[request-tracker-maintainers] RT 5.0

[Andrew Ruthven]

On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 20:56 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:53:23AM +1200, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
> 
> I don't think merging the changelogs is necessary - sometimes the
> context for prior development can be helpful. It's necessary to
> supply
> -v to dpkg-buildpackage in such a case. But if we're making other
> changes
> too, I agree it's worth considering. Equally you could bump the
> initial
> upload to Debian to -2 (as long as we include -sa).

Looking at the changelogs I already have, meh, I can drop them.

> I had a look at these packages, and I have some general feedback as
> well as specific ones.
> 
> General
> - please switch to source format 3 so it's easier to add packages in
> the
>   future if needed
> - please switch to team maintenance
>   Maintainer: Debian Request Tracker Group <
> pkg-request-tracker-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>

Sure thing.

> rt-extension-resetpassword
> 
> - upstream is from git, and the tree does not match the released   
>   tarball on CPAN. It looks like 1.06 hasn't actually been released?
>   Certainly as far as RT and perl module packaging goes, we don't 
>   import the upstream git repo directly but use git-import-orig or 
>   equivalent. Please can you repackage using 1.05 (and/or if there 
>   are important things needed from git, add them as patches, perhaps
>   using git-dpm, or persuade upstream to release 1.06).

Ack. Rebuilt from the dist tarball, using 1.05. I don't think we need
1.06 for RT4, but we will for RT5. I have asked them to cut a release.

I have force pushed my changes to Salsa.

For my own packaging I have had a preference to use the upstream git
repo to allow me to see full history, but happy to switch to dist
tarballs for RT packaging.

> rt-extension-rest2
> 
> - as above, upstream is from git and MANIFEST doesn't match

Ack. Rebuilt from the dist tarball. I can't force push these changes as
I'm not a Maintainer on the salsa project.

> rt-extension-mergeusers
> 
> - as above, upstream is from git and MANIFEST doesn't match
> - this is hidden by debian/source/format, but I don't believe this is
>   an intended use of this option. Our source tree should match the
>   upstream release tarballs in preference to upstream git.
> - 1.06 is now available

Ack. Rebuilt from the 1.06 dist tarball. I can't force push these
changes as I'm not a Maintainer on the salsa project.

> rt-extension-commandbymail
> 
> - (as you pointed out it's already been uploaded - as librt-
>   extension-commandbymail-perl)
> - ah, and also has a non-standard (from our point of view) package
>   naming, that's unfortunate. We should reach out, certainly at the
>   point we're transitioning extensions to RT5, with an offer to bring
>   it into team maintenance, but in the meantime, are you okay for me
>   to remove rt-extension-commandbymail.git from the team salsa      
> project, to avoid confusion?

I'm happy to talk to the maintainer of the existing package and prepare
a transition package. Yes, happy for you to remove the repo from the
team salsa. I have a local copy if I need it.

> rt-extension-assetautoname
> 
> - I see you've prepared this for use with RT5. I wonder if it might  
>   be a good opportunity to test building both rt4* and rt5* packages?
> - otherwise looks basically, but there are some lintian
> errors/warnings
>   to fix (possible-missing-colon-in-closes and
>   missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright)

I actually used the upstream git repo here as well, so I've rebuilt it
using the dist tarballs. ;) Force pushed to salsa.

It now builds rt4* and rt5* packages.

I have fixed those lintian warnings, but lintian is upset that both the
rt4* and rt5* packages install the same man page. Has this already been
handled for transitions in the past? Do we need to create another
package for the man page?

> rt-extension-elapsedbusinesstime
> 
> - I renamed the path for this so it now appears at
>   git at salsa.debian.org:request-tracker-team/rt-extension-
> elapsedbusinesstime.git
>   (it turns out that renaming a project doesn't rename its path (!)
> - rt-extension-elapsedbusinesstime/Changes is missing from the
> tarball but
>   added in git.
>   - maybe fixed in new upstream release?

I've given the upstream maintainer a sound telling off about forgetting
to add the Changes file to the MANIFEST file and he assures me it has
now been added. (Spoiler; I'm upstream, but I won't make a new release
just to include the Changes file).

Thank you for fixing the path, yeah, a bit confusing.

I actually used the upstream git repo here as well, so I've rebuilt it
using the dist tarballs. ;) Force pushed to salsa.

I have also extended the packaging to build rt4* and rt5* packages the
same as rt-extension-assetautoname. Same problem with lintian and the
manpage.

> Sorry again for the slow review. I'll try and do much better at
> subsequent reviews - just ping me by email or IRC (Dom on OFTC) as
> and
> when you make progress.

No worries, my slowness this time round. ;)

I will look at modifying the rest of them to build both rt4 and rt5
packages, but it is almost midnight now, so time to step away from a
screen.

-- 
Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
andrew at etc.gen.nz              |
Catalyst Cloud:                | This space intentionally left blank
   https://catalystcloud.nz    |