Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #9173 > unrolled thread

Re: Team upload for python-jedi

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Team upload for python-jedi Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2017-01-18 13:40 +0100
    Re: Team upload for python-jedi Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 19:10 +0100
      Re: Team upload for python-jedi Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 13:20 +0100
      Re: Team upload for python-jedi Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2017-01-19 18:50 +0100
        Re: Team upload for python-jedi Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 19:20 +0100
          Re: Team upload for python-jedi Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2017-01-22 13:10 +0100
            Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for  python-jedi) Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-01-22 23:10 +0100
              Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2017-01-23 00:20 +0100
                Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2017-01-23 02:20 +0100
                Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2017-01-23 02:20 +0100
                  Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-01-23 03:50 +0100
                    Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for  python-jedi) Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-01-23 16:50 +0100
      Re: Team upload for python-jedi Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2017-01-19 21:10 +0100
        Re: Team upload for python-jedi Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 13:20 +0100

#9173 — Re: Team upload for python-jedi

Hi,

[Ghislain Vaillant, 2017-01-18]
> Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and
> #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload?
> 
> I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder.

go ahead. I have almost working package with latest changes from upstream
git repo but some tests still fail and I don't have time to work on it
right now.
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9175

On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 13:37 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [Ghislain Vaillant, 2017-01-18]
> > Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and
> > #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload?
> > 
> > I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder.
> 
> go ahead. I have almost working package with latest changes from upstream
> git repo but some tests still fail and I don't have time to work on it
> right now.

Ok, I have got a working package fixing the RC. However, whoever did
the migration from svn to git forgot that the source tree was made of
multiple tarballs (one for jedi, one for jedi-vim) and now the vim
plugin package cannot be produced because of the missing sources [1].

[1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-jedi.git/tree/


How I should proceed now?

We could just drop the vim plugin package for now (it does not work
anyway due to #841043), and consider introducing a new source package
for it later. Afterall, they are separate projects on GitHub [2, 3].

Otherwise, I guess the svn migration would have to be re-run? I have no
idea how to do it, nor setting up git-dpm to use multiple tarballs.

[2] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi
[3] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi-vim


Cheers,
Ghis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9177

I apologize for insisting here, but I need this RC fixed ASAP for
another package relying on it and have no idea what to do now.

Thanks,
Ghis


On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 17:53 +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 13:37 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > [Ghislain Vaillant, 2017-01-18]
> > > Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and
> > > #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload?
> > > 
> > > I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder.
> > 
> > go ahead. I have almost working package with latest changes from upstream
> > git repo but some tests still fail and I don't have time to work on it
> > right now.
> 
> Ok, I have got a working package fixing the RC. However, whoever did
> the migration from svn to git forgot that the source tree was made of
> multiple tarballs (one for jedi, one for jedi-vim) and now the vim
> plugin package cannot be produced because of the missing sources [1].
> 
> [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-jedi.git/tree/
> 
> 
> How I should proceed now?
> 
> We could just drop the vim plugin package for now (it does not work
> anyway due to #841043), and consider introducing a new source package
> for it later. Afterall, they are separate projects on GitHub [2, 3].
> 
> Otherwise, I guess the svn migration would have to be re-run? I have no
> idea how to do it, nor setting up git-dpm to use multiple tarballs.
> 
> [2] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi
> [3] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi-vim
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ghis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9178

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Ghislain,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:53:05PM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Ok, I have got a working package fixing the RC. However, whoever did
> the migration from svn to git forgot that the source tree was made of
> multiple tarballs (one for jedi, one for jedi-vim) and now the vim
> plugin package cannot be produced because of the missing sources [1].
>
> How I should proceed now?
>
> We could just drop the vim plugin package for now (it does not work
> anyway due to #841043), and consider introducing a new source package
> for it later. Afterall, they are separate projects on GitHub [2, 3].
>
> Otherwise, I guess the svn migration would have to be re-run? I have no
> idea how to do it, nor setting up git-dpm to use multiple tarballs.

The SVN to Git migration was done automatically. I think the script was
just not too smart to deal with multiple tarballs properly.

For now you can just forget about git-dpm, get the sources manually and
copy the Debian directory from Git on top of them.

Now it is too late to fix the DPMT migration script, but it may be not
too late to make sure the problem does not appear with PAPT.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9179

On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 20:45 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Ghislain,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:53:05PM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > Ok, I have got a working package fixing the RC. However, whoever did
> > the migration from svn to git forgot that the source tree was made of
> > multiple tarballs (one for jedi, one for jedi-vim) and now the vim
> > plugin package cannot be produced because of the missing sources [1].
> > 
> > How I should proceed now?
> > 
> > We could just drop the vim plugin package for now (it does not work
> > anyway due to #841043), and consider introducing a new source package
> > for it later. Afterall, they are separate projects on GitHub [2, 3].
> > 
> > Otherwise, I guess the svn migration would have to be re-run? I have no
> > idea how to do it, nor setting up git-dpm to use multiple tarballs.
> 
> The SVN to Git migration was done automatically. I think the script was
> just not too smart to deal with multiple tarballs properly.

Ok.


> For now you can just forget about git-dpm, get the sources manually and
> copy the Debian directory from Git on top of them.

Just to be sure, do you mean I should leave the repository alone and
merge my work in a fresh import-dsc of the current package?


> Now it is too late to fix the DPMT migration script, but it may be not
> too late to make sure the problem does not appear with PAPT.

Possibly.


Ghis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9183

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Ghislain,

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:54:13AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> "Drop DPMT from Uploaders (due to problems with multiple tarballs in
> git-dpm)"
>
> Then, the package is no longer team-maintained?

Personally I think we could allow such packages to remain in team, even if
they are not able to use git-dpm. But Piotr is an administrator, so his
opinion is more important here.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:57:17PM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > For now you can just forget about git-dpm, get the sources manually and
> > copy the Debian directory from Git on top of them.
>
> Just to be sure, do you mean I should leave the repository alone and
> merge my work in a fresh import-dsc of the current package?

I did not mean it. You could just (I think) remove debian/.git-dpm and work
with plain git-buildpackage.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9186 — Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jan 22, 2017, at 03:00 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:54:13AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>> "Drop DPMT from Uploaders (due to problems with multiple tarballs in
>> git-dpm)"
>>
>> Then, the package is no longer team-maintained?  
>
>Personally I think we could allow such packages to remain in team, even if
>they are not able to use git-dpm.

In the past, we've discussed the status of git-dpm and team maintained
packages.  I believe I'm accurate in saying:

* git-dpm is no longer actively maintained
* even so, in the majority of cases it Just Works for us

The main thing that git-dpm gives us is patch management with usually good
enough integration with quilt.  FWIW, I use straight-up gbp for most of my
actual package building tasks, but I use git-dpm for pulling in a new
upstream, managing patches, and tagging.

We've talked about eventually dropping git-dpm and just using gbp (with gbp-pq
for patch management).  I think the fact that git-dpm pretty much works fine
in most cases reduces the pressure to drop it.  And it is true that we want
consistency across the team packages so that we can document how you maintain
them in one place (e.g. the wiki[1]), and there's no guesswork when you walk
up to a repository and want to contribute.

But we do have an "out" for team maintained packages where the standard
workflow isn't appropriate.  This can include packages for which git-dpm
doesn't work, for packages which need a different branch naming scheme, etc.
This requires you to document the differences in your debian/README.source
file.

You should be judicious about deviation from our standard team workflow.  Be
kind to your fellow maintainers and really try to work within the standard
team policies and procedures.  But in cases where you must deviate, you can
still be part of the team!  Please discuss your issues on this mailing list,
come to some agreement among the active uploaders, and document your
differences in d/README.source.

Cheers,
-Barry

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9187 — Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> writes:

> We've talked about eventually dropping git-dpm and just using gbp (with gbp-pq
> for patch management).

There are some packages (I won't mention names) that have already
started doing this.

Would it be worth creating a concrete proposal to phase out usage of
git-dpm in favour of gbp-pq?

e.g. leave packages as-is, however on next update remove the
debian/.git-dpm config file and unapply all patches. This could also
wait until after the stretch release, however not sure if that matters.

Or would dgit be a better option? I confuse I don't really understand
dgit.

I don't particular care what we move to, however it seems to me that we
really should be dropping git-dpm.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9188 — Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

On Jan 23 2017, Brian May <bam@debian.org> wrote:
> I don't particular care what we move to, however it seems to me that we
> really should be dropping git-dpm.

I think git-dpm works very nice as long as the package doesn't get too
complex. I think it would be overreaction to convert all packages, just
because git-dpm is unsuitable for some of them.

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9189 — Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

On Jan 23 2017, Brian May <bam@debian.org> wrote:
[ Convert from git-dpm to gbp ]
> Or would dgit be a better option? I confuse I don't really understand
> dgit.

dgit can be used with both git-dpm and gbp. Moving to dgit-only would
mean to use a single-debian-patch.


Best,
-Nikolaus
-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9190 — Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

On January 22, 2017 8:11:26 PM EST, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
>On Jan 23 2017, Brian May <bam@debian.org> wrote:
>[ Convert from git-dpm to gbp ]
>> Or would dgit be a better option? I confuse I don't really understand
>> dgit.
>
>dgit can be used with both git-dpm and gbp. Moving to dgit-only would
>mean to use a single-debian-patch.

Which would be horrible.  single-debian-patch means that to understand the upstream modifications, access to the packaging VCS is required.  I think that would be a huge step backwards.

Downstream consumers of our packages, like the security team and derivatives, should be able to consume the source package as a complete, non-obfuscated representation of the source. I'm not sure it's even DFSG free since it's not the preferred form of modification for the packaging (we need to ship source for that too).

This is not saying we shouldn't change.  We probably either need to adopt git-dpm or switch to something else.  Let's just make sure it's not something that uses single-debian-patch.

Scott K 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9191 — Re: Team maintained packages and git-dpm (was Re: Team upload for python-jedi)

On Jan 23, 2017, at 02:41 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>Which would be horrible.  single-debian-patch means that to understand the
>upstream modifications, access to the packaging VCS is required.  I think
>that would be a huge step backwards.

Agreed.

-Barry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9181

FYI: I uploaded 0.10.0~git1+f05c071-1 (without running tests during
build for now)
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9182

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

[Piotr Ożarowski]
FYI: I uploaded 0.10.0~git1+f05c071-1 (without running tests during
build for now)

Great. Too bad for the wasted efforts on my end then. *sigh*

As far as testing is concerned, I am forwarding the set of patches
which were necessary to get the tests working on top of 0.9.0.

I'll let you verify whether they still apply on the snapshot you
uploaded regardless. 


Also:

"Drop DPMT from Uploaders (due to problems with multiple tarballs in
git-dpm)"

Then, the package is no longer team-maintained?


Regards,
Ghis

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web