Bug#912736: apt-listbugs and APT team (was: Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25)

2018-11-25 Thread David Kalnischkies 
Hi

tl;dr: Please reply on de...@lists.debian.org & Francesco only.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:25:00AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Well, but the LICENSE file should still be a correct summary of the
> debian/copyright file: that's why I was assuming they should be two

The LICENSE file of a repository tends to be the text of whatever the
"default" license the project is… github, gitlab/salsa use that in their
overview, compare:

https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt-transport-tor says "GNU GPLv2"
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt says "LICENSE"
https://salsa.debian.org/frx-guest/apt-listbugs says "No License. All rights 
reserved"

debian/copyright is far more detailed in my view; interesting if you
need that detail, but overkill if you need a quick overview.


> > You found out how apt is doing this in a later mail… but apt is really
> > not a role-model here. In fact, it confuses salsa also, just less so.
> 
> How does this strategy confuse salsa?

For apt it should say "GNU GPLv2", but due to that trickery it believes
we have written our own license which is a bit silly.


> > > Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a
> > > practical point of view?
> > 
> > Well, not sure given there are a lot of possibilities. Being in a team
> > namespace rather than a user namespace has the advantage that it "looks"
> > more official and access can be e.g. more easily granted to others in
> > case of MIAs (but that of course never happens, thankfully). If the team
> > would also be the "maintainer" we would have de...@lists.debian.org for
> > discussion/bugs rather than a personal private mail inbox: The hoped for
> > most practical change might be increased "cross-pollination" in
> > bugreports then.
> 
> If the maintainer field is set to , then I would
> obviously need to subscribe to that list, and the e-mail traffic
> related to apt-listbugs would be intermingled with the rest of
> the messages directed there. I am not sure I can afford such an
> increase in my incoming e-mail traffic... Not in the short term, at
> least...
> 
> Other than that, what else could formally show the moving of
> apt-listbugs under the APT umbrella?

We can do all sorts of things, no need to do everything at once or at
all… aptitude e.g. is in the apt-team namespace on salsa, but they don't
have deity@ as maintainer.

Well, lets at least move that discussion over to deity@ so others get
a chance to say something (which might also avoid my long delays) as
this isn't really about the RFS.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-16 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:25:00 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:

[...]
> If the maintainer field is set to , then I would
> obviously need to subscribe to that list, and the e-mail traffic
> related to apt-listbugs would be intermingled with the rest of
> the messages directed there. I am not sure I can afford such an
> increase in my incoming e-mail traffic... Not in the short term, at
> least...

On a second thought, I could set the maintainer field to ,
without subscribing to the mailing list, and then subscribe my e-mail
address to the apt-listbugs package tracker notifications...

That way, I would receive the e-mail traffic related to apt-listbugs,
as I currently do, but not the rest of  traffic.
At the same time, all the e-mail traffic related to apt-listbugs would
be directed to , so that bug reports would get more
visibility and others could have an opportunity to comment on them, etc.

Would that be OK with you?
Or is that too asymmetrical, perhaps?


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpfJ7Dk7qjVQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-15 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:47:31 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:

[...]
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:39:48AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > That sounds like a reasonable suggestion: how can I still ship it in
> > the binary package? I guess I should add a debian/apt-listbugs.docs
> > file having "README.md" as its only line.
> > Is that right?
> 
> Yes, that should work.

OK, I will try.

And then perhaps I will try and split the document into a general
README.md and some more specialized doc/*.md documents (and list all of
them in debian/apt-listbugs.docs), as I said...

[...]
> > what information should the LICENSE file contain?
> > Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess.
> 
> My remark was triggered by salsa proclaiming "No license. All rights
> reserved" which can be fixed just by having the GPL-2 text in a LICENSE
> file; so you don't need to maintain two files just an embedded copy of
> the text as "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
> License along with this program".

Well, but the LICENSE file should still be a correct summary of the
debian/copyright file: that's why I was assuming they should be two
copies of the same file (in order to avoid the burden of always having
to remember to check that a distinct LICENSE file still constitutes an
accurate summary of the licensing status...).

[...]
> You found out how apt is doing this in a later mail… but apt is really
> not a role-model here. In fact, it confuses salsa also, just less so.

How does this strategy confuse salsa?

> 
> src:apt should rename COPYING.GPL to COPYING and the original COPYING
> perhaps merged with AUTHORS while a dep5 debian/copyright is written…
> oh look, a butterfly! How pretty! … What was I talking about again?
> So yeah, it kinda works what apt is doing, but that doesn't mean its
> a good idea – it should in fact be changed, but there seem to be always
> better ways to "waste" our time. ;)

I am not sure I understand what are you suggesting me to do.
What would be the best practice?

[about the APT team umbrella]
> > Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a
> > practical point of view?
> 
> Well, not sure given there are a lot of possibilities. Being in a team
> namespace rather than a user namespace has the advantage that it "looks"
> more official and access can be e.g. more easily granted to others in
> case of MIAs (but that of course never happens, thankfully). If the team
> would also be the "maintainer" we would have de...@lists.debian.org for
> discussion/bugs rather than a personal private mail inbox: The hoped for
> most practical change might be increased "cross-pollination" in
> bugreports then.

If the maintainer field is set to , then I would
obviously need to subscribe to that list, and the e-mail traffic
related to apt-listbugs would be intermingled with the rest of
the messages directed there. I am not sure I can afford such an
increase in my incoming e-mail traffic... Not in the short term, at
least...

Other than that, what else could formally show the moving of
apt-listbugs under the APT umbrella?


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpeU9_WKG96K.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-14 Thread David Kalnischkies 
Hi,

as you see, I am not always quick. Quite the opposite sometimes… sorry.

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:39:48AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Some "unrelated" remarks still:
> > 
> > >   * updated Homepage field in debian/control to point to the new home on
> > > salsa.debian.org
> > 
> > Given you use the salsa URI as homepage I would suggest at least moving
> > the ./debian/README.Debian to ./README.md if not writing a dedicated
> > README.
> 
> That sounds like a reasonable suggestion: how can I still ship it in
> the binary package? I guess I should add a debian/apt-listbugs.docs
> file having "README.md" as its only line.
> Is that right?

Yes, that should work.


> Or maybe I should split debian/README.Debian into a general README.md
> and some more specialized doc/*.md documents (and list all of them in
> debian/apt-listbugs.docs)...
> 
> > 
> > Also, having some LICENSE file in ./ instead of relying on
> > debian/copyright would give that URI more an image of a "homepage" of
> > a native tool rather than a second Vcs-Browse of some packaging.
> 
> I had thought about doing so, but I could not figure out how to handle
> the situation: what information should the LICENSE file contain?
> Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess.

My remark was triggered by salsa proclaiming "No license. All rights
reserved" which can be fixed just by having the GPL-2 text in a LICENSE
file; so you don't need to maintain two files just an embedded copy of
the text as "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
License along with this program".


> But I have to keep debian/copyright in the source package, in order to
> comply with Debian Policy (at least, it seems to me that there is a
> "should" rule in [Policy 12.5]). At the same time, the LICENSE file

You found out how apt is doing this in a later mail… but apt is really
not a role-model here. In fact, it confuses salsa also, just less so.

src:apt should rename COPYING.GPL to COPYING and the original COPYING
perhaps merged with AUTHORS while a dep5 debian/copyright is written…
oh look, a butterfly! How pretty! … What was I talking about again?
So yeah, it kinda works what apt is doing, but that doesn't mean its
a good idea – it should in fact be changed, but there seem to be always
better ways to "waste" our time. ;)


> > > Thanks for your time and helpfulness!
> > 
> > Have we talked in the past about moving apt-listbugs under the APT team
> > umbrella? Not sure if anyone of us speaks ruby enough to be of
> > considerable help in this regard, but we have apt-file and even aptitude
> > there, too.
> 
> Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a
> practical point of view?

Well, not sure given there are a lot of possibilities. Being in a team
namespace rather than a user namespace has the advantage that it "looks"
more official and access can be e.g. more easily granted to others in
case of MIAs (but that of course never happens, thankfully). If the team
would also be the "maintainer" we would have de...@lists.debian.org for
discussion/bugs rather than a personal private mail inbox: The hoped for
most practical change might be increased "cross-pollination" in
bugreports then.

All in all nothing really changes from a practical point of view in day
to day operations I would say, something more like a (beware: buzzword)
community building thing (much like README and LICENSE as they don't
change the day to day life much either).


> > Oh and btw: You seem to maintain apt-listbugs for quite a while without
> > issues, have you considered applying for DM?
> 
> Yes, I have considered applying for the DM status.
> I just need to make up my mind, so thank you for encouraging me!   ;-p

You are talking to someone who couldn't "make up his mind" for years…
So as a pro: Just as above, I wouldn't recommend it. ;)


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-05 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 00:39:48 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:

[...]
> I had thought about doing so, but I could not figure out how to handle
> the situation: what information should the LICENSE file contain?
> Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess.
> 
> If this is indeed the case, then I would rather avoid keeping them
> consistent (or even identical by copying one into the other) by hand.
> But I have to keep debian/copyright in the source package, in order to
> comply with Debian Policy (at least, it seems to me that there is a
> "should" rule in [Policy 12.5]). At the same time, the LICENSE file
> should committed to the git repository (otherwise Salsa will not see
> it...). Hence, neither file can be generated at build time by copying
> from the other.
> 
> Do you have a good solution for this impasse?!?

After taking a look at how the same situation is handled in apt,
I guess I could:

 • only commit the LICENSE file to the git repository

 • then add the following lines to the debian/rules file:

 override_dh_clean:
 cp LICENSE debian/copyright
 dh_clean -O--buildsystem=ruby


That way, the debian/copyright file will not be stored in the git
repository, but will be present (as a copy of the LICENSE file) in the
Debian source package, thus complying with Debian Policy.

Did I get it right?


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgp8JnA2NPbdy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-04 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 19:40:09 + Dmitry Bogatov wrote:

> 
> [2018-11-03 11:11] "Francesco Poli (wintermute)" 
> > Hello everybody,
> > my usual sponsor has some blocking issues and is currently unable to
> > upload packages on my behalf.
> >
> > I prepared a new version of apt-listbugs (0.1.25): it is ready to be
> > uploaded.
> > Could someone please build the package from commit
> > [999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe],
> > and sponsor its upload to sid?
> 
> Sure. Uploaded.

Thanks for doing so, even though the upload had already been done by
David...

> Please consider makeing dep-5 `debian/copyright'.

Yes, I have been meaning to do so for quite some time (thanks anyway
for the suggestion!). First, I want to get rid of some obsolete stuff
(like some of the old tests, which should be replaced with more
autopkgtest tests)... Then I will definitely want to create a machine
readable debian/copyright file.

> Since you seems to be sole author, it should not be hard.

Well, it's not that simple, actually.
I am the sole current maintainer, but I am not the original author and
there have been a number of previous maintainers, co-authors,
contributors...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpLx3AAdNMkd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-04 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 18:58:04 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:

> Hi,

Hello David, nice to see your reply!   :-)

> 
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 11:11:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote:
> > Could someone please build the package from commit
> > [999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe],
> > and sponsor its upload to sid?
> 
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25.dsc: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25.tar.xz: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25_amd64.buildinfo: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25_source.changes: done.
> Successfully uploaded packages.
> 
> Thanks for your contribution to Debian!

Thanks to you for your super-prompt response to my request for
sponsorship!

> 
> 
> Some "unrelated" remarks still:
> 
> >   * updated Homepage field in debian/control to point to the new home on
> > salsa.debian.org
> 
> Given you use the salsa URI as homepage I would suggest at least moving
> the ./debian/README.Debian to ./README.md if not writing a dedicated
> README.

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion: how can I still ship it in
the binary package? I guess I should add a debian/apt-listbugs.docs
file having "README.md" as its only line.
Is that right?

Or maybe I should split debian/README.Debian into a general README.md
and some more specialized doc/*.md documents (and list all of them in
debian/apt-listbugs.docs)...

> 
> Also, having some LICENSE file in ./ instead of relying on
> debian/copyright would give that URI more an image of a "homepage" of
> a native tool rather than a second Vcs-Browse of some packaging.

I had thought about doing so, but I could not figure out how to handle
the situation: what information should the LICENSE file contain?
Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess.

If this is indeed the case, then I would rather avoid keeping them
consistent (or even identical by copying one into the other) by hand.
But I have to keep debian/copyright in the source package, in order to
comply with Debian Policy (at least, it seems to me that there is a
"should" rule in [Policy 12.5]). At the same time, the LICENSE file
should committed to the git repository (otherwise Salsa will not see
it...). Hence, neither file can be generated at build time by copying
from the other.

Do you have a good solution for this impasse?!?

[Policy 12.5]: 


[...]
> > Thanks for your time and helpfulness!
> 
> Have we talked in the past about moving apt-listbugs under the APT team
> umbrella? Not sure if anyone of us speaks ruby enough to be of
> considerable help in this regard, but we have apt-file and even aptitude
> there, too.

Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a
practical point of view? 

> 
> If you think that might be a good idea feel free to drop us a line on
> IRC #debian-apt or the mailinglist de...@lists.debian.org.

I will sure consider it as an option, depending on what you reply to
the above question.

> 
> 
> Oh and btw: You seem to maintain apt-listbugs for quite a while without
> issues, have you considered applying for DM?

Yes, I have considered applying for the DM status.
I just need to make up my mind, so thank you for encouraging me!   ;-p



-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgp0u8MZn3OSp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-03 Thread Dmitry Bogatov 


[2018-11-03 11:11] "Francesco Poli (wintermute)" 
> Hello everybody,
> my usual sponsor has some blocking issues and is currently unable to
> upload packages on my behalf.
>
> I prepared a new version of apt-listbugs (0.1.25): it is ready to be
> uploaded.
> Could someone please build the package from commit
> [999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe],
> and sponsor its upload to sid?

Sure. Uploaded. Please consider makeing dep-5 `debian/copyright'.
Since you seems to be sole author, it should not be hard.

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

2018-11-03 Thread Francesco Poli (wintermute) 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Hello everybody,
my usual sponsor has some blocking issues and is currently unable to
upload packages on my behalf.

I prepared a new version of apt-listbugs (0.1.25): it is ready to be
uploaded.
Could someone please build the package from commit
[999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe],
and sponsor its upload to sid?

[999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe]: 


The changes since the last upload are:

  * updated VCS URLs to new salsa.debian.org locations in debian/control and
debian/copyright files, and in man page, as well
  * updated Homepage field in debian/control to point to the new home on
salsa.debian.org
  * updated Dutch translation, thanks to Frans Spiesschaert! (Closes: #900588)
  * bumped Standards-Version to 4.2.1: no changes needed
  * enhanced dealing with ignore_bugs files containing characters which cannot
be represented in the current locale (this is meant to be a fix for
the old bug #834557)


Thanks for your time and helpfulness!
Bye.