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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #770700 > unrolled thread

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2016-09-30 17:50 +0200
    Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-01 19:10 +0200
      Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2016-10-02 18:30 +0200
        Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-02 18:50 +0200
          Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2016-10-02 22:50 +0200
            Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-03 00:10 +0200
              Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-03 16:00 +0200
                Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2016-10-03 16:10 +0200
                  Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-03 16:10 +0200
              Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2016-10-03 23:00 +0200

#770700 — Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie patch
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

linkchecker, a package to check links in a webpage, suffers from a
serious bug (#839241) which makes it impossible to check any HTTPS
webpage or any page that contains a HTTPS URL.  Although it correctly
checks plaintext URLs, the HTTPS URLs are so common that it makes it
impossible to use it on any site that has any link to an HTTPS site,
or is an HTTPS site itself, which I consider a "grave" bug because it
"makes it unusable by most users".

I have made a NMU to fix the bug in Debian:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160519T192043Z.html

.... and submitted the patch upstream:

https://github.com/wummel/linkchecker/pull/656

Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version. I suggest
uploading the -1.1 version straight to stable since newer releases
were done in stable. I am concerned by a subsequent QA upload that
fixed a related issue, however:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160723T130426Z.html

I am not sure this bugfix applies to jessie, however, as I am using
-1.1 here in jessie without problems.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.6
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#771008

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.

Apparently not.

> I suggest
> uploading the -1.1 version straight to stable since newer releases
> were done in stable. I am concerned by a subsequent QA upload that
> fixed a related issue, however:
> 
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160723T130426Z.html
> 
> I am not sure this bugfix applies to jessie, however, as I am using
> -1.1 here in jessie without problems.

Confirming one way or the other would be appreciated.

Regards,

Adam

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

#771189

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

On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
>
> Apparently not.

Sorry.

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

#771192

On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 12:21 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
> >
> > Apparently not.
> 
> Sorry.

Thanks.

At first glance, I'm rather confused by:

--- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
+++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      2016-05-19 14:33:11.000000000 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@

particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
targets.

Regards,

Adam

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

#771225

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

On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 12:21 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> >> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
>> >
>> > Apparently not.
>> 
>> Sorry.
>
> Thanks.
>
> At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
>
> --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
> +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      2016-05-19 14:33:11.000000000 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
>
> particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
> files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
> of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
> least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
> targets.

Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...

Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
chroot:

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

#771246

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed

On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 16:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[..]
> > At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
> >
> > --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      2016-05-19 14:33:11.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> >
> > particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
> > files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
> > of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
> > least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
> > targets.
> 
> Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
> from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
> state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
> especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...
> 
> Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
> chroot:

Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
ahead.

Regards,

Adam

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

#771357

Control: reopen -1

[p-u bugs get closed when the package is in stable, not as part of the 
upload]

On 2016-10-03 14:26, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-02 18:05:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...
>> Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
>> ahead.
> 
> I assume you meant "stable", as documented in the developer's reference
> and that I have used before.

No, I meant "jessie" - please presume I might know what I'm doing here. 
:-) "stable" will work, but the codename is preferred, as it is more 
self-documenting.

DevRef is not an authorative source, particularly over the request of 
the person wearing the relevant hat. (Nevertheless, it does correctly 
document ${codename}-security for uploads to the security archive, so it 
would be useful to be explicit for stable as well.)

Regards,

Adam

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

#771364

On 2016-10-03 09:49:42, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: reopen -1
>
> [p-u bugs get closed when the package is in stable, not as part of the 
> upload]

Ack, I was wondering too.

> On 2016-10-03 14:26, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2016-10-02 18:05:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [...
>>> Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
>>> ahead.
>> 
>> I assume you meant "stable", as documented in the developer's reference
>> and that I have used before.
>
> No, I meant "jessie" - please presume I might know what I'm doing here. 
> :-) "stable" will work, but the codename is preferred, as it is more 
> self-documenting.

Ouch, ok. :/ Sorry about that - previous p-u I made were made with the
"stable" codename, so I assumed I was correct.

> DevRef is not an authorative source, particularly over the request of 
> the person wearing the relevant hat.

I understand. I assumed you simply were implying "stable" and not
meaning litterally "jessie".

> (Nevertheless, it does correctly 
> document ${codename}-security for uploads to the security archive, so it 
> would be useful to be explicit for stable as well.)

Understood.

Is there anything I should be doing now short of fixing the fine
documentation? :)

Thanks again for the hand holding and sorry for the trouble.

A.
-- 
A lot of people never use their initiative because no-one told them to.
                        - Bansky

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

#771365

On 2016-10-03 15:01, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-03 09:49:42, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
>> No, I meant "jessie" - please presume I might know what I'm doing 
>> here.
>> :-) "stable" will work, but the codename is preferred, as it is more
>> self-documenting.
> 
> Ouch, ok. :/ Sorry about that - previous p-u I made were made with the
> "stable" codename, so I assumed I was correct.

It's a correct choice. It's just not the one we prefer. :-)

[devref]
>> (Nevertheless, it does correctly
>> document ${codename}-security for uploads to the security archive, so 
>> it
>> would be useful to be explicit for stable as well.)
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Is there anything I should be doing now short of fixing the fine
> documentation? :)

Nope, you're all done :)

Regards,

Adam

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

#771489

Control: tags -1 + pending

On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 09:26 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-02 18:05:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
> >
> > On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 16:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >> On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > [..]
> >> > At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
> >> >
> >> > --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
> >> > +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      2016-05-19 14:33:11.000000000 -0400
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> >> >
> >> > particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
> >> > files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
> >> > of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
> >> > least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
> >> > targets.
> >> 
> >> Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
> >> from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
> >> state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
> >> especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...
> >> 
> >> Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
> >> chroot:
> >
> > Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
> > ahead.
> 
> I assume you meant "stable", as documented in the developer's reference
> and that I have used before.
> 
> Done, thanks for the review and followup!

Flagged for acceptance.

Regards,

Adam

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web