QA before uploading zope packages

[Arnaud Fontaine]

Hi,

Gediminas Paulauskas <menesis at pov.lt> writes:

> The point  is not  to complain.  We did something,  but it  turned out
> badly.

It's how I understood it, but I was maybe wrong...

> The fails-to-build-twice bug remains unsolved,  but all the other good
> changes will become available.

Well, as  I said before,  this is  a release goal,  so I'm not  going to
upload them without fixing this issue  (which would lead to serious bugs
at the end).

Another quick  workaround if  nobody has time  to investigate  the issue
would  be to  drop debian/clean  and  ignore the  content of  *.egg-info
directory when generating the  diff by using --extend-diff-ignore option
of  dpkg-source. This  can  be done  by adding  something  like that  in
debian/source/options:

extend-diff-ignore = ".*\.egg-info/.*"

Not the  best solution  but at least  it gets things  done (I  have just
tested and it works well, e.g.  zcml files are included and double build
works well) without  uploading packages which will  trigger serious bugs
soonish. What do you think about that?

> SOURCES.txt contains  a list  of files  that have  to be  installed by
> setup.py  install. It  is generated  by  setup.py sdist  and uses  svn
> status to determine  what files should be installed. But  this file is
> now deleted by  debian/clean, and even though  the .egg-info directory
> is created, the  svn information is not available in  the tarball, and
> SOURCES.txt does not include e.g. *.zcml and *.txt files, and they are
> not being installed.

Hrm,  from an  upstream point  of  view, isn't  it supposed  to be  done
through package_data setup() parameter in setup.py? Not sure though...

> It  is  a  working  discussion between  developers,  maintainers,  and
> sponsors.  Each   have  their  own  work   methods,  preferences,  and
> responsibility. This episode ended in flames,  but we will have to fix
> that,  do other  things,  new upstream  releases, and  so  on, in  the
> future. Each of us has to learn.

I completely agree with you, but you  must understand that I did not try
to bother you by  pointing out even minor issues, my  intent was just to
help you to avoid having the same issue for the next upload.

> I contributed everything done in Ubuntu  to Debian, and asked for that
> to be  uploaded so that the  same packages are in  both distributions.
> Whatever  other  changes  are  made  in  Debian  afterwards,  will  be
> automatically  synced to  Ubuntu.  So there  is less  work  for me  in
> Ubuntu.

Yes, that's a good thing and that's why I wanted to help.

> Debian packages  have not been uploaded  for a long time,  and pending
> changes were accumulating, including the dh_python2 transition. It was
> feature freeze, so no more  changes were expected until 11.10 release,
> so a good  time to catch up upstream, before  automatic debian sync of
> the next cycle starts. Ideally, I would have liked these uploads to be
> exactly the same as in Ubuntu 11.10, to have a common starting point.

Well, I get your point but the double build issue was caused by a recent
upload of dpkg which was not already in Ubuntu as I told you on IRC.

> Then you asked to do a few  more small changes, that was expected from
> a sponsor.  Some of them,  e.g. Format-Specification and  ZPL-2.1 were
> producing lintian warnings, so they had to be fixed.

It was more  about following the DEP5 specification  because the lintian
warnings  (as  you pointed  out  rightly)  were  just pedantic,  so  not
important.

> Vcs-Browser is not something that is  worth delaying an upload or even
> a  changelog entry.  Also, it  is useless  in Ubuntu.  Another change,
> source/format, is risky.  That's why I wanted to avoid  doing this and
> similar changes at the time.

Exactly, that's  why I fixed a  lot of packages myself  before uploading
them. But, this kind  of things has to be done at  some point, better be
sooner  than  later IMO.  About  source/format,  yes  it was  too  risky
considering the issue we now have, sorry about that.

Anyhow, the goal is to add you  to DM-Upload at some point, that's why I
suggested such changes, to help you, nothing else.

>> Yes, adding debian/clean  was perhaps a mistake, but if  we didn't do
>> such  changes,   we   would  have   got   many   serious   bugs  when
>>  rebuilding  the archive  (and again, see the bug  report  we got for
>> another package which  was reproducible with *ALL* or  almost all the
>> packages you prepared).
>
> Then in the middle  of me doing the first round of  tasks, you come to
> me demanding that debian/clean is  absolutely needed to be included. I
> understand  that the  problem is  very obscure,  cannot reproduce  it,
> there is no good fix, and the proposed workaround is suspicious. But I
> do not have evidence, so I back  down, we split the work and implement
> this.
>
> Because I  have rebuilt  and tested  these packages  just a  few hours
> before, and I got  tired of demands, I do what was  asked from me just
> to get  this done,  and commit  without testing.  Then no  one notices
> packages are broken for two weeks.
>
> But this  could be avoided. Just  by placing less demands  on yourself
> and others,  and not changing things  that work because they  could be
> changed.

I  agree for  Homepage and  Vcs-Browser  fields. But  debian/clean is  a
release goal since lenny so still stands nowadays.

>>> Packages  may  not  be perfect,   but if  they contain   significant
>>> fixes, they  are  worth an upload.  I  have asked several  times  to
>>> just upload packages that were already in Ubuntu.
>>
>> When you   will be able  to  upload  the packages yourself,   you can
>> upload anything you want, but now that's not the case.
>
> That's  what I  do, being  the maintainer  of these  same packages  in
> Ubuntu. We are in opposite positions there. I have to review and merge
> your changes.  I don't  like them,  and I said  so before  you started
> making them. But  you squeezed in everything anyway, and  now you have
> broken packages in Debian. Now I have  to wait yet again for Debian to
> catch up, or merge and revert the offending change, and then do a sync
> later... Much  work for  little benefit. Ubuntu  packages are  fine as
> they are.

Let's  focus on  the current  issue rather  than discussing  again about
that.  But,  please understand  that  double  build  is a  release  goal
(perhaps it's not for Ubuntu, I don't know at all...).

>> Anyhow, as I said  above, 1/ I'm not a good  sponsor for Zope package
>> as  I  don't  know/use  them   enough,  2/   I'm  so  tired  of   you
>> complaining  and arguing  for nothing, therefore, feel   free to find
>> another sponsor (BTW,  I did the uploads just to  help because nobody
>> else seemed to care enough to sponsor them...).
>
> We  are  maintainers  without  upload  rights. We  have  to  know  the
> packages, and make  them work. If they look reasonably  OK, you upload
> them. Thank you very much.

As  long as  my comments  are considered  for the  next uploads,  I will
upload them, I have no problem with that.

> You wanted to make them even  better. Very welcome. But you stepped on
> some false positives and hidden traps, and we have pointed them out to
> you. The result is that three weeks  later, you have to do it all over
> again.

Could you please list the packages which have to be uploaded? Thanks.

-- 
Arnaud Fontaine