailed in freeze time:
I'd write Do not ship but create at install time the files ...
Is the register modules change needed for 767653? (I assume yes, but
then the changelog should make that clear too)

Why are you moving the util-binaries to the libary package? I would find
it better to depend on the utils package instead, (especially as you
should consider implement multi-arch for Jessie+1) 

Let me know your thoughts; (as I might have missed some details)

-- 
tobi

* the release team is stricter this year. If you can convince them that
they will approve it, you can keep this; but I'd prefer a pre-approval
in this case.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-24 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Hi Tobi,

* Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-24 22:12]:
 Ok, pulled from the git and comparing to the version currently in
 Jessie:
 As we are in the freeze, you need to create targeted fixes for RC Bugs
 only.* So the doxygen one isn't.

This seems to be coming from a new Doxygen version and is only needed
for debclean , but I can revert it without problems.

  And be more detailed in freeze time:

Will do.

 I'd write Do not ship but create at install time the files ...
 Is the register modules change needed for 767653? (I assume yes, but
 then the changelog should make that clear too)

That's actually all part of one change, but ended up in two commits, so
git-dch made two lines out of it. Will change the changelog.

 Why are you moving the util-binaries to the libary package? I would find
 it better to depend on the utils package instead, (especially as you
 should consider implement multi-arch for Jessie+1) 

openni-utils contains sample applications depending on libopenni0.
Leaving niReg/niLicense in there would generate a circular dependency,
as we need them in the libopenni0 postinst. Is there an other option?

Cheers Jochen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#767653:

2014-11-23 Thread Tobias Frost
Hi Jochen,

can you please check if you committed everything? 
Especially I'm missing changes to d/changelog...
Is this a team upload? A NMU? I assume you are on the multimedia team,
have your patch been discussed there?
What is the relation to openni when this bug is reported against
libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0 / libopenni-sensor-primesense0 ?

Can you please clarify?

Thanks
--  
tobi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653:

2014-11-23 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Hi Tobi,

* Tobias Frost t...@debian.org [2014-11-23 14:31]:
 can you please check if you committed everything? 
 Especially I'm missing changes to d/changelog...

I've just pushed the changelog as well and tested the build.

 Is this a team upload? A NMU? I assume you are on the multimedia team,

I'm part of the Debian Multimedia Maintainers on Alioth and helped
packaging OpenNI but I'm not a DD, so Hans did all the uploads.

 have your patch been discussed there?

I've discussed them with fsateler on #debian-multimedia and he proposed
to ask in #debian-devel to have a look (but no one answered). Otherwise
he was ok with them and would do the upload as well. If you could verify
them as well, that would be great.

 What is the relation to openni when this bug is reported against
 libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0 / libopenni-sensor-primesense0 ?

The files in question (/var/lib/ni/{licenses.xml,modules.xml}) are
deployed by openni, but modified by libopenni-sensor-*. So the fix
needs to be in the openni package.

Cheers Jochen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#767653: libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0, libopenni-sensor-primesense0: modifying files from another package: /var/lib/ni/modules.xml

2014-11-19 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Package: libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0,libopenni-sensor-primesense0
Followup-For: Bug #767653

Hi,

I've pushed a patch to [1] to fix this. Would be great if a DD could
upload it.

[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/openni.git


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767653: libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0, libopenni-sensor-primesense0: modifying files from another package: /var/lib/ni/modules.xml

2014-11-01 Thread Andreas Beckmann
Package: libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0,libopenni-sensor-primesense0
Version: 5.1.0.41.3-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Control: found -1 5.1.0.41-3

Hi,

during a test with piuparts I noticed your package modifies files from
another package. This is so wrong, I'm not even bothered to look
up the part of policy this violates ;-P

From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):

0m23.6s ERROR: FAIL: debsums reports modifications inside the chroot:
  /var/lib/ni/modules.xml
The file is owned by libopenni0.

If you run the following command after installing the buggy packages
  apt-get install --reinstall libopenni0
/var/lib/ni/modules.xml will be reset to its shipped state. The same
would happen if libopenni0 gets binNMUed for some reason ... so the
current approach is very fragile.

Since modules.xml is used as some kind of registry, it should only be
generated, not shipped at all. Ideally dpkg triggers could be used for
this task.

cheers,

Andreas


libopenni-sensor-pointclouds0_5.1.0.41.3-1+b2.log.gz
Description: application/gzip