Please merge gajim 0.13.4-1 from debian testing

0.13.2 is in Debian, a merge is needed.

LTSDebianImportFreeze has arrived for Lucid; I hope it doesn't mean Gajim won't be updated.

Is there any chance to have it in Lucid as update?

Hi,

If you prepare the merge, I'll sponsor it (it seems that the patches that the Ubuntu's version has are still required).

Thanks,
Fabrice

Hum.
I'm highly motivated about packaging stuff. I thought this was a great occasion to get involved. So I've been working all day long on that issue, jumping from doc to doc... and finally it works!
As said above, I kept all ubuntu patches. This is almost all the diff between squeeze and this version, now that the menu has been added upstream. debian/rules has been totally rewritten but it seems to work quite well.
As told by https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/Merging, here is a bzr branch of my work:
https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~johndescs/ubuntu/lucid/gajim/merge-from-squeeze/+merge/25993
Debdiffs attached.

Hi,

As stated in the merge request, you package ftbfs:
...
../config/py-compile: 120: python2.5: not found
make[3]: *** [install-gajimsrc1PYTHON] Error 127
make[3]: Leaving directory `/build/fabrice-gajim_0.13.4-1ubuntu1-amd64-jwS4vy/gajim-0.13.4/src'
make[2]: *** [install-am] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/build/fabrice-gajim_0.13.4-1ubuntu1-amd64-jwS4vy/gajim-0.13.4/src'
make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/fabrice-gajim_0.13.4-1ubuntu1-amd64-jwS4vy/gajim-0.13.4'
make: *** [common-install-impl] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: /usr/bin/fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2

thanks,
Fabrice

Hi!

Fixed. Just a debian/rules hardcoded value... it now builds in a chroot environment.

Uploading new debdiffs.

Thanks a lot for your time and quick responses.

Johndescs

Hi Jonathan,

Some comments on your last debdiff:
- debian/control: Do not add a second patch system: the package already has one (simple-patchsys), so please use them, even if you have to 'convert' the actual patches.
- The Vcs-Bzr tag is not of any use as the full packaging stuff is in Debian. I would drop it.
- Debian/copyright: I would avoid changing Debian by Ubuntu in this file. So keep it as-is from Debian.
- debian/patches/00list: this file is not used by simple-patchsys, so it can be dropped

Apart from that, it looks good.

Thanks,

Fabrice

Hi Fabrice,

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Some comments on your last debdiff:
> - debian/control: Do not add a second patch system: the package already has
> one (simple-patchsys), so please use them, even if you have to 'convert' the
> actual patches.

I've just dropped the dpatch dependency. Patches don't seem to need
conversion...
I've uninstalled dpatch and done a quick bzr builddeb, so it seems OK.
[...]
Trying patch debian/patches/config-write-sync.patch at level 1 ... success.
Trying patch debian/patches/ubuntu-keyring.patch at level 1 ... success.

> - The Vcs-Bzr tag is not of any use as the full packaging stuff is in Debian.
> I would drop it.

OK, dropped.

> - Debian/copyright: I would avoid changing Debian by Ubuntu in this file. So
> keep it as-is from Debian.

I agree this is overkill, but it was a reminder from last package and I didn't
drop it as I didn't know which attitude was right.

> - debian/patches/00list: this file is not used by simple-patchsys, so it can
> be dropped

Done.

> Apart from that, it looks good.

Cool, I'm glad to have managed to do a good job with your help.
Bzr branch updated.

Just some questions now:
  - why is the changelog being merged with Debian's (or why it wasn't before?)
    Seems cool but makes a big debdiff.
  - Would this update make it to lucid (10.04.1)? It involves quite a lot of
    bug fixes.
  - What about the remaining patches? Send Upstream? It's strange to have them
    Ubuntu specific.
  - This update don't seem to close bugs (appart that one) but they are
    numerous and some seem quite outdated. What is the attitude to adopt?

New debdiff attached (I hope it will be correctly handled by launchpad).

Thanks a lot for your work

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

> - why is the changelog being merged with Debian's (or why it wasn't before?)
> Seems cool but makes a big debdiff.

It's to keep the history of the package, and quickly know what happened to the package, without looking at launchpad. This is policy.

> - Would this update make it to lucid (10.04.1)? It involves quite a lot of
> bug fixes.

For that to happen, you need to follow the SRU process, but in very rare cases, a full version is updated. For SRU, we prefer cherrypicking fixes. You also have the backport process, to be able to install the package in older version, but it won't appear as an update in that case.

> - What about the remaining patches? Send Upstream? It's strange to have them
> Ubuntu specific.

right: all patches should be sent upstream (Debian or software developper), to see if they get adopted. In this case, I don't think that the one that begin with Ubuntu should be sent, except if Debian uses the same setting for keyring: it seems to be a config choice of Ubuntu.

> - This update don't seem to close bugs (appart that one) but they are
> numerous and some seem quite outdated. What is the attitude to adopt?

Either close them in the changelog or close them by hand after the package get uploaded. Having them in the changelog would help people to know what is fixed in this upgrade. If some have been closed by previous Uuntu versions, it's better to close them by hand.

So tell me which bug reports are closed by this release, and I'll update the changelog entry.

> New debdiff attached (I hope it will be correctly handled by launchpad).

This debdiff looks a lot better! :-)

thanks!

Fabrice

> So tell me which bug reports are closed by this release, and I'll update
> the changelog entry.

This is quite hard task... some are really too old, other have patch
proposed, ...
Some are assigned to the maintainer (which was reported as maintainer in the
current package).
These with version like jaunty, I cannot test them.

If you think it is worth to upload as is, go on!
I'll gladly take a look at all that bug reports afterwards but for now I'm sorry
but I'm AFK for 3 days... if you think it's better to wait, OK but it may need
time to have answers from reporters and so on.

Best regards

Jonathan

Le Fri, 28 May 2010 08:39:44 -0000,
Jonathan Michalon <email address hidden> a écrit :
> I'll gladly take a look at all that bug reports afterwards
 done

I've spent some time this morning on these bug reports, but
  - I'm not enough experienced for numerous problems and don't know what to do.
  - I've squeezed old reports that don't matter now
  - A big issue seem to be about indicator, lot of bug and even a patch. Should
    it be incorporated? I'm going to test it but I'm no python expert and
    don't know which attitude to adopt when integrating people's patches.
  - Merge should close at least this bug:
    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gajim/+bug/505158

I've not shown ALL bugs. It takes a lot of time.
In fact I don't know if it is really a good idea to let me handle all that
stuff since I'm probably going to do (a lot?) of stupid mistakes.
But I'm always motivated…

Hi,

And thanks a lot for looking at that! I'll upload your debdiff as-is, and you will be able to close 505158 and ask for more info in the other ones.

Thanks again,
Fabrice

Le Mon, 31 May 2010 17:49:26 -0000,
Fabrice Coutadeur <email address hidden> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> And thanks a lot for looking at that! I'll upload your debdiff as-is,
> and you will be able to close 505158 and ask for more info in the other
> ones.
>
> Thanks again,
> Fabrice
>

Hi,

Thank you very much to have proposed your sponsorship and thus to have given me
an occasion to learn in an useful fashion.
Would you continue if I go ahead and try to make indicator work? I suppose it
would be cleaner to make it outside the merge, if you say you're going to
upload it.

Thanks,
Jonathan

This bug was fixed in the package gajim - 0.13.4-1ubuntu1

---------------
gajim (0.13.4-1ubuntu1) maverick; urgency=low

  * Merge from debian testing (LP: #506049), remaining changes:
    - Updated debian/watch
    - Kept Ubuntu patches
      + config-write-sync.patch
      + ubuntu-keyring.patch
    - Changed python build version from 2.5 to 2.6 in debian/rules
 -- Jonathan Michalon <email address hidden> Tue, 25 May 2010 18:54:10 +0200

Hi,

Now that we've merged from Debian, and as we are at the very beginning of the development cycle, I'd prefer to do 2 things:
- Forward the patch that Ubuntu has left to Debian and Upstream
- try to get indicators fixed in Debian first

The ultimate goal is to be able to sync the package from Debian ;-)

If you want to continue to participate, you can join the #ubuntu-motu channel in IRC.

Thanks again,
Fabrice