Re: Bug#477454: RFS: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1)
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-03 22:51:16 -0400]: > Tristan Seligmann wrote: > > Well, fair enough; I suppose the README.Debian note should not be quite > > as explicit as I made it. I'm just not very happy with the gratuitous > > (in my view) change to the upstream tarball, so I wanted to be as clear > > about it as I could for anyone else wondering why it didn't match the > > released tarball. If it were up to me, I wouldn't be making this change > > at all, but it seems the alternative is to release lenny without > > quodlibet, which is not very satisfactory either. > > There has never been a clear explaination in #477454 as to why the bug > should be considered RC at all, or why, if it is RC, it would require > modification of the upstream tarball to fix. The explanation appears to be "because an RM says so"; as far as modifying the upstream tarball goes, the only way anyone is going to see the offending code is if they go looking for it. If the objective is just to avoid casual users from being exposed to it, then nothing needs to be changed in the first place, so I don't see the point in doing anything at all in that case. Am I missing some other rationale here? Unfortunately Andreas Barth has not yet provided any further clarity on his statement that "the fix is pretty easy and forward"; CC'ing him again to find out what he meant... Once again, my personal opinion is that this really shouldn't be such a big deal that it would prevent the package from releasing as-is with lenny; the relevant code has already been changed upstream, can't this bug be left as a non-RC severity and be closed with the next upload of a new upstream release? I would have just done that anyway, but it seems the next upstream release is likely to be long after lenny, so this isn't an option unless the severity of the bug can be downgraded. > There have been vague mutterings about the content being illegal in > germany; I've already pointed out in the bug log several other instances > of personal insults included in Debian packages. If the people who think > this is illegal in germany, and that Debian should censor such speech > think this bug is RC, they need to begin a comprensive audit and mass RC > bug filing on all the other packages too. (They might also find certian > such insults on the Debian mailing lists..) I believe the "illegal in Germany" reasoning has already been shot down. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1)
Tristan Seligmann wrote: > Well, fair enough; I suppose the README.Debian note should not be quite > as explicit as I made it. I'm just not very happy with the gratuitous > (in my view) change to the upstream tarball, so I wanted to be as clear > about it as I could for anyone else wondering why it didn't match the > released tarball. If it were up to me, I wouldn't be making this change > at all, but it seems the alternative is to release lenny without > quodlibet, which is not very satisfactory either. There has never been a clear explaination in #477454 as to why the bug should be considered RC at all, or why, if it is RC, it would require modification of the upstream tarball to fix. There have been vague mutterings about the content being illegal in germany; I've already pointed out in the bug log several other instances of personal insults included in Debian packages. If the people who think this is illegal in germany, and that Debian should censor such speech think this bug is RC, they need to begin a comprensive audit and mass RC bug filing on all the other packages too. (They might also find certian such insults on the Debian mailing lists..) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1)
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-03 17:53:23 -0400]: > If the presense of this buried in an internal source file is so > vile/illegal/unlike other profanity in software in Debian that you have to > *repackage* the upstream tarball to hide it from the tender eyes of our users > (with all the problems that entails), why do you then turn around and add it > back in to the most important file that we expect our users to read? Well, fair enough; I suppose the README.Debian note should not be quite as explicit as I made it. I'm just not very happy with the gratuitous (in my view) change to the upstream tarball, so I wanted to be as clear about it as I could for anyone else wondering why it didn't match the released tarball. If it were up to me, I wouldn't be making this change at all, but it seems the alternative is to release lenny without quodlibet, which is not very satisfactory either. I've prepared a new version with this change here: http://mithrandi.net/debian/pool/main/q/quodlibet/quodlibet_1.0.ds1-2.dsc > PS: What does quodlibet sponsorship have to do with the debian-python mailing > list? It's a python package, and sponsorship requests for Python packages are often sent to this list. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1)
Tristan Seligmann wrote: >* Ship modified upstream tarball, removing insulting source code, and put a > note in README.Debian to explain why we're doing this (closes: #477454). For the record, your README.Debian consists of: The upstream tarball for quodlibet in Debian does not match the one distributed by upstream, as a minor change has been made to it. The only difference between the two should be this diff: diff -rN -u old-quodlibet.upstream/player.py new-quodlibet.upstream/player.py --- old-quodlibet.upstream/player.py2008-06-03 19:45:12.247191545 +0200 +++ new-quodlibet.upstream/player.py2008-06-03 19:45:12.311191392 +0200 @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ gst.debug_set_default_threshold(gst.LEVEL_ERROR) if gst.element_make_from_uri( gst.URI_SRC, -"file:///Sebastian/Droge/please/choke/on/a/bucket/of/cocks", ""): +"file:///fake/path/for/gst", ""): global playlist playlist = PlaylistPlayer(pipeline or "gconfaudiosink", librarian) return playlist If the presense of this buried in an internal source file is so vile/illegal/unlike other profanity in software in Debian that you have to *repackage* the upstream tarball to hide it from the tender eyes of our users (with all the problems that entails), why do you then turn around and add it back in to the most important file that we expect our users to read? My mind boggles. PS: What does quodlibet sponsorship have to do with the debian-python mailing list? -- see shy jo, wondering if perhaps the point is to shield the under-aged python interpeter from the profanity, or what signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1)
Source package is here: http://mithrandi.net/debian/pool/main/q/quodlibet/quodlibet_1.0.ds1-1.dsc Fixes #477454 which is an RC bug; changelog as follows: quodlibet (1.0.ds1-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Ship modified upstream tarball, removing insulting source code, and put a note in README.Debian to explain why we're doing this (closes: #477454). * Add Vcs-Darcs field. * Add Homepage field. * Update my e-mail address. * Stop updating .po files during build. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
