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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13994 > unrolled thread

I want to join the DPT

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

Contents

  I want to join the DPT vimer <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 09:50 +0100
    Re: I want to join the DPT Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-03-17 14:20 +0100
      Re: I want to join the DPT vimer <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 15:10 +0100
        Re: I want to join the DPT Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-03-17 15:30 +0100
      Re: I want to join the DPT Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-03-17 15:50 +0100
        Re: I want to join the DPT Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 10:10 +0100
          Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-03-18 14:40 +0100
            Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 15:30 +0100
              Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-03-18 18:10 +0100
                Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-09-15 18:40 +0200
                  Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-09-15 18:50 +0200
                  Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-09-18 05:20 +0200
                    Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-09-20 17:10 +0200
                      Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 11:10 +0200
                        Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-09-22 18:40 +0200
                          Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2022-09-22 19:50 +0200
                            Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-09-22 20:20 +0200
                              Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-09-24 09:40 +0200
                                Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-09-26 15:10 +0200
      Re: I want to join the DPT vimer <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 16:00 +0100
        Re: I want to join the DPT Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2022-03-27 00:20 +0100
          Re: I want to join the DPT Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 05:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13994 — I want to join the DPT

Hi,

My name is Bo, and want to contribute to Debian. And I
noticed the ITP[0] and want to help package it. Because
python is my one of favorite program language also :-)

My salsa account is vimerbf(but I do not know why it hint me @vimerbf-guest)

I have read the document: [1] and understand and follow it.

If there are any question please let me know.

Thank you all

BR,
Bo


[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007025
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13996

Hello Bo,

> My name is Bo, and want to contribute to Debian. And I
> noticed the ITP[0] and want to help package it. Because
> python is my one of favorite program language also :-)

an ITP means someone else is already working on that package, so that
may not be the right first package for you. did you reach out to the
person that opened that bug report? You may also want to look into
getting more  knowledgeable on how debian development works

> My salsa account is vimerbf(but I do not know why it hint me @vimerbf-guest)
>
> I have read the document: [1] and understand and follow it.

according to https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#joining-the-team
you need to clarly state that you are accepting the policy, and that
statement is missing in your email.

> If there are any question please let me know.

it looks like you may want to spend a bit more time gettingused to how
to collaborate in debian, and on our procedures: 2 simple and well
documented activities (ITP and joining this team) were not fully
grasped by you at the time you wrote this email.

We are happy to welcome you when ready to join and in the meantime
help if you need further clarifications, but there may be other forums
better suited to novices.

Thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#13997

Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 09:16:54AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Hello Bo,
>
>> My name is Bo, and want to contribute to Debian. And I
>> noticed the ITP[0] and want to help package it. Because
>> python is my one of favorite program language also :-)
>
>an ITP means someone else is already working on that package, so that
>may not be the right first package for you. did you reach out to the
>person that opened that bug report? You may also want to look into
>getting more  knowledgeable on how debian development works
>
Oops, sorry for the inappropriate understand about ITP, this is my bad.
>> My salsa account is vimerbf(but I do not know why it hint me @vimerbf-guest)
>>
>> I have read the document: [1] and understand and follow it.
>
>according to https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#joining-the-team
>you need to clarly state that you are accepting the policy, and that
>statement is missing in your email.
I have read the policy [0] and accept it.
Is that OK? And you said "missing my email", How to add it?
>
>> If there are any question please let me know.
>
>it looks like you may want to spend a bit more time gettingused to how
>to collaborate in debian, and on our procedures: 2 simple and well
>documented activities (ITP and joining this team) were not fully
>grasped by you at the time you wrote this email.
>
>We are happy to welcome you when ready to join and in the meantime
>help if you need further clarifications, but there may be other forums
>better suited to novices.
Yeah, The first time to join DPT is fail and I have to spend more time
to collaborate with Debian. But this is not change my mind to contribute
Debian as a ~8 year user.
Thank you,

BR,
bo
>
>Thanks,
[0]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
>--
>Sandro "morph" Tosi
>My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
>Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
>Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#13998

> >> My salsa account is vimerbf(but I do not know why it hint me @vimerbf-guest)
> >>
> >> I have read the document: [1] and understand and follow it.
> >
> >according to https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#joining-the-team
> >you need to clarly state that you are accepting the policy, and that
> >statement is missing in your email.
> I have read the policy [0] and accept it.
> Is that OK? And you said "missing my email", How to add it?

you just did with the line above :)

> >> If there are any question please let me know.
> >
> >it looks like you may want to spend a bit more time gettingused to how
> >to collaborate in debian, and on our procedures: 2 simple and well
> >documented activities (ITP and joining this team) were not fully
> >grasped by you at the time you wrote this email.
> >
> >We are happy to welcome you when ready to join and in the meantime
> >help if you need further clarifications, but there may be other forums
> >better suited to novices.
> Yeah, The first time to join DPT is fail and I have to spend more time
> to collaborate with Debian. But this is not change my mind to contribute
> Debian as a ~8 year user.

i wouldnt consider this a failure, part of welcoming new contributors
is also telling them if they need to understand some procedures
better, and so be more effective. And by no mean my reply was meant to
discourage you from contributing to Debian, and i see you're still
determined to do so, which is great!

Thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#13999

> Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
> This is my misspelt in the first request email.
> So I think I can go to to work it :-)

OMG you're right! i guess morning coffee hadnt kicked in when first
replying. I would still contact anarcat before starting any work,
because they may already have started the packaging effort and you two
can collaborate. It's also possible nothing was done and so you can
start from scratch.

if you need help, you can let this mailing list know, or if you're
comfortable using IRC, you can ask questions in #debian-python on the
OFTC network

Thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#14007

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

Hi all,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:

> > Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
> > This is my misspelt in the first request email.
> > So I think I can go to to work it :-)
>
> OMG you're right! i guess morning coffee hadnt kicked in when first
> replying. I would still contact anarcat before starting any work,
> because they may already have started the packaging effort and you two
> can collaborate. It's also possible nothing was done and so you can
> start from scratch.
>
I am a newbie for Debian develop and noticed the RFP [0]. So, hi Antoine,
Have you started to work on this? If not, I think I can finish it with
DPT's help:-).
If yes, please let us know(As I said, I am a newbie and do not know what
this is polite
to ask the reporter directly. No offense).
Thank you all,
Bo


> if you need help, you can let this mailing list know, or if you're
> comfortable using IRC, you can ask questions in #debian-python on the
> OFTC network
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007025

> Sandro "morph" Tosi
> My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
> Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
>

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

#14008 — Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT

On 2022-03-18 16:45:25, Bo YU wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> > Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
>> > This is my misspelt in the first request email.
>> > So I think I can go to to work it :-)
>>
>> OMG you're right! i guess morning coffee hadnt kicked in when first
>> replying. I would still contact anarcat before starting any work,
>> because they may already have started the packaging effort and you two
>> can collaborate. It's also possible nothing was done and so you can
>> start from scratch.
>>
> I am a newbie for Debian develop and noticed the RFP [0]. So, hi Antoine,
> Have you started to work on this? If not, I think I can finish it with
> DPT's help:-).

Hi!

I'm happy to see anyone pick up this work. I don't have the context for
that thread, but I did (deliberately) file the bug as an RFP (Request
For Package). If I would be working on it, I would have changed its
status to ITP (Intent To Package). So while it's nice to hear from you,
you don't actually need my approval to go ahead and package this. :)

(I file a lot of RFPs, mostly to keep track of packages missing from
Debian. But sometimes I do start working on them and I *do* make sure to
change the bug status accordingly.)

> If yes, please let us know(As I said, I am a newbie and do not know what
> this is polite
> to ask the reporter directly. No offense).

No offense taken whatsoever. Also: I didn't receive that email at all, I
had to be told by a friend about your response (and I don't know how
they found it!) because you didn't CC me...

By default, the BTS doesn't include the original submitter when you only
write to the bug report...

a.

-- 
From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of
Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings!
                        - Winston Smith, 1984

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

#14009 — Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:30 PM Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:

> On 2022-03-18 16:45:25, Bo YU wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
> >> > This is my misspelt in the first request email.
> >> > So I think I can go to to work it :-)
> >>
> >> OMG you're right! i guess morning coffee hadnt kicked in when first
> >> replying. I would still contact anarcat before starting any work,
> >> because they may already have started the packaging effort and you two
> >> can collaborate. It's also possible nothing was done and so you can
> >> start from scratch.
> >>
> > I am a newbie for Debian develop and noticed the RFP [0]. So, hi Antoine,
> > Have you started to work on this? If not, I think I can finish it with
> > DPT's help:-).
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm happy to see anyone pick up this work. I don't have the context for
> that thread, but I did (deliberately) file the bug as an RFP (Request
> For Package). If I would be working on it, I would have changed its
> status to ITP (Intent To Package). So while it's nice to hear from you,
> you don't actually need my approval to go ahead and package this. :)
>
> (I file a lot of RFPs, mostly to keep track of packages missing from
> Debian. But sometimes I do start working on them and I *do* make sure to
> change the bug status accordingly.)
>
> > If yes, please let us know(As I said, I am a newbie and do not know what
> > this is polite
> > to ask the reporter directly. No offense).
>
> No offense taken whatsoever. Also: I didn't receive that email at all, I
> had to be told by a friend about your response (and I don't know how
> they found it!) because you didn't CC me...
>
Oops, my bad. I forget to cc you indeed :-(.

>
> By default, the BTS doesn't include the original submitter when you only
> write to the bug report...
>
Thank you all. I have changed the RFP to ITP for the bug. I can't wait to
start the adventure. :-)
BR,
Bo

> a.
>
> --
> From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of
> Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings!
>                         - Winston Smith, 1984
>

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

#14010 — Bug#1007025: I want to join the DPT

On 2022-03-18 22:22:25, Bo YU wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:30 PM Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:

[...]

> Oops, my bad. I forget to cc you indeed :-(.

No problem. :)

>> By default, the BTS doesn't include the original submitter when you only
>> write to the bug report...
>
> Thank you all. I have changed the RFP to ITP for the bug. I can't wait to
> start the adventure. :-)

You should also assign yourself to the ticket, by making your email
address the "owner".

-- 
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway.
                        - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks"

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

#14463 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

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

Hi!

I've done a quick review of the 1.6.0 package on salsa as of commit
d5bd184a1cf73b752f80dea46d8080493a5e663b.

It looks like there's some leftover stuff in debian/copyright, i would
remove this:

modified   debian/copyright
@@ -2,8 +2,6 @@ Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
 Upstream-Name: git-multimail
 Upstream-Contact: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>
 Source: https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
-#
-# Please double check copyright with the licensecheck(1) command.
 
 Files:     *
 Copyright: 2014-2022, Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>

Also, I didn't quite follow the work on the test cases, but why did you
replace pep8 by pycodestyle in the patch in debian/patches? The patch
itself doesn't actually explain the *why* (it explains the "what" but we
typically want more than this...)

It seems like you have README.rst both in debian/rules and
debian/docs. Either one of those should be sufficient, and you should
remove the other. Same with the launcher in
python3-git-multimail.install vs debian/rules.

I'm also surprised we need that launcher at all. Normally, the
`setup.py` wrapper has a scripts= stanza which should install the
upstream one, why do we do it differently?

I would also name the binary package `git-multimail` instead of
`python3-git-multimail`, since we don't really care that much that the
thing is written in python, since it's not a library.

I think that's what I have for now. I haven't double-checked the
upstream branch to see if it matches the upstream repo I have here, but
that would be my next step before uploading... just a formality to make
sure everything matches up.

Thanks for working on this package!
-- 
The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking
the rules but by people following the rules. It's people who follow
orders that drop bombs and massacre villages.
                        - Banksy

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

#14464 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

On 2022-09-15 17:32:33, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've done a quick review of the 1.6.0 package on salsa as of commit
> d5bd184a1cf73b752f80dea46d8080493a5e663b.

[...]

> Also, I didn't quite follow the work on the test cases, but why did you
> replace pep8 by pycodestyle in the patch in debian/patches? The patch
> itself doesn't actually explain the *why* (it explains the "what" but we
> typically want more than this...)

I have just found you have reported this upstream in:

https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221

... which is great! Could you also open a PR against the repository and
link that in the patch?

You might want to review the patch tagging guidelines as well, as this
is the kind of things it answers:

https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep3/

Finally, one fundamental issue with this package is that, as you
correctly identified, it's unmaintained upstream. If we do ship it in
Debian, maybe we'd want to keep it out of stable until that is settled?

a.
-- 
I've got to design so you can put it together out of garbage cans. In
part because that's what I started from, but mostly because I don’t
trust the industrial structure—they might decide to suppress us
weirdos and try to deny us the parts we need.
                       - Lee Felsenstein

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

#14467 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

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

Hi,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 05:32:33PM +0100, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I've done a quick review of the 1.6.0 package on salsa as of commit
>d5bd184a1cf73b752f80dea46d8080493a5e663b.
>
>It looks like there's some leftover stuff in debian/copyright, i would
>remove this:
>
>modified   debian/copyright
>@@ -2,8 +2,6 @@ Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> Upstream-Name: git-multimail
> Upstream-Contact: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>
> Source: https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail
>-#
>-# Please double check copyright with the licensecheck(1) command.
>
> Files:     *
> Copyright: 2014-2022, Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>

Ok, removed comment here.

>
>Also, I didn't quite follow the work on the test cases, but why did you
>replace pep8 by pycodestyle in the patch in debian/patches? The patch
>itself doesn't actually explain the *why* (it explains the "what" but we
>typically want more than this...)

This time i add dep3 header for the patch. It should be noted that
despite this patch, it is still not helpful for upstream test cases.
I have forwarded this for upstream:
https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1245009306
(To avoid bring noisy for upstream, i just recorded it in a issue)

>
>It seems like you have README.rst both in debian/rules and
>debian/docs. Either one of those should be sufficient, and you should
>remove the other. Same with the launcher in
>python3-git-multimail.install vs debian/rules.

There should be no duplicate file. I have droped they.
>
>I'm also surprised we need that launcher at all. Normally, the
>`setup.py` wrapper has a scripts= stanza which should install the
>upstream one, why do we do it differently?

yeah. The reason why I use launcher here is bacause that @jcfp helped
me to review it in the previous time:

```
the (large) git_multimail.py file is installed twice, both as a
public module under /usr/lib/python3 and as a script in /usr/bin;
the latter could be replaced by a tiny launcher (take a look at the
nfoview package if you need inspiration; your launcher would be even
shorter because it doesn't need the sys.path manipulation)
```
I am not sure if I understand jcfp's meaning correctly and I refer to
nfoview:
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/nfoview/-/blob/debian/master/debian/launcher/nfoview

The issue is that I installed git_multimail.py twice in fact it should
be under /usr/lib/python3 only as jcfp said. So i remove it in /usr/bin
by hand.

Now I have removed the launcher for git-multimail and it should work:)
>
>I would also name the binary package `git-multimail` instead of
>`python3-git-multimail`, since we don't really care that much that the
>thing is written in python, since it's not a library.

Got it. I mixed python module and library here.

(I paste and copy another mail in here:)

>Finally, one fundamental issue with this package is that, as you
>correctly identified, it's unmaintained upstream. If we do ship it in
>Debian, maybe we'd want to keep it out of stable until that is settled?

Ok. I think so also. Fortunately, maintainer of upstream has a little
response, but that's all.
>
>I think that's what I have for now. I haven't double-checked the
>upstream branch to see if it matches the upstream repo I have here, but
>that would be my next step before uploading... just a formality to make
>sure everything matches up.
>
>Thanks for working on this package!

Thanks. This is the first package made by me with you all help.

The new version for git-multimail is here:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/git-multimail/

Thanks again for your encouragement.:)
>-- 
>The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking
>the rules but by people following the rules. It's people who follow
>orders that drop bombs and massacre villages.
>                        - Banksy



-- 
Regards,
--
   Bo YU

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

#14480 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

On 2022-09-18 11:10:24, Bo YU wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 05:32:33PM +0100, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>I've done a quick review of the 1.6.0 package on salsa as of commit
>>d5bd184a1cf73b752f80dea46d8080493a5e663b.

[...]

>>Also, I didn't quite follow the work on the test cases, but why did you
>>replace pep8 by pycodestyle in the patch in debian/patches? The patch
>>itself doesn't actually explain the *why* (it explains the "what" but we
>>typically want more than this...)
>
> This time i add dep3 header for the patch. It should be noted that
> despite this patch, it is still not helpful for upstream test cases.
> I have forwarded this for upstream:
> https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1245009306
> (To avoid bring noisy for upstream, i just recorded it in a issue)

I don't think pull requests are noisy... you should probably just submit
this as a PR upstream.

[...]

>>I'm also surprised we need that launcher at all. Normally, the
>>`setup.py` wrapper has a scripts= stanza which should install the
>>upstream one, why do we do it differently?
>
> yeah. The reason why I use launcher here is bacause that @jcfp helped
> me to review it in the previous time:
>
> ```
> the (large) git_multimail.py file is installed twice, both as a
> public module under /usr/lib/python3 and as a script in /usr/bin;
> the latter could be replaced by a tiny launcher (take a look at the
> nfoview package if you need inspiration; your launcher would be even
> shorter because it doesn't need the sys.path manipulation)
> ```
> I am not sure if I understand jcfp's meaning correctly and I refer to
> nfoview:
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/nfoview/-/blob/debian/master/debian/launcher/nfoview
>
> The issue is that I installed git_multimail.py twice in fact it should
> be under /usr/lib/python3 only as jcfp said. So i remove it in /usr/bin
> by hand.
>
> Now I have removed the launcher for git-multimail and it should work:)

Hm. This is weird. Why would you *not* want git-multimail under
/usr/bin? I understand the that git_multimail.py *module* should be in
/usr/lib/, but you should *also* have a launcher in /usr/bin/

I think, therefore, this is incorrect:

+override_dh_python3:
+       dh_python3
+       rm -f debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
+

First off, don't use `-f` there: we *do* want to fail if the file
doesn't exist, so that we can remove the override.

Second, this looks wrong: `git-multimail` (the launcher) should be the
thing that's installed under /usr/bin, not `git_multimail.py` (the
module). If the module ends up in /usr/bin, then it's probably a bug
upstream that should be filed.

Could you clarify what happens with the package right now?

[...]

>>Finally, one fundamental issue with this package is that, as you
>>correctly identified, it's unmaintained upstream. If we do ship it in
>>Debian, maybe we'd want to keep it out of stable until that is settled?
>
> Ok. I think so also. Fortunately, maintainer of upstream has a little
> response, but that's all.

Okay, so the right way to do this is to file a release-critical bug
against the package once it enters Debian.

>>I think that's what I have for now. I haven't double-checked the
>>upstream branch to see if it matches the upstream repo I have here, but
>>that would be my next step before uploading... just a formality to make
>>sure everything matches up.
>>
>>Thanks for working on this package!
>
> Thanks. This is the first package made by me with you all help.
>
> The new version for git-multimail is here:
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/git-multimail/
>
> Thanks again for your encouragement.:)

I hope that helps! :)

a.

-- 
Omnis enim ex infirmitate feritas est.
All cruelty springs from weakness.
                         - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (58 AD)

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

#14487 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

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

Hi,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:56:05AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1245009306
>> (To avoid bring noisy for upstream, i just recorded it in a issue)
>
>I don't think pull requests are noisy... you should probably just submit
>this as a PR upstream.

Ok, got it. Will do.
Sometime I mentioned the patch in the issue, the maintainer of upstream will
pick it into if he think that is valuable.
>
>[...]
>
>> nfoview:
>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/nfoview/-/blob/debian/master/debian/launcher/nfoview
>>
>> The issue is that I installed git_multimail.py twice in fact it should
>> be under /usr/lib/python3 only as jcfp said. So i remove it in /usr/bin
>> by hand.
>>
>> Now I have removed the launcher for git-multimail and it should work:)
>
>Hm. This is weird. Why would you *not* want git-multimail under
>/usr/bin? I understand the that git_multimail.py *module* should be in
>/usr/lib/, but you should *also* have a launcher in /usr/bin/
>
>I think, therefore, this is incorrect:
>
>+override_dh_python3:
>+       dh_python3
>+       rm -f debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
>+
>
>First off, don't use `-f` there: we *do* want to fail if the file
>doesn't exist, so that we can remove the override.
>
yeah, right.

>Second, this looks wrong: `git-multimail` (the launcher) should be the
>thing that's installed under /usr/bin, not `git_multimail.py` (the
>module). If the module ends up in /usr/bin, then it's probably a bug
>upstream that should be filed.
>
>Could you clarify what happens with the package right now?

The issue is that, it really seems like a bug here.

First, I install git-multimail manual:

```
sudo python setup.py install

# log is below
...
creating /usr/local/lib/python3.10/dist-packages/git_multimail-1.5.0-py3.10.egg
Extracting git_multimail-1.5.0-py3.10.egg to /usr/local/lib/python3.10/dist-packages
Adding git-multimail 1.5.0 to easy-install.pth file
Installing git_multimail.py script to /usr/local/bin
...

vimer@dev:~/build/rfs/git-multimail$ which git_multimail.py
/usr/local/bin/git_multimail.py
```

It looks like you said. The git_multimail.py is placed in
/usr/local/bin/git_multimail.py (if from debian package, it will be
placed into /usr/bin/)

The content of git-multimail.deb is:

```
   This package provides the Python 3 modules and the git-multimail script.

drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/bin/
-rwxr-xr-x root/root    161143 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/bin/git_multimail.py
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/git_multimail-1.6.0.egg-info/
-rw-r--r-- root/root     35851 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/git_multimail-1.6.0.egg-info/PKG-INFO
-rw-r--r-- root/root         1 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/git_multimail-1.6.0.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
-rw-r--r-- root/root        14 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/git_multimail-1.6.0.egg-info/top_level.txt
-rw-r--r-- root/root    161147 2022-07-21 07:30 ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/git_multimail.py
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/share/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/share/doc/
drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/share/doc/git-multimail/
-rw-r--r-- root/root     11317 2022-07-21 07:30 ./usr/share/doc/git-multimail/README.rst.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root       210 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/share/doc/git-multimail/changelog.Debian.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root      1755 2022-09-14 09:11 ./usr/share/doc/git-multimail/copyright
```
I think the people found the issue also:
https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1252529169

Certainly, lintian will give a kindly warning:
W: git-multimail: script-with-language-extension [usr/bin/git_multimail.py]

If I understand correctly, this is a bug as you said.
The workround is still to use launcher file in d/ as in previous commit?

Many thanks for your time to help me review it again :)

-- 
Regards,
--
   Bo YU

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

#14488 — Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

On 2022-09-22 17:03:24, Bo YU wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:56:05AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1245009306
>>> (To avoid bring noisy for upstream, i just recorded it in a issue)
>>
>>I don't think pull requests are noisy... you should probably just submit
>>this as a PR upstream.
>
> Ok, got it. Will do.
> Sometime I mentioned the patch in the issue, the maintainer of upstream will
> pick it into if he think that is valuable.

Yeah, that's a reasonable assumption, but I find that maintainers often
process merge requests way more quickly and easily as they just need one
click to merge. :)

[...]

> I think the people found the issue also:
> https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/issues/221#issuecomment-1252529169
>
> Certainly, lintian will give a kindly warning:
> W: git-multimail: script-with-language-extension [usr/bin/git_multimail.py]
>
> If I understand correctly, this is a bug as you said.
> The workround is still to use launcher file in d/ as in previous commit?

I think the simplest solution is not to rewrite the launcher, but to
rename it. So in debian/rules, you would simply do:

override_dh_auto_install:
        dh_auto_install
        mv debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git-multimail

Also, get rid of the noop sections like:

override_dh_installdocs:
        dh_installdocs

Cheers!

-- 
I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.
                        - Thomas Jefferson

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

#14489 — Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:35:12 -0400
Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:

> I think the simplest solution is not to rewrite the launcher, but to
> rename it. So in debian/rules, you would simply do:
> 
> override_dh_auto_install:
>         dh_auto_install
>         mv debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
> debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git-multimail

Antoine, IIRC the git_multimail.py file upstream installs into
/usr/bin is not a launcher but a full copy of the module as installed
into /usr/lib/python3. The code in that file auto-detects whether
it's run as a program.

That resulted in two copies of that sizeable file in the package I
reviewed back in June. Hence my suggestion - quoted in an earlier
message by Bo - to replace the copy in /usr/bin with a tiny launcher,
reducing the installed size of the package by almost half.

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

#14490 — Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

On 2022-09-22 19:43:24, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:35:12 -0400
> Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the simplest solution is not to rewrite the launcher, but to
>> rename it. So in debian/rules, you would simply do:
>> 
>> override_dh_auto_install:
>>         dh_auto_install
>>         mv debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
>> debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git-multimail
>
> Antoine, IIRC the git_multimail.py file upstream installs into
> /usr/bin is not a launcher but a full copy of the module as installed
> into /usr/lib/python3. The code in that file auto-detects whether
> it's run as a program.

Oh. I misunderstood that, sorry.

> That resulted in two copies of that sizeable file in the package I
> reviewed back in June. Hence my suggestion - quoted in an earlier
> message by Bo - to replace the copy in /usr/bin with a tiny launcher,
> reducing the installed size of the package by almost half.

Sure, that completely makes sense then, sorry.

a.

-- 
À force de ne jamais réfléchir, on a un bonheur stupide
                        - Jean Cocteau

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

#14496 — Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

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

Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 02:12:07PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>On 2022-09-22 19:43:24, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:35:12 -0400
>> Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the simplest solution is not to rewrite the launcher, but to
>>> rename it. So in debian/rules, you would simply do:
>>>
>>> override_dh_auto_install:
>>>         dh_auto_install
>>>         mv debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
>>> debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git-multimail
>>
>> Antoine, IIRC the git_multimail.py file upstream installs into
>> /usr/bin is not a launcher but a full copy of the module as installed
>> into /usr/lib/python3. The code in that file auto-detects whether
>> it's run as a program.
>
>Oh. I misunderstood that, sorry.

Sorry, maybe my words misled you also here.

>
>> That resulted in two copies of that sizeable file in the package I
>> reviewed back in June. Hence my suggestion - quoted in an earlier
>> message by Bo - to replace the copy in /usr/bin with a tiny launcher,
>> reducing the installed size of the package by almost half.
>
>Sure, that completely makes sense then, sorry.

Ok, I have re-enabled the launcher and other issues fixed for git-multimail
as your and jcfp's suggestions.

Thanks all and please let me know if any issues.

-- 
Regards,
--
   Bo YU

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

#14500 — Re: Bug#1007025: git-multimail 1.6.0 package review

Hi

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 3:34 PM Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 02:12:07PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >On 2022-09-22 19:43:24, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:35:12 -0400
> >> Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the simplest solution is not to rewrite the launcher, but to
> >>> rename it. So in debian/rules, you would simply do:
> >>>
> >>> override_dh_auto_install:
> >>>         dh_auto_install
> >>>         mv debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git_multimail.py
> >>> debian/git-multimail/usr/bin/git-multimail
> >>
> >> Antoine, IIRC the git_multimail.py file upstream installs into
> >> /usr/bin is not a launcher but a full copy of the module as installed
> >> into /usr/lib/python3. The code in that file auto-detects whether
> >> it's run as a program.
> >
> >Oh. I misunderstood that, sorry.
>
[...]
>
> Thanks all and please let me know if any issues.

I have sent the PR and whcih was merged:
https://github.com/git-multimail/git-multimail/pull/224

The latest version git-multimail debian package is here:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/git-multimail/

Thanks again.:)

>
> --
> Regards,
> --
>    Bo YU
>

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

#14000

Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 09:16:54AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Hello Bo,
>
>> My name is Bo, and want to contribute to Debian. And I
>> noticed the ITP[0] and want to help package it. Because
>> python is my one of favorite program language also :-)
>
>an ITP means someone else is already working on that package, so that
>may not be the right first package for you. did you reach out to the
>person that opened that bug report? You may also want to look into
>getting more  knowledgeable on how debian development works
Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
This is my misspelt in the first request email.
So I think I can go to to work it :-)
>
>> My salsa account is vimerbf(but I do not know why it hint me @vimerbf-guest)
>>
>> I have read the document: [1] and understand and follow it.
>
>according to https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#joining-the-team
>you need to clarly state that you are accepting the policy, and that
>statement is missing in your email.
I have read the policy [1] and accept it.
In fact, in my native language, the follow is the same as accept.
Whataway, I accept the policy now.
>
>> If there are any question please let me know.
>
>it looks like you may want to spend a bit more time gettingused to how
>to collaborate in debian, and on our procedures: 2 simple and well
>documented activities (ITP and joining this team) were not fully
>grasped by you at the time you wrote this email.
>
>We are happy to welcome you when ready to join and in the meantime
>help if you need further clarifications, but there may be other forums
>better suited to novices.
I must go bed for hours otherwise it will continue to be dazzling for me.
Thank you again
BR,
bo

>
>Thanks,
>--
>Sandro "morph" Tosi
>My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
>Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
>Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007025
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/blob/git-policy/policy.rst

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web