Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 13:15 +0800, Guo Yixuan wrote: > On 10/26/2012 02:17 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 23:47 +0800, Guo Yixuan wrote: > > debin/gcc/patches/ directory in the Debian gcc-X.Y source package. This [...] > > s/debin/debian/ ;-) > > Oh, just fixed in git repo. [...] > Do I need to upload a 4.6.3-3 just to fix this typo? Not unless you really want to. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1351228600.28873.41.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On 10/26/2012 02:17 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 23:47 +0800, Guo Yixuan wrote: >> Please unblock package gcc-4.6-doc > > > Debian GCC maintainers kindly provide required documentation patches under > debin/gcc/patches/ directory in the Debian gcc-X.Y source package. This > > > s/debin/debian/ ;-) Oh, just fixed in git repo. > 4.6.3-2 unblocked; thanks. Thank you! Do I need to upload a 4.6.3-3 just to fix this typo? Cheers, Guo Yixuan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/508a1c6f.9060...@gmail.com
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
Hello, > >> | DMUA removed now.[2] > I guess Steffen somehow missed the memo? (*hint hint*) :) I'll go for it when I am back with my key tonight. I hope you have all played with Yixuan's nice BOINC (http://wiki.debian.org/BOINC) packages, too. Cheers, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121025073626.277...@gmx.net
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On Oct 24, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:11 -0400, root wrote: , | > | >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, | >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA | >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission | >> interface (after I become a DM). [...] | DMUA removed now.[2] ` Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now He wasn't at the time I queried it, as his own mail above confirms. I know, I just thought it might be relevant. (2) the changelog says his *sponsor* added the DMUA field based working with him before, and (3) the packages have the field now, so is it really worth removing? (It's quite true that a control field is not a good way to do this, but that doesn't mean that it's completely unusable or useless!) Actually, it *is* useless, or will be very soon - specifically in exactly a month. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg8.html As of November 24th, its presence will serve no purpose. Oh, I see: the replacement system is already working. I missed that when I tried googling this, thanks! I guess Steffan somehow missed the memo? (*hint hint*) I propose that Guo put the DMUA back, then upload the revised versions of gcc-4.6-doc and gcc-4.7-doc *himself* rather than waiting for a sponsor to do it. p.s. Note that, technically, Guo didn't set me as Maintainer: I did; this should have been fairly obvious from the changelogs. (This was back before I essentially abandoned the project, partly in despair of getting gcc-doc-defaults to match gcc-defaults and partly for lack of feedback from potential sponsors.) It wasn't at all obvious from the .changes file which was uploaded, i.e. http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-4.6-doc/news/20121003T190008Z.html True. I guess that's why Jakub Wilk made me squash my changelogs when he mentored me for my tack package: so everything would show up in the .changes file he uploaded. p.s. If it wasn't obvious, the message you are replying to was from me, Samuel Bronson; I had forgotten that that instance of Emacs was running as root... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2f4858af-5783-4a63-971a-a9d9bfeb8...@gmail.com
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:11 -0400, root wrote: > , > | > > | >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, > | >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA > | >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission > | >> interface (after I become a DM). [...] > | DMUA removed now.[2] > ` > > Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now He wasn't at the time I queried it, as his own mail above confirms. > (2) the changelog > says his *sponsor* added the DMUA field based working with him before, > and (3) the packages have the field now, so is it really worth removing? > >(It's quite true that a control field is not a good way to do this, but > that doesn't mean that it's completely unusable or useless!) Actually, it *is* useless, or will be very soon - specifically in exactly a month. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg8.html As of November 24th, its presence will serve no purpose. > I propose that Guo put the DMUA back, then upload the revised versions > of gcc-4.6-doc and gcc-4.7-doc *himself* rather than waiting for a > sponsor to do it. > > p.s. Note that, technically, Guo didn't set me as Maintainer: I did; > this should have been fairly obvious from the changelogs. (This was > back before I essentially abandoned the project, partly in despair of > getting gcc-doc-defaults to match gcc-defaults and partly for lack of > feedback from potential sponsors.) It wasn't at all obvious from the .changes file which was uploaded, i.e. http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-4.6-doc/news/20121003T190008Z.html Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1351109905.21721.27.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
, | > | >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, | >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA | >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission | >> interface (after I become a DM). | > | > The DMUA field is in the process of being deprecated, as you mentioned. | > It's certainly not appropriate to be setting it where none of the people | > involved are DMs; it's not really worth adding to new packages in any | > case. Uploading a new source with DMUA set is also a little unusual. | | DMUA removed now.[2] ` Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now, (2) the changelog says his *sponsor* added the DMUA field based working with him before, and (3) the packages have the field now, so is it really worth removing? (It's quite true that a control field is not a good way to do this, but that doesn't mean that it's completely unusable or useless!) I propose that Guo put the DMUA back, then upload the revised versions of gcc-4.6-doc and gcc-4.7-doc *himself* rather than waiting for a sponsor to do it. p.s. Note that, technically, Guo didn't set me as Maintainer: I did; this should have been fairly obvious from the changelogs. (This was back before I essentially abandoned the project, partly in despair of getting gcc-doc-defaults to match gcc-defaults and partly for lack of feedback from potential sponsors.) All Guo did was fail to set himself as Maintainer when he took it over, which is especially puzzling given that I was essentially MIA... p.p.s. Guo, how come you didn't specifically ask Steffan Moeller to handle this batch of RFSes, especially: bug #691022: RFS: gcc-4.4-doc-non-dfsg/4.4.7-1 (since you should be able to do the other two yourself)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8vavpr4m@naesten.dyndns.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On 10/13/2012 11:46 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 13.10.2012 16:24, Guo Yixuan wrote: >> 于 2012年10月13日 22:23, Adam D. Barratt 写道: >>> Why is the package's Maintainer field set to someone who has no obvious >>> connection with the package? >> >> This is because Samuel did most of the packaging work half a year >> ago, and I just updated it to match current gcc version and fixed some >> problems. However, he didn't managed to upload this package to sid >> (eg. by asking a sponsor), and didn't replied me about the maintenance >> of this package. I've been waiting for his reply for two weeks. >> >> FYI, Samuel's work is avaible at github[1]. >> >> [1] https://github.com/SamB/debian-gcc-doc >> >> Is it appropriate to just take over maintenance in this case? If so, >> I will change the maintainer field to myself and remove Samuel, then >> upload a 4.6.3-2 version. > > Well, you could keep him in uploaders if you think he's likely to > contribute further to the package in the archive. Having him listed as > maintainer seems somewhat strange, at least imo. > > I'd also suggest mentioning in the changelog that you used his packaging > as a base. Thanks, I made a fix according to your advice[1]. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/yixuan-guest/gcc-doc.git;a=commitdiff;h=dd060f744837deee55c510a30a9eb4bcf4477257;hp=3031a48865ec4b4c1af8d8286e40892454d55920 > >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission >> interface (after I become a DM). > > The DMUA field is in the process of being deprecated, as you mentioned. > It's certainly not appropriate to be setting it where none of the people > involved are DMs; it's not really worth adding to new packages in any > case. Uploading a new source with DMUA set is also a little unusual. DMUA removed now.[2] [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/yixuan-guest/gcc-doc.git;a=commitdiff;h=8c0b2a12ed1e63feef9484214f74b653aee227f3 I'm working on some other fixes, and will upload 4.6.3-2/4.7.1-2 after that. Regards, Guo Yixuan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/507d567b.5030...@gmail.com
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On 13.10.2012 16:24, Guo Yixuan wrote: 于 2012年10月13日 22:23, Adam D. Barratt 写道: Why is the package's Maintainer field set to someone who has no obvious connection with the package? This is because Samuel did most of the packaging work half a year ago, and I just updated it to match current gcc version and fixed some problems. However, he didn't managed to upload this package to sid (eg. by asking a sponsor), and didn't replied me about the maintenance of this package. I've been waiting for his reply for two weeks. FYI, Samuel's work is avaible at github[1]. [1] https://github.com/SamB/debian-gcc-doc Is it appropriate to just take over maintenance in this case? If so, I will change the maintainer field to myself and remove Samuel, then upload a 4.6.3-2 version. Well, you could keep him in uploaders if you think he's likely to contribute further to the package in the archive. Having him listed as maintainer seems somewhat strange, at least imo. I'd also suggest mentioning in the changelog that you used his packaging as a base. Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission interface (after I become a DM). The DMUA field is in the process of being deprecated, as you mentioned. It's certainly not appropriate to be setting it where none of the people involved are DMs; it's not really worth adding to new packages in any case. Uploading a new source with DMUA set is also a little unusual. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/75b12b121ea539aad075059f3e845...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
于 2012年10月13日 22:23, Adam D. Barratt 写道: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On 05.10.2012 16:47, Guo Yixuan wrote: Please unblock package gcc-4.6-doc Although it just reached sid, I believe it's should be allowed into wheezy. This package contains documents for gcc-4.6 (cpp, gcc, gccgo, gcj and gnat) in manpages, info, html and pdf. Why is the package's Maintainer field set to someone who has no obvious connection with the package? This is because Samuel did most of the packaging work half a year ago, and I just updated it to match current gcc version and fixed some problems. However, he didn't managed to upload this package to sid (eg. by asking a sponsor), and didn't replied me about the maintenance of this package. I've been waiting for his reply for two weeks. FYI, Samuel's work is avaible at github[1]. [1] https://github.com/SamB/debian-gcc-doc Is it appropriate to just take over maintenance in this case? If so, I will change the maintainer field to myself and remove Samuel, then upload a 4.6.3-2 version. Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission interface (after I become a DM). Regards, Guo Yixuan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/507987b0.3000...@gmail.com
Processed: Re: Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #689726 [release.debian.org] unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 689726: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689726 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b689726.135013821517201.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On 05.10.2012 16:47, Guo Yixuan wrote: Please unblock package gcc-4.6-doc Although it just reached sid, I believe it's should be allowed into wheezy. This package contains documents for gcc-4.6 (cpp, gcc, gccgo, gcj and gnat) in manpages, info, html and pdf. Why is the package's Maintainer field set to someone who has no obvious connection with the package? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/73216d13763a66cb63176d89fcd82...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package gcc-4.6-doc Although it just reached sid, I believe it's should be allowed into wheezy. This package contains documents for gcc-4.6 (cpp, gcc, gccgo, gcj and gnat) in manpages, info, html and pdf. We need good and updated document for gcc, however GFDL with front/back cover texts (or invariant sections) prevented that to be distributed in gcc-4.6 which is in main, so a separated package in non-free is needed.[1] As current default version of gcc is 4.6/4.7, depending on arch, so I packaged both for wheezy. I also plan to upload gcc-doc-defaults in two weeks, which will update the un-versioned symlinks for manpages and info. The only sensible debdiff is between gcc-4.4-doc-non-dfsg_4.4.4.nf1-1 and gcc-4.6 4.6.3-1, but it's large and gzipped to more than 800k, so I don't think it's really useful. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 unblock gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1 Best regards, Guo Yixuan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/506f0111.9080...@gmail.com
