Processed: Re: Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + pending Bug #831335 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1 Added tag(s) pending. -- 831335: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831335 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Control: tags -1 + pending On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Sat 2016-08-06 17:15:25 -0400, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Thanks; please feel free to upload that, with a small tweak: > > > > +publicsuffix (20160703-0+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium > > + > > + * prepare for stable-proposed-updates. > > > > "jessie" is generally preferred as the changelog distribution and maybe > > "Upload to stable" or something similar? > > changed and uploaded Flagged for acceptance; thanks. Regards, Adam
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 19:38:23 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > hm, it looks like jessie can't handle source-only uploads that generate > arch-indep packages, according to the rejection notice i just got. > > That's a shame. I guess i'll try again and include the arch-indep > binary in my upload. Is there any chance that the jessie builders can > learn to handle such a thing or is that just for unstable? > We won't be changing that for jessie. Cheers, Julien
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:38:23PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > hm, it looks like jessie can't handle source-only uploads that generate > arch-indep packages, according to the rejection notice i just got. I think it would be more accurate to say that jessie can't handle source-only uploads that generate NEW arch-indep packages. The way I read this: https://wiki.debian.org/SourceOnlyUpload the fact that the upload is made for jessie does not matter. But things may have improved since the wiki page was written. If that's the case, I hope somebody who knows the truth may update the wiki page. Thanks.
source only uploads to stretch/stable (was Re: Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1)
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:38:23PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > hm, it looks like jessie can't handle source-only uploads that generate > arch-indep packages, according to the rejection notice i just got. > > That's a shame. agreed. AIUI this is because we won't change the way the stable builders work. > I guess i'll try again and include the arch-indep > binary in my upload. Is there any chance that the jessie builders can > learn to handle such a thing or is that just for unstable? AIUI this will happen for Stretch. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Sat 2016-08-06 17:15:25 -0400, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Thanks; please feel free to upload that, with a small tweak: > > > > +publicsuffix (20160703-0+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium > > + > > + * prepare for stable-proposed-updates. > > > > "jessie" is generally preferred as the changelog distribution and maybe > > "Upload to stable" or something similar? [...] > > Every couple of months is when we aim (not always successfully) to do a > > stable point release, so that hopefully works out well all around. > > I've never maintained this class of package before. do i just do > regular uploads to "jessie" as new versions of the package become > available, or do i need to do a jessie-pu bug report for each one? The latter, please. Regards, Adam
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Sat 2016-08-06 17:15:25 -0400, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Thanks; please feel free to upload that, with a small tweak: > > +publicsuffix (20160703-0+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium > + > + * prepare for stable-proposed-updates. > > "jessie" is generally preferred as the changelog distribution and maybe > "Upload to stable" or something similar? changed and uploaded (as a source-only upload; please let me know if that causes trouble; i always prefer to do source-only uploads where the build infrastructure supports it) >> The git tree's jessie branch which i'm proposing is at commit ID >> 6520ee81d3e2d73192e67685652ef6bccdb2e637, fwiw, so you don't have to >> worry about it changing. > > Thanks for that, but we'd still prefer p-u bug reports to be > free-standing. no problem, just providing multiple ways to access the data. > Every couple of months is when we aim (not always successfully) to do a > stable point release, so that hopefully works out well all around. I've never maintained this class of package before. do i just do regular uploads to "jessie" as new versions of the package become available, or do i need to do a jessie-pu bug report for each one? --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Mon 2016-08-08 18:51:32 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Sat 2016-08-06 17:15:25 -0400, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> Thanks; please feel free to upload that, with a small tweak: >> >> +publicsuffix (20160703-0+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium >> + >> + * prepare for stable-proposed-updates. >> >> "jessie" is generally preferred as the changelog distribution and maybe >> "Upload to stable" or something similar? > > changed and uploaded (as a source-only upload; please let me know if > that causes trouble; i always prefer to do source-only uploads where the > build infrastructure supports it) hm, it looks like jessie can't handle source-only uploads that generate arch-indep packages, according to the rejection notice i just got. That's a shame. I guess i'll try again and include the arch-indep binary in my upload. Is there any chance that the jessie builders can learn to handle such a thing or is that just for unstable? --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + confirmed Bug #831335 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 831335: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831335 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Fri, 2016-07-15 at 00:25 +0200, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Thu 2016-07-14 20:06:27 +0200, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Please could we have a debdiff, relative to the current package in > > jessie, in this bug log? (We prefer p-u bugs to be self-contained, and > > not have to rely on your git tree existing for arbitrary periods in the > > future, or on it not changing after we give an ack.) > > sure. the debdiff is quite large, primarily due to upstream renaming > effective_tld_names.dat to public_suffix_list.dat (and adding a > python-based "linter", and changing how they produce their upstream > changelog), but i've attached the gzip'ed debdiff below. Thanks; please feel free to upload that, with a small tweak: +publicsuffix (20160703-0+deb8u1) stable; urgency=medium + + * prepare for stable-proposed-updates. "jessie" is generally preferred as the changelog distribution and maybe "Upload to stable" or something similar? > The git tree's jessie branch which i'm proposing is at commit ID > 6520ee81d3e2d73192e67685652ef6bccdb2e637, fwiw, so you don't have to > worry about it changing. Thanks for that, but we'd still prefer p-u bug reports to be free-standing. [...] > I expect the packaging should be able to remain basically as-is for > jessie's lifetime, since we're basically just shipping a static global > file. That's good to know. > > How frequently would you imagine that the package would need to be > > updated in stable? > > Upstream makes several additions to the psl per month, but the new > editions are rarely super-urgent. I'd imagine doing a "roll-up" release > of changes every month or two to more accurately track the state of > global DNS administrative boundaries. Every couple of months is when we aim (not always successfully) to do a stable point release, so that hopefully works out well all around. Regards, Adam
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 13:05 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > ping! I haven't heard back about this. maybe my earlier reply was > filtered out of some mailbox because of the size of the debdiff as > described above? It made it, I've just been suffering from a lack of sufficient tuits in the meantime, I'm afraid. Regards, Adam
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
On Thu 2016-07-14 18:25:00 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Thu 2016-07-14 20:06:27 +0200, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> Please could we have a debdiff, relative to the current package in >> jessie, in this bug log? (We prefer p-u bugs to be self-contained, and >> not have to rely on your git tree existing for arbitrary periods in the >> future, or on it not changing after we give an ack.) > > sure. the debdiff is quite large, primarily due to upstream renaming > effective_tld_names.dat to public_suffix_list.dat (and adding a > python-based "linter", and changing how they produce their upstream > changelog), but i've attached the gzip'ed debdiff below. > > The git tree's jessie branch which i'm proposing is at commit ID > 6520ee81d3e2d73192e67685652ef6bccdb2e637, fwiw, so you don't have to > worry about it changing. ping! I haven't heard back about this. maybe my earlier reply was filtered out of some mailbox because of the size of the debdiff as described above? --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 19:49 +0200, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > I think debian should offer publicsuffix via stable-updates. > > publicsuffix ships a file that is updated semi-regularly to reflect the > state of the network (a list of all DNS domains which members of the > public might be able to register immediate subzones). It's used for > HTTP cookie policy and for X.509 wildcard certificate issuance, among > other uses. > > In this way, it's similar to tzdata. > > I've prepared a "jessie" branch on the debian packaging repo, which > currently builds fine on stable, and is a simple package: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/publicsuffix Please could we have a debdiff, relative to the current package in jessie, in this bug log? (We prefer p-u bugs to be self-contained, and not have to rely on your git tree existing for arbitrary periods in the future, or on it not changing after we give an ack.) > The only difference in the resultant package (beyond the updated data) > is that the version in jessie (20140902-1) ships with only the legacy > location for the data file > (/usr/share/publicsuffix/effective_tld_names.dat) while the updated > file ships that as a symlink to the modern location of the file > (/usr/share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat) > > Any concerns if i upload this to proposed-updates with an eye toward > stable-updates? How frequently would you imagine that the package would need to be updated in stable? Regards, Adam
Processed: Re: Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #831335 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 831335: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831335 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#831335: jessie-pu: package publicsuffix/20160703-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Control: affects -1 publicsuffix I think debian should offer publicsuffix via stable-updates. publicsuffix ships a file that is updated semi-regularly to reflect the state of the network (a list of all DNS domains which members of the public might be able to register immediate subzones). It's used for HTTP cookie policy and for X.509 wildcard certificate issuance, among other uses. In this way, it's similar to tzdata. I've prepared a "jessie" branch on the debian packaging repo, which currently builds fine on stable, and is a simple package: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/publicsuffix The only difference in the resultant package (beyond the updated data) is that the version in jessie (20140902-1) ships with only the legacy location for the data file (/usr/share/publicsuffix/effective_tld_names.dat) while the updated file ships that as a symlink to the modern location of the file (/usr/share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat) Any concerns if i upload this to proposed-updates with an eye toward stable-updates? --dkg -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable-debug'), (200, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
