Debian Bug report logs - #657428
RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)

Package: sponsorship-requests; Maintainer for sponsorship-requests is Debian Mentors <package-sponsorship-requests@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:51:01 UTC

Owned by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

Severity: normal

Done: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:51:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:51:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:17:26 +0530
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "surf". This package is
orphaned and I've prepared a QA upload for the same. The package can
be downloaded with

  dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/surf/surf_0.4.1-5.dsc

This package builds without any lintian warnings. Below is the changelog

surf (0.4.1-5) unstable; urgency=low

  * QA upload.
  * debian/control:
    + Bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.2
    + Vcs-* fields now point to collab-maint repository
  * debian/watch:
    + Introduced watch file
  * debian/surf.postinst:
    + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per request from user
      to the previous maintainer
  * debian/rules:
    + Introduced dpkg-buildflags by patching config.mk with
dpkg-buildflags.patch
  * debian/source/local-options:
    + Introduced local-options to undo the patches

 -- Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>  Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:28:03 +0530


If some one can upload the same for me it would be really helpful.


Best Regards
-- 

Vasudev Kamath




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:51:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:51:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
To: 657428@bugs.debian.org
Cc: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:46:42 +0100
owner 657428 !
thanks

* Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>, 2012-01-26, 13:17:
>  dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/surf/surf_0.4.1-5.dsc
>
>This package builds without any lintian warnings. Below is the changelog
>
>surf (0.4.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
>
>  * QA upload.

Here, for completeness, I would mention that you changed the Maintainer 
field to Debian QA Group.

>  * debian/control:
>    + Bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.2

Did this require any changes to the packaging?

>  * debian/surf.postinst:
>    + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per request from user
>      to the previous maintainer

Hmm. Was there a bug report about that?

>  * debian/rules:
>    + Introduced dpkg-buildflags by patching config.mk with 
>    dpkg-buildflags.patch

This is formulated in a confusing way. I had to look at sources to 
understand what happened.

Okay, so there are two changes:
1) You added a patch for config.mk that makes it honour {C,CPP,LD}FLAGS 
from environment.
2) You added a hunk to debian/rules that exports these variables.

The hunk looks like this:

+#export DH_VERBOSE=1
+
+-include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk
+export CPPFLAGS CFLAGS LDFLAGS

Unfortunately, this _won't_ do the right thing for these dpkg-dev 
versions that didn't provide the /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk file. 
Please see 
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/10/msg00307.html> to 
understand why.

>  * debian/source/local-options:
>    + Introduced local-options to undo the patches

No, no, no. debian/source/local-options doesn't belong in the source 
package. And if you look carefully, dpkg-source in fact didn't include 
it in .debian.tar.gz.

-- 
Jakub Wilk




Owner recorded as Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>. Request was from Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:51:10 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:27:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:27:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>
To: 657428@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:52:09 +0530
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 16:46 Fri 27 Jan     , Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * QA upload.
> 
> Here, for completeness, I would mention that you changed the
> Maintainer field to Debian QA Group.

I'll add this
> 
> > * debian/control:
> >   + Bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.2
> 
> Did this require any changes to the packaging?

It didn't require any changes to packaging I'll mention it in the
changelog

> 
> > * debian/surf.postinst:
> >   + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per request from user
> >     to the previous maintainer
> 
> Hmm. Was there a bug report about that?

No previous maintainer Kai forwarded mail to me as I had adopted his
dwm package. I asked the reporter to raise a bug but he didn't do
that. So what do you suggest me to do for this? Shall I raise a bug or
its not required?.


> 
> > * debian/rules:
> >   + Introduced dpkg-buildflags by patching config.mk with
> >dpkg-buildflags.patch
> 
> This is formulated in a confusing way. I had to look at sources to
> understand what happened.
> 
> Okay, so there are two changes:
> 1) You added a patch for config.mk that makes it honour
> {C,CPP,LD}FLAGS from environment.
> 2) You added a hunk to debian/rules that exports these variables.
> 
> The hunk looks like this:
> 
> +#export DH_VERBOSE=1
> +
> +-include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk
> +export CPPFLAGS CFLAGS LDFLAGS
> 
> Unfortunately, this _won't_ do the right thing for these dpkg-dev
> versions that didn't provide the /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk file.
> Please see
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/10/msg00307.html> to
> understand why.

Ok I went through the conversation so I need to build-depend on
dpkg-dev correct version for this and add conditional check for
buildflags.mk. Please correct me if I'm wrong

> 
> > * debian/source/local-options:
> >   + Introduced local-options to undo the patches
> 
> No, no, no. debian/source/local-options doesn't belong in the source
> package. And if you look carefully, dpkg-source in fact didn't
> include it in .debian.tar.gz.

Okay I read maint-guide section 5.22 again and now I'm clear this is
only for changing the behaviour dpkg-source locally. I'll remove this
section from changelog.

I'll upload finished package ASAP. Thanks for the review :)

Best Regards
-- 
Vasudev Kamath
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
To: 657428@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:52:03 +0100
* Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>, 2012-01-27, 21:52:
>>>   + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per request 
>>>   from user to the previous maintainer
>>Hmm. Was there a bug report about that?
>No previous maintainer Kai forwarded mail to me as I had adopted his 
>dwm package. I asked the reporter to raise a bug but he didn't do that. 
>So what do you suggest me to do for this? Shall I raise a bug or its 
>not required?.

Well, I wanted to have some insight into what problem we're trying to 
solve here. Having it documented somewhere (preferably in a bug report) 
would be nice.

>>The hunk looks like this:
>>
>>+#export DH_VERBOSE=1
>>+
>>+-include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk
>>+export CPPFLAGS CFLAGS LDFLAGS
>>
>>Unfortunately, this _won't_ do the right thing for these dpkg-dev 
>>versions that didn't provide the /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk file. 
>>Please see 
>><http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/10/msg00307.html> to 
>>understand why.
>
>Ok I went through the conversation so I need to build-depend on 
>dpkg-dev correct version for this and add conditional check for 
>buildflags.mk. Please correct me if I'm wrong

There is more than one way to fix this. The simplest is to have 
versioned build-dependency on dpkg-dev. (And then you don't need "-" 
prefix before include, or other conditional checks.)

-- 
Jakub Wilk




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:24:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:24:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>
To: 657428@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:49:32 +0530
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 17:52 Fri 27 Jan     , Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>, 2012-01-27, 21:52:
> >>>  + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per
> >>>request   from user to the previous maintainer
> >>Hmm. Was there a bug report about that?
> >No previous maintainer Kai forwarded mail to me as I had adopted
> >his dwm package. I asked the reporter to raise a bug but he didn't
> >do that. So what do you suggest me to do for this? Shall I raise a
> >bug or its not required?.
> 
> Well, I wanted to have some insight into what problem we're trying
> to solve here. Having it documented somewhere (preferably in a bug
> report) would be nice.

Done reported it as bugs by including mail content which I got and
added closes in changelog

> 
> >>The hunk looks like this:
> >>
> >>+#export DH_VERBOSE=1
> >>+
> >>+-include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk
> >>+export CPPFLAGS CFLAGS LDFLAGS
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, this _won't_ do the right thing for these
> >>dpkg-dev versions that didn't provide the
> >>/usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk file. Please see
> >><http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/10/msg00307.html>
> >>to understand why.
> >
> >Ok I went through the conversation so I need to build-depend on
> >dpkg-dev correct version for this and add conditional check for
> >buildflags.mk. Please correct me if I'm wrong
> 
> There is more than one way to fix this. The simplest is to have
> versioned build-dependency on dpkg-dev. (And then you don't need "-"
> prefix before include, or other conditional checks.)

Done added a Build-Depends and removed - from rules.

Re uploaded package to mentors

Best Regards
-- 
Vasudev Kamath
GPG fingerprint = C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4  C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:42:22 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:42:22 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
To: 657428@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:40:42 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
* Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>, 2012-01-27, 23:49:
>>>>>  + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per request 
>>>>>  from user to the previous maintainer
>>>>Hmm. Was there a bug report about that?
>>>No previous maintainer Kai forwarded mail to me as I had adopted his 
>>>dwm package. I asked the reporter to raise a bug but he didn't do 
>>>that. So what do you suggest me to do for this? Shall I raise a bug 
>>>or its not required?.
>>Well, I wanted to have some insight into what problem we're trying to 
>>solve here. Having it documented somewhere (preferably in a bug 
>>report) would be nice.
>Done reported it as bugs by including mail content which I got and 
>added closes in changelog

For the record, the bug number is #657646.

As I commented there, I'm not convinced that reducing priority is 
necessary. That said, it won't do (much) harm either, so I don't really 
mind.

Please consider applying the attached patch, which fixes some minor 
whitespace issues.

I see you added patch header to debian/patches/X11.diff, which is great, 
but if it was meant to follow DEP-3:
- "Last-Updated" should be spelled "Last-Update" and should use 
YYYY-MM-DD format.
- You could add Bug-Debian field.

Oh, my remark about Last-Update(ed) also applies to 
dpkg-buildflags.patch. :)

-- 
Jakub Wilk
[surf-whitespace.diff (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
Bug#657428; Package sponsorship-requests. (Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:06:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to 657428@bugs.debian.org, Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>. (Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:06:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 657428@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, 657428@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:32:04 +0530
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 22:40 Fri 27 Jan     , Jakub Wilk wrote:
<snip> 
> For the record, the bug number is #657646.
> 
> As I commented there, I'm not convinced that reducing priority is
> necessary. That said, it won't do (much) harm either, so I don't
> really mind.
> 
> Please consider applying the attached patch, which fixes some minor
> whitespace issues.

Applied. Thanks for the patch :) (That reminds me I'm always bad at
cosmetics )

> I see you added patch header to debian/patches/X11.diff, which is
> great, but if it was meant to follow DEP-3:
> - "Last-Updated" should be spelled "Last-Update" and should use
> YYYY-MM-DD format.
> - You could add Bug-Debian field.
> 
> Oh, my remark about Last-Update(ed) also applies to
> dpkg-buildflags.patch. :)

So much for trying to write dep3 header without looking at DEP3 page
;). Fixed it and added Bug-Debian too.

New version is already uploaded to mentors. Thanks for the reviews

Best Regards
-- 
Vasudev Kamath
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Reply sent to Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:27:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasudev@gmail.com>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:27:10 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 657428-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
To: 657428-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#657428: RFS: surf -- simple web browser (QA upload)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:25:20 +0100
Uploaded, thanks.

-- 
Jakub Wilk




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:35:49 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Wed Apr 16 10:58:59 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.