Re: done (for now) / Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hi Joost, On Sat Jan 25, 2025 at 9:20 AM CET, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > Just uploaded libfolia_2.21-1_amd64.changes . Great! Thanks for your help! > Please fix this: > > Now running lintian libfolia_2.21-1_amd64.changes ... > W: libfolia source: superfluous-file-pattern m4/ax_pthread.m4 > [debian/copyright:29] > W: libfolia source: superfluous-file-pattern m4/pkg.m4 [debian/copyright:25] > Finished running lintian. > > before the next upload. Thanks for your work! I saw those yeah. Will do > PS: I believe all uploads of other packages will get properly built now. I am > not quite sure if a source-only upload of libfolia and ticcutils is needed > once > these 2 get through NEW; we'll find out in due time... Ok, I'll keep an eye on it. I suppose I can do such a source upload myself once the new ones are in. Thanks again, -- Maarten van Gompel Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
done (for now) / Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hi Maarten, Just uploaded libfolia_2.21-1_amd64.changes . Please fix this: Now running lintian libfolia_2.21-1_amd64.changes ... W: libfolia source: superfluous-file-pattern m4/ax_pthread.m4 [debian/copyright:29] W: libfolia source: superfluous-file-pattern m4/pkg.m4 [debian/copyright:25] Finished running lintian. before the next upload. Thanks for your work! Bye, Joost PS: I believe all uploads of other packages will get properly built now. I am not quite sure if a source-only upload of libfolia and ticcutils is needed once these 2 get through NEW; we'll find out in due time... On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 08:11:50PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > For the record: I'm in touch with upstream about an issue with libfolia: > > пет 24 19:56 < joostvb> gbp:error: Cannot find pristine tar commit for archive > 'libfolia_2.21.orig.tar.gz' > [20:09] [joostvb(+i)] [34:MeukNet/#lst(+nt)] > > Bye, > > Joost > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > > Hi Maarten, > > > > just did: > > > > joostvb@agni:~/git/opaque-store% dupload --to anonymous-ftp-master > > ../build-area/ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes > > > > no time for libfolia now. > > > > HTH! > > > > Bye, > > > > Joost > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 03:57:17PM +0100, Maarten van Gompel wrote: > > > Hi Andreas et al, > > > > > > Here's another update on this: it got pointed out to me that I had > > > actual upload rights for my packages and might not need a sponsor after > > > all (I'm in https://ftp-master.debian.org/dm.txt). So I prepared all the > > > packages again and ran dupload on them. > > > > > > That seemed to go well, except I now got two rejections: > > > > > > ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes REJECTED > > >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed > > >binary:libticcutils10 is NEW. > > > > > > libfolia_2.21-1_source.changes REJECTED > > >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed > > >binary:folialint is NEW. > > >binary:libfolia22 is NEW. > > > > > > All other packages got ACCEPTED (however, they rely on the rejected ones > > > so things won't work). > > > > > > The package counts as new because of the SO-bump we did, but it seems I > > > don't have the permissions to upload that? I don't really know how to > > > proceed > > > now anymore... > > > > > > >> Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not > > > >> continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please > > > >> set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again > > > > > > > Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no > > > > routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually) > > > > > > I had reverted the reversion again (can you still follow? they're back > > > to 'unstable' because I released them now). All 'debian/*' git tags are > > > also set and pushed now. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Maarten van Gompel > > > Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, > > > Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) > > > > > > web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl > > > gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C > > > > >
Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
For the record: I'm in touch with upstream about an issue with libfolia: пет 24 19:56 < joostvb> gbp:error: Cannot find pristine tar commit for archive 'libfolia_2.21.orig.tar.gz' [20:09] [joostvb(+i)] [34:MeukNet/#lst(+nt)] Bye, Joost On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > Hi Maarten, > > just did: > > joostvb@agni:~/git/opaque-store% dupload --to anonymous-ftp-master > ../build-area/ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes > > no time for libfolia now. > > HTH! > > Bye, > > Joost > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 03:57:17PM +0100, Maarten van Gompel wrote: > > Hi Andreas et al, > > > > Here's another update on this: it got pointed out to me that I had > > actual upload rights for my packages and might not need a sponsor after > > all (I'm in https://ftp-master.debian.org/dm.txt). So I prepared all the > > packages again and ran dupload on them. > > > > That seemed to go well, except I now got two rejections: > > > > ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes REJECTED > >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed > >binary:libticcutils10 is NEW. > > > > libfolia_2.21-1_source.changes REJECTED > >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed > >binary:folialint is NEW. > >binary:libfolia22 is NEW. > > > > All other packages got ACCEPTED (however, they rely on the rejected ones > > so things won't work). > > > > The package counts as new because of the SO-bump we did, but it seems I > > don't have the permissions to upload that? I don't really know how to > > proceed > > now anymore... > > > > >> Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not > > >> continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please > > >> set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again > > > > > Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no > > > routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually) > > > > I had reverted the reversion again (can you still follow? they're back > > to 'unstable' because I released them now). All 'debian/*' git tags are > > also set and pushed now. > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > > > Maarten van Gompel > > Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, > > Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) > > > > web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl > > gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C > >
Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hi Maarten, just did: joostvb@agni:~/git/opaque-store% dupload --to anonymous-ftp-master ../build-area/ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes no time for libfolia now. HTH! Bye, Joost On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 03:57:17PM +0100, Maarten van Gompel wrote: > Hi Andreas et al, > > Here's another update on this: it got pointed out to me that I had > actual upload rights for my packages and might not need a sponsor after > all (I'm in https://ftp-master.debian.org/dm.txt). So I prepared all the > packages again and ran dupload on them. > > That seemed to go well, except I now got two rejections: > > ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes REJECTED >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed >binary:libticcutils10 is NEW. > > libfolia_2.21-1_source.changes REJECTED >ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed >binary:folialint is NEW. >binary:libfolia22 is NEW. > > All other packages got ACCEPTED (however, they rely on the rejected ones > so things won't work). > > The package counts as new because of the SO-bump we did, but it seems I > don't have the permissions to upload that? I don't really know how to proceed > now anymore... > > >> Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not > >> continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please > >> set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again > > > Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no > > routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually) > > I had reverted the reversion again (can you still follow? they're back > to 'unstable' because I released them now). All 'debian/*' git tags are > also set and pushed now. > > Regards, > > -- > > Maarten van Gompel > Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, > Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) > > web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl > gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C
Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hi Andreas et al, Here's another update on this: it got pointed out to me that I had actual upload rights for my packages and might not need a sponsor after all (I'm in https://ftp-master.debian.org/dm.txt). So I prepared all the packages again and ran dupload on them. That seemed to go well, except I now got two rejections: ticcutils_0.36-1_source.changes REJECTED ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed binary:libticcutils10 is NEW. libfolia_2.21-1_source.changes REJECTED ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed binary:folialint is NEW. binary:libfolia22 is NEW. All other packages got ACCEPTED (however, they rely on the rejected ones so things won't work). The package counts as new because of the SO-bump we did, but it seems I don't have the permissions to upload that? I don't really know how to proceed now anymore... >> Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not >> continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please >> set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again > Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no > routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually) I had reverted the reversion again (can you still follow? they're back to 'unstable' because I released them now). All 'debian/*' git tags are also set and pushed now. Regards, -- Maarten van Gompel Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hallo Andreas, On Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 7:39 AM CET, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:51:07PM +0100 schrieb Maarten van Gompel: > > I updated several of our packages to the latest upstream releases and would > > like to > > again request sponsorship for upload: > > Thanks a lot for your work on these packages. I had a (short!) look on > these. Thanks for taking a look and all the feedback! > As a general remark: These old links to anonscm are working due > to redirects. However, it would be great if you'd rather use the salsa > links as per the Vcs fields specified by the packages. Its irritating > to read those old URLs. > > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/libticcutils.git I see, I took the easy path and had copied them from a similar mail a few years ago ... > I had a look into this and realised Standard-Version was not bumped to > 4.7.0 and debhelper compat level was 12 instead of the latest one (13). > What I'm usually doing is simply running >routine-update > (inside the package with the same name) which does everything for you. > It also ensures that the new upstream tarball is injected into > pristine-tar branch (which was not the case and which I did manually). > > Switching to debhelper compat level to 13 "broke" the build due to the > fact that now dh_missing --fail-missing is default and you need to > specify packages that are intentionally not installed in > debian/not-installed. I did so for the *.la package. However, as you > can see inside the build log in Salsa[1] there are some manpages > installed by the upstream install target which do not end up in the > binary Debian packages. Since I do not know whether it makes more sense > inside the lib or libdevel package - or whether these packages make sense > at all and should rather be listed in not-installed (or whether there > might be some option for an additional ticcutils-tools package?) I left > this for your kind inspection. Right, I see what you mean, I went through all of the packages, updated the debhelper compat level and the standards version, and added anything that came up to non-installed (basically mostly *.la files following your example). For libfolia I added an extra 'folialint' package with the a binary that is shipped with it. > Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not > continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please > set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again > and run `routine-update -f` on them (if you do not set UNRELEASED > routine-update will create a new changelog entry which you do not > want). Done, I reverted them to UNRELEASED and updated them (there was no routine-update in debian testing though, so I did it manually) I hope they're now in a better state for upload. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- Maarten van Gompel Digital Infrastructure, Humanities Cluster, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) web: https://proycon.anaproy.nl gpg: 0x39FE11201A31555C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: request for upload for several packages (frog,timbl,ucto)
Hi Maarten, Am Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:51:07PM +0100 schrieb Maarten van Gompel: > I updated several of our packages to the latest upstream releases and would > like to > again request sponsorship for upload: Thanks a lot for your work on these packages. I had a (short!) look on these. As a general remark: These old links to anonscm are working due to redirects. However, it would be great if you'd rather use the salsa links as per the Vcs fields specified by the packages. Its irritating to read those old URLs. > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/libticcutils.git I had a look into this and realised Standard-Version was not bumped to 4.7.0 and debhelper compat level was 12 instead of the latest one (13). What I'm usually doing is simply running routine-update (inside the package with the same name) which does everything for you. It also ensures that the new upstream tarball is injected into pristine-tar branch (which was not the case and which I did manually). Switching to debhelper compat level to 13 "broke" the build due to the fact that now dh_missing --fail-missing is default and you need to specify packages that are intentionally not installed in debian/not-installed. I did so for the *.la package. However, as you can see inside the build log in Salsa[1] there are some manpages installed by the upstream install target which do not end up in the binary Debian packages. Since I do not know whether it makes more sense inside the lib or libdevel package - or whether these packages make sense at all and should rather be listed in not-installed (or whether there might be some option for an additional ticcutils-tools package?) I left this for your kind inspection. Since these packages are depending from the first one I did not continued. If you want to do your final sponsor a favour please set the target distribution of those packages to "UNRELEASED" again and run `routine-update -f` on them (if you do not set UNRELEASED routine-update will create a new changelog entry which you do not want). > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/libfolia.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/uctodata.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/ucto.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/timbl.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/timblserver.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/mbt.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/mbtserver.git > * https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/frog.git > > The above order reflects the dependency order/order of build. Thank you for the good preparation in any case. > These new releases also fix the various 'ftbfs with icu-76.1' Matthias > Klose addressed (like bug#1092365) Great! > Note: the `debian/$version` tags have not been set yet in git. As requested > earlier, I'll leave that > to the uploader. That's correct. You might also leave the target distribution "UNRELEASED" since this describes the current status of the packages in Salsa. Thank you for your work Andreas. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libticcutils/-/jobs/6894215 -- https://fam-tille.de
