RFS: replaceit (#490695)

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "replaceit", closing ITP
#490695.

* Package name    : replaceit
  Version         : 1.0.0-1.1
  Upstream Author : Paul L Daniels <pldaniels@...>
* URL             : http://pldaniels.com/replaceit/
* License         : BSD
  Section         : utils

Further description (from upstream):
ReplaceIt was written as a quick, light and effective replacement to
the combination of sed/awk/grep/head/tail and other such shell utilities,
as well as being quicker in startup (at least) than an equivilant Perl
solution.

ReplaceIt has various rules which can be used to enhance its abilities
when negotiating tricky sections of text, whilst searching for the
right one to replace, these include [ on same line ] string inclusion
dependence, exclusion dependence, pre-existance, post-existance.

This is my first Debian package as part of my intent to become a New
Maintainer. It appears to be lintian clean but I would appreciate any
feedback which would be valuable. The version has been incremented
because I added a watch file after initial upload.

I have been in touch with upstream and Paul Daniels is happy for it to
be included in Debian. I have modified the makefile slightly to comply
with policy and written and included a man page. This is a single
binary package.

It builds these binary packages:
replaceit  - A quick, light and effective text replacement tool

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-1.1.dsc

I would be grateful if someone uploaded this package for me and would
consider sponsoring me though the new maintainers process.


--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 23 August 2008 21:20:15 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "replaceit", closing ITP
> #490695.

Hello,
        I can't figure out why you want to NMU your own package, perhaps there might
be some reason I can't think of right now or it is just an unintentional
blunder. Also, you can use the most recent 3.8.0 standards version, and as I
can see there are no changes needed to the package, but anyway you can check
that with: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz.

> I would be grateful if someone uploaded this package for me and would
> consider sponsoring me though the new maintainers process.

Sponsoring would be best performed by your Application Manager, but sure in
case s/he is MIA, I will try to review and upload that package for you. At
least it doesn't seem to be beyond my grasp, and I can't promise I would
upload large and complex stuff which I don't personally use and
understand ;-). However, posting to -mentors mailing list is always a better
idea, since you get more peer review.

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:28:47PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> I can't figure out why you want to NMU your own package, perhaps there might
> be some reason I can't think of right now or it is just an unintentional
> blunder.

Could you clarify NMU?

> Also, you can use the most recent 3.8.0 standards version, and as I
> can see there are no changes needed to the package, but anyway you can check
> that with: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz.
>

I will update to 3.8.0, I hadn't changed that from dh_make.

> Sponsoring would be best performed by your Application Manager, but sure in
> case s/he is MIA, I will try to review and upload that package for you. At
> least it doesn't seem to be beyond my grasp, and I can't promise I would
> upload large and complex stuff which I don't personally use and
> understand ;-). However, posting to -mentors mailing list is always a better
> idea, since you get more peer review.

As this is my first package I don't yet have a sponsor, and I
understood from the New Maintainers pages that I should already be
involved before applying. If this is incorrect should I apply for
maintainers status and get into the system first before sending an RFS?

Thanks

--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Saturday 23 August 2008 23:08:08 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:28:47PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > I can't figure out why you want to NMU your own package, perhaps there
> > might be some reason I can't think of right now or it is just an
> > unintentional blunder.
>
> Could you clarify NMU?

Ops sorry, NMU = Non-maintainer upload. On my second thoughts it dawned on me
that it might be your AM (Application Manager) who asked you to prepare an
NMU, and he is now MIA (Missing In Action), but now I realize that you might
had issued dch when your name<mail> had not been listed in Maintainer or
Uploaders fields, therefor `Non-maintainer upload' had been added. Nevermind,
you want 1.0.0-2 or 1.0.0-1 in your debian/changelog. On the other hand,
there is nothing wrong to upload an NMU of your package for you, but we don't
have any good reasons to do so ;-)

> > Also, you can use the most recent 3.8.0 standards version, and as I
> > can see there are no changes needed to the package, but anyway you can
> > check that with: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz.
>
> I will update to 3.8.0, I hadn't changed that from dh_make.

I see, lintian is here to warn.

> > Sponsoring would be best performed by your Application Manager, but sure
> > in case s/he is MIA, I will try to review and upload that package for
> > you. At least it doesn't seem to be beyond my grasp, and I can't promise
> > I would upload large and complex stuff which I don't personally use and
> > understand ;-). However, posting to -mentors mailing list is always a
> > better idea, since you get more peer review.
>
> As this is my first package I don't yet have a sponsor, and I
> understood from the New Maintainers pages that I should already be
> involved before applying.

You are correct. It is best to be involved before applying. So, correct the
standards version and debian revision and I will sponsor.

> If this is incorrect should I apply for
> maintainers status and get into the system first before sending an RFS?

Anyone can send an RFS and gets eventually sponsored, but it is always better
if they intend to enter NM (New Maintainers) queue, pass it successfully and
take responsibility of their packages at some future point.

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:28:46AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > Also, you can use the most recent 3.8.0 standards version, and as I
> > > can see there are no changes needed to the package, but anyway you can
> > > check that with: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz.
> >
> > I will update to 3.8.0, I hadn't changed that from dh_make.
>
> I see, lintian is here to warn.

It didn't say anything, is it an optional preference?

> > > Sponsoring would be best performed by your Application Manager, but sure
> > > in case s/he is MIA, I will try to review and upload that package for
> > > you. At least it doesn't seem to be beyond my grasp, and I can't promise
> > > I would upload large and complex stuff which I don't personally use and
> > > understand ;-). However, posting to -mentors mailing list is always a
> > > better idea, since you get more peer review.
> >
> > As this is my first package I don't yet have a sponsor, and I
> > understood from the New Maintainers pages that I should already be
> > involved before applying.
>
> You are correct. It is best to be involved before applying. So, correct the
> standards version and debian revision and I will sponsor.

Excellent, thank you. It is correct now (there were no changed to be made to get to standards version 3.8) and is available at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-1.2.dsc

> > If this is incorrect should I apply for
> > maintainers status and get into the system first before sending an RFS?
>
> Anyone can send an RFS and gets eventually sponsored, but it is always better
> if they intend to enter NM (New Maintainers) queue, pass it successfully and
> take responsibility of their packages at some future point.

Perhaps I have just confused myself, but
http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-checklist says this:

"For the NM process to be the most efficient, Applicants should have
already contributed significantly to Debian. This can be done through
packaging, documentation, Quality Assurance, ..."

which implies to me that I should already have worked on a few packages
and had them sponsored before applying. If I've just got in a muddle
do please correct me :-)

I really appreciate your help, sorry if these are really newbie
questions.

Cheers

--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:59:00PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:

> Perhaps I have just confused myself, but
> http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-checklist says this:
>
> "For the NM process to be the most efficient, Applicants should have
> already contributed significantly to Debian. This can be done through
> packaging, documentation, Quality Assurance, ..."
>
> which implies to me that I should already have worked on a few packages
> and had them sponsored before applying. If I've just got in a muddle
> do please correct me :-)
>

I've just read your mail again and realised that's exactly what you
said. Sorry!


--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Sunday 24 August 2008 00:59:00 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:28:46AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > Also, you can use the most recent 3.8.0 standards version, and as I
> > > > can see there are no changes needed to the package, but anyway you
> > > > can check that with:
> > > > /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz.
> > >
> > > I will update to 3.8.0, I hadn't changed that from dh_make.
> >
> > I see, lintian is here to warn.
>
> It didn't say anything, is it an optional preference?

You are probably using an older version of lintian. Since your
debian/changelog says you are targeting unstable you should build and lint
your packages on unstable. If you don't have unstable at hand, there is an
easy way to do that on your stable or testing system, and it is to use
cowbuilder tool (from package cowdancer) to prepare (and later update) a
clean chroot system of unstable (sid). See examples of cowbuilder(8), but
basicaly you need:

cowbuilder --create --distribution unstable
cowbuilder --login

then install the build dependencies of your package and you are ready to
perform build/lint/fix/install/deinstall/fix cycles at will. Using a clean
chrooted system also brings the benefit that unsatisfied build depends are
easily caught, and you are sure that your binaries will not link with any
obscure library files laying around you might happen to have locally
installed (in /usr/local for example). This is just for future reference, you
have nothing to fix now in your package with regard to a clean chroot
environment.

> > > > Sponsoring would be best performed by your Application Manager, but
> > > > sure in case s/he is MIA, I will try to review and upload that
> > > > package for you. At least it doesn't seem to be beyond my grasp, and
> > > > I can't promise I would upload large and complex stuff which I don't
> > > > personally use and understand ;-). However, posting to -mentors
> > > > mailing list is always a better idea, since you get more peer review.
> > >
> > > As this is my first package I don't yet have a sponsor, and I
> > > understood from the New Maintainers pages that I should already be
> > > involved before applying.
> >
> > You are correct. It is best to be involved before applying. So, correct
> > the standards version and debian revision and I will sponsor.
>
> Excellent, thank you. It is correct now (there were no changed to be made
> to get to standards version 3.8) and is available at
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-1.2.
>dsc

Probably I wasn't clear enough with my previous message, but I now see that I
wrote "1.0.0-2 or 1.0.0-1 in your debian/changelog". So, in a package version
like A.B.C-X.Y, in the second part (the debian revision)  `.Y' is reserved
for NMU's, so you want a non-NMU version like A.B.C-X or replaceit_1.0.0-2.

Ok, more explanations follows: Why `dch' puts such NMU versions to your
debian/changelog ? Because you have different email address in debian/control
and debian/changelog (or environment). The fix is simple, put your most
recent email from debian/changelog to debian/control, and dch will not
consider you anymore as non-maintainer of that package and won't bring NMU
(-X.Y) versions in your future changelog entries. You can also combine the
last three entries in your debian/chanelog as 1.0.0-2, or just combined them
all in a single 1.0.0-1 entry, at your convinience. Usually I don't prefer
that since that kills history, and these packages are in the wild, but it is
acceptable sometimes.

Why lintian does not complain for incorrect NMU, then ? Because what you have
prepared it is a perfectly valid NMU ;-)

> > > If this is incorrect should I apply for
> > > maintainers status and get into the system first before sending an RFS?
> >
> > Anyone can send an RFS and gets eventually sponsored, but it is always
> > better if they intend to enter NM (New Maintainers) queue, pass it
> > successfully and take responsibility of their packages at some future
> > point.
>
> Perhaps I have just confused myself, but
> http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-checklist says this:
>
> "For the NM process to be the most efficient, Applicants should have
> already contributed significantly to Debian. This can be done through
> packaging, documentation, Quality Assurance, ..."
>
> which implies to me that I should already have worked on a few packages
> and had them sponsored before applying.

That is correct. Another way to get involved and help Debian as a whole (it is
not mandatory, but very helpful/useful) is to find out a neglected package at
http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp
try to fix some of its bugs or send patches to the BTS (Bug Tracking System)
or simply adopt it.

> If I've just got in a muddle do please correct me :-)

Well, I'm trying to ;-) and yes, rereading messages is very useful, I do that
constantly ;-)

> I really appreciate your help, sorry if these are really newbie
> questions.

Basically, there is nothing to worry about, since -mentors list is for helping
new maintainers. Debian is a very broad plateau, but that shouldn't frighten
the new maintainers of course.

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 05:16:12AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> perform build/lint/fix/install/deinstall/fix cycles at will. Using a clean
> chrooted system also brings the benefit that unsatisfied build depends are
> easily caught, and you are sure that your binaries will not link with any
> obscure library files laying around you might happen to have locally
> installed (in /usr/local for example). This is just for future reference, you
> have nothing to fix now in your package with regard to a clean chroot
> environment.

I'll investigate cowbuilder, thanks for the tip.

> Probably I wasn't clear enough with my previous message, but I now see that I
> wrote "1.0.0-2 or 1.0.0-1 in your debian/changelog". So, in a package version
> like A.B.C-X.Y, in the second part (the debian revision)  `.Y' is reserved
> for NMU's, so you want a non-NMU version like A.B.C-X or replaceit_1.0.0-2.

It's now correct (I think) and available at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-2.dsc.
I think I worked out what happened: I don't have the correct email in
DEBEMAIL so dch used my local address, and I didn't spot it.

--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Sunday 24 August 2008 16:23:55 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:

Hello,

> > Probably I wasn't clear enough with my previous message, but I now see
> > that I wrote "1.0.0-2 or 1.0.0-1 in your debian/changelog". So, in a
> > package version like A.B.C-X.Y, in the second part (the debian revision)
> > `.Y' is reserved for NMU's, so you want a non-NMU version like A.B.C-X or
> > replaceit_1.0.0-2.
>
> It's now correct (I think) and available at
>http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/replaceit/replaceit_1.0.0-2.dsc.

Okay, uploaded, thanks for your patience. This will go through Debian NEW
queue [1] which will take some time.

I dared to change your last debian/changelog entry (I hope it is ok with you)
from:
* Incremented version correctly (no longer NMU)
to:
* Incremented version correctly (no longer non-maintainer version)

since lintian was trying to be too smart, but was wrong to complain for:

W: replaceit source: changelog-should-not-mention-nmu
N:
N:   The first line of the changelog entry for this package appears to
N:   indicate it is a non-maintainer upload (by including either that
N:   string or the string "NMU" and not saying that it's an
N:   acknowledgement), but the changelog indicates the person making this
N:   release is one of the maintainers.
N:
N:   If this was intended to be an NMU, do not add yourself as a maintainer
N:   or uploader. Otherwise, please rephrase your changelog entry to not
N:   cause confusion.
N:

not a big deal though, but it was your `NMU' string which made lintian to
consider it as an incorrect NMU. That is not your fault of course since it
was mentioned in a completely different context. I don't think that lintian
needs some more logic to be injected, since a simple rephrase for that
changelog entry is completely in order and easy to do.

> I think I worked out what happened: I don't have the correct email in
> DEBEMAIL so dch used my local address, and I didn't spot it.

Exactly.

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 08:49:21PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Okay, uploaded, thanks for your patience. This will go through Debian NEW
> queue [1] which will take some time.

Cool, thanks :)

>
> I dared to change your last debian/changelog entry (I hope it is ok with you)
> from:
> * Incremented version correctly (no longer NMU)
> to:
> * Incremented version correctly (no longer non-maintainer version)
>
> since lintian was trying to be too smart, but was wrong to complain for:
>
> W: replaceit source: changelog-should-not-mention-nmu

Fine by me. I agree, the warning is useful in the right context, but
not in this case.

I've never reached this stage, obviously - what happens to the package
now that it's in the new queue? I notice also that it doesn't have my
ITP bug number listed under 'Closes', is that something I haven't done
correctly?

Thanks


--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Sunday 24 August 2008 21:09:06 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 08:49:21PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > Okay, uploaded, thanks for your patience. This will go through Debian NEW
> > queue [1] which will take some time.
>
> Cool, thanks :)

Welcome.

> I've never reached this stage, obviously - what happens to the package
> now that it's in the new queue?

It will be reviewed by the ftpmasters, and eventually accepted or rejected.
This happens automatically for any uploads which introduce any new binary or
source packages.

> I notice also that it doesn't have my
> ITP bug number listed under 'Closes', is that something I haven't done
> correctly?

Ops, good catch, and this is my fault. I actually didn't forget to pass the -v
option to dpkg-buildpackage giving it the first package version found in the
changelog (1.0.0-1) in order to include all the entries in the changes file,
but in fact it appeared to just start from that version on, not including it.
So, we should close that ITP manually after the package gets approved and
enters unstable (sid) via BTS (Bug Tracking System) email interface. So, if
you prefer to gain some BTS experience then please do close it for me,
otherwise I'll do it for you ;-)

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> option to dpkg-buildpackage giving it the first package version found in the
> changelog (1.0.0-1) in order to include all the entries in the changes file,
> but in fact it appeared to just start from that version on, not including it.
> So, we should close that ITP manually after the package gets approved and
> enters unstable (sid) via BTS (Bug Tracking System) email interface. So, if
> you prefer to gain some BTS experience then please do close it for me,
> otherwise I'll do it for you ;-)
>

No, that's fine. I'll close it when it goes in (presumably I'll get a
mail when it does?)

I have another package that's almost ready for feedback. Woud you
prefer to see it or should I advertise an RFS? Not sure what the
protocol is here.

Cheers

--
Jonathan Wiltshire

[George Danchev]

On Sunday 24 August 2008 21:49:34 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:01PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
--cut--
> No, that's fine. I'll close it when it goes in (presumably I'll get a
> mail when it does?)

Yes, we will be mailed about that.

> I have another package that's almost ready for feedback. Woud you
> prefer to see it or should I advertise an RFS? Not sure what the
> protocol is here.

Well, basically it is always better to get as much public peer review as you
can, so RFS to mentors is the preferred protocol. Also, there is no single
person who is ready to sponsor everything; for example I won't sponsor stuff
I don't intent to use, don't understand or hate with passion (php, java or
web apps) but another sponsor will do. So, to summarize; the more eyes, the
better ;-)

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...