Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Alexandre Viau]

It will be migrated when we do the bulk migration.

Until then, if you want to do the less work possible, I think that what
Michael has said is fine:

 - Create new repositories on salsa

 - Don't migrate anything, unless you update the rewritemap, setup the
right branch permissions and hooks yourself.

To create repositories on Salsa, please use dh-make-golang as it will
setup branch permissions and hooks for you.

It is not documented yet, but there is a command in dh-make-golang:

 - dh-make-golang create-salsa-project 


FWIW not setting permissions and hooks isn't that bad because I will run
a script that does it for all projects after the migration. Same thing
goes for the rewritemap.

Just make sure that whatever package we have in unstable points to the
right git url so that we don't interfere with tools that try to do bulk
work on our packages.

On 2018-02-20 02:53 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Done.
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Arnaud
>  > wrote:
>
>
>>  
>>
>>
>> For the repository we're talking about right now, I
>> understand there's no need to bump the version right now, as
>> long as I'm not sure it's needed.
>>
>> Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go
>> packages group, and keep it as a personal repo ?
>>
>>
>> Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer).
>>  
>
> I don't have the permission to delete the project from the go
> packages group, at
> https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github-urfave-cli/edit
> .
> I think you can do it ?
>
> Thanks
>
>   Arnaud
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Michael

-- 
Alexandre Viau
av...@debian.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Michael Stapelberg]

Done.

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Arnaud 
wrote:

>
>
>
>>
>> For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand there's no
>> need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not sure it's needed.
>>
>> Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go packages
>> group, and keep it as a personal repo ?
>>
>
> Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer).
>
>
>
> I don't have the permission to delete the project from the go packages
> group, at https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github-
> urfave-cli/edit. I think you can do it ?
>
> Thanks
>
>   Arnaud
>



-- 
Best regards,
Michael
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Arnaud]

>  
>
>
> For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand
> there's no need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not
> sure it's needed.
>
> Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go
> packages group, and keep it as a personal repo ?
>
>
> Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer).
>  

I don't have the permission to delete the project from the go packages
group, at
https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github-urfave-cli/edit.
I think you can do it ?

Thanks

  Arnaud
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Michael Stapelberg]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Arnaud 
wrote:

>
>
> On 02/20/2018 12:08 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>
> Are you certain that this commit is actually a requirement, or just
> happens to be the latest version the containerd people tried?
>
>
> It's just the version that is vendored by containerd. I assumed they used
> it for a good reason, that's all. Definitely not certain that it's needed.
>
> Did you test the version currently in Debian and run into issues?
>
>
> No I didn't try, right now I'm just trying to package and bump everything
> required by containerd, then package containerd, then test the whole thing.
>
>
> I’m not saying importing new upstream versions isn’t a good idea, I’m just
> trying to make sure you don’t do any extra work you don’t want to do.
>
>
> I get your point. I thought the best approach was to bump every dependency
> first, then package the missing dependencies. But maybe it's better to
> package what's missing first, then try containerd, and then bump
> dependencies to newer versions if it's really a need. Especially if I bump
> to a snapshot version like in the current case, it's always better to avoid
> that and stick to official releases, when they exist.
>
>
>
>> - the current debian package for urfave-cli is on anonscm.debian.org. So
>> here I had to create a repository on salsa.debian.org. Maybe you don't
>> like that and already have a procedure for migrating packages from
>> anonscm to salsa.
>>
>
> While it is fine to create new repositories on salsa, we should either add
> this repository to the rewritemap ASAP (+cc aviau) or don’t move it for the
> time being.
>
>
> What is the rewritemap ?
>

See https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/AliothRewriter/tree/master for details.


> Is Alexandre Viau the person in charge of migrating go packages to salsa
> in general ?
>

Yes.


>
> For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand there's no
> need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not sure it's needed.
>
> Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go packages group,
> and keep it as a personal repo ?
>

Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer).


>
>
>  Overall, your changes look good to me. Let me know which way you prefer
> to proceed regarding repository location, fix the changelog, and I can
> upload it for you.
>
>
> Let's just wait until we're sure this version bump is really needed, if
> you're ok with that.
>

Sure!


>
> Thanks again for all the thorough feedback !
>
>   Arnaud
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Michael
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Arnaud]

On 02/20/2018 12:08 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Are you certain that this commit is actually a requirement, or just
> happens to be the latest version the containerd people tried?

It's just the version that is vendored by containerd. I assumed they
used it for a good reason, that's all. Definitely not certain that it's
needed.

> Did you test the version currently in Debian and run into issues?

No I didn't try, right now I'm just trying to package and bump
everything required by containerd, then package containerd, then test
the whole thing.

>
> I’m not saying importing new upstream versions isn’t a good idea, I’m
> just trying to make sure you don’t do any extra work you don’t want to do.

I get your point. I thought the best approach was to bump every
dependency first, then package the missing dependencies. But maybe it's
better to package what's missing first, then try containerd, and then
bump dependencies to newer versions if it's really a need. Especially if
I bump to a snapshot version like in the current case, it's always
better to avoid that and stick to official releases, when they exist.

>  
>
> - the current debian package for urfave-cli is on
> anonscm.debian.org . So
> here I had to create a repository on salsa.debian.org
> . Maybe you don't
> like that and already have a procedure for migrating packages from
> anonscm to salsa.
>
>
> While it is fine to create new repositories on salsa, we should either
> add this repository to the rewritemap ASAP (+cc aviau) or don’t move
> it for the time being.

What is the rewritemap ? Is Alexandre Viau the person in charge of
migrating go packages to salsa in general ?

For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand there's
no need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not sure it's needed.

Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go packages
group, and keep it as a personal repo ?

>  Overall, your changes look good to me. Let me know which way you
> prefer to proceed regarding repository location, fix the changelog,
> and I can upload it for you.

Let's just wait until we're sure this version bump is really needed, if
you're ok with that.

Thanks again for all the thorough feedback !

  Arnaud

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Re: [pkg-go] Call for review: golang-github-urfave-cli

[Michael Stapelberg]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Arnaud 
wrote:

> Dear Debian Go Packaging Team,
>
> The latest version of containerd requires a recent snapshot of
> github.com/urfave/cli. This can be seen with a command such as:
>
>   wget --quiet \
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/containerd/containerd/master/vendor.conf
> \
> -O - | \
> grep urfave
>
> At the moment, containerd requires the commit 7bc6a0a, from October 2017.
>

Are you certain that this commit is actually a requirement, or just happens
to be the latest version the containerd people tried?

I’m asking because the changes to the upstream branch are fairly small.
While new APIs are introduced (e.g. FlagNamePrefixFunc), none of these APIs
seem to be used by the containerd source.

Did you test the version currently in Debian and run into issues?

I’m not saying importing new upstream versions isn’t a good idea, I’m just
trying to make sure you don’t do any extra work you don’t want to do.


>
> Currently, the version packages in Debian is the latest released,
> 1.20.0, from August 2017.
>
> So I updated the Debian package to the snapshot required by containerd.
> You can see my attempt at:
>
>   https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github-urfave-cli
>
> Please notice that:
>
> - the current debian package for urfave-cli is on anonscm.debian.org. So
> here I had to create a repository on salsa.debian.org. Maybe you don't
> like that and already have a procedure for migrating packages from
> anonscm to salsa.
>

While it is fine to create new repositories on salsa, we should either add
this repository to the rewritemap ASAP (+cc aviau) or don’t move it for the
time being.


> - I didn't touch the gbp.conf file, which works good but is not as
> simple as the default gpb.conf file create by dh-make-golang. I don't
> know how much you want to enforce a common gbp config, and I don't want
> to be rude to the persons maintaining this package.
>

In the long run, I’d like to converge on common gbp settings, but let’s
leave it as-is for now.


> - Lintian complained about NMU (as I'm not a DD), so I fixed that, but I
> don't remember having to do that for the packages I created these last
> days. So I don't know if it was right to care about that particular
> Lintian warning.
>

Instead of doing an NMU, add “Team upload.” to the changelog (gbp-dch’s
--team option will do that for you), or add yourself as Uploader: in
debian/control.


>
> Any comment appreciated !
>
> Best regards,
>
>   Arnaud
>
>
Overall, your changes look good to me. Let me know which way you prefer to
proceed regarding repository location, fix the changelog, and I can upload
it for you.

Thanks!

-- 
Best regards,
Michael
___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers