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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #377865 > unrolled thread

Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source

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

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

  Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> - 2024-12-08 09:20 +0100
    Processed: Re: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-12-08 09:20 +0100
    Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> - 2024-12-08 22:30 +0100
      Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz> - 2024-12-08 22:50 +0100

#377865 — Bug#1087816: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source

Control: severity -1 normal

[наб]
> d/changelog says
>   lsdvd (0.17-1) unstable; urgency=low
>     * New upstream release, from new upstream and update copyright accordingly.
> but d/copyright still says
>   It was downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/acidrip/
> whereas lsdvd 0.17 actually came from
>   https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/lsdvd

This seem to be based on a misunderstanding.  The sf.php script is a
shim script making it easier to track new sourceforge.net releases in
d/watch files.  The 'sf' in sf.php stands for sourceforge.  Why do you
believe these two locations do not represent the same source?

-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377866 — Processed: Re: lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source

Processing control commands:

> severity -1 normal
Bug #1087816 [src:lsdvd] lsdvd: misrepresents location of upstream source
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'

-- 
1087816: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1087816
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

#377929

[наб]
> Because one of them says lsdvd and has lsdvd 0.17
> but the other one says acidrip and doesn't.

Ah, I was blind.  I only noticed the structure, not the details, of
those URLs.  I do not know if acidrip might distribute lsdvd or not, but
the lsdvd URL is a much better source.

> Thus, the one that says acidrip can't possibly fulfil policy 12.5.

Do not really know if this is true myself, and do not believe such
simple and most likely cut-n-paste typo in d/copyright is enough to ask
for the removal of lsdvd.  In any case, I hope the lsdvd maintainer got
time to look at this issue soon, to render the question moot.

In other news, I am working on preparing lsdvd 0.18, and hope to have it
stamped soon.  Will most likely not be able to release tarballs,
unfortunately, only tag the git repo. :)

-- 
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen

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

#377930

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

On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 10:27:32PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>  In any case, I hope the lsdvd maintainer got
> time to look at this issue soon, to render the question moot.
The #1087839 ITS pops before autoremoval
and it looks like this is fixed already:
  https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/lsdvd/-/blob/master/debian/copyright

> In other news, I am working on preparing lsdvd 0.18, and hope to have it
> stamped soon.  Will most likely not be able to release tarballs,
> unfortunately, only tag the git repo. :)
That's a little suboptimal,
given that the watch file will be looking at the tarball listing:
  https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/lsdvd/-/blob/master/debian/watch

If the upstream release model becomes git tags,
that'll be good to know and update for d/watch before the ITS.

Best,

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web