Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 04:45:48PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
> I will keep echoing all the steps in a verbose manner
> at the risk of being repetitive with the instructions on
> your side. The hope is that this may prove useful to
> the next packager in training.
That's perfectly intended, thanks for doing so. I just cut things which
can be considered as done from my response.
> > http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/docs/policy.html
> The policy document says that if I intent to
> work in a package I should report that to
> "If you intent to work on a Debian package
> you should follow the normal Debian rules<http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1>
> and file a WNPP bug report."
In our case this was just done by "K.S. Bhaskar" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
2.5 years ago and is recoreded in the Debian bug tracking system.
(and as you can see on this page even twice in bug #541207)
The rules inside Debian say that if you are intending to work on such an
ITPed packages you should at least contact the issuer of the bug report.
I followed this rule by CCing Bhaskar explicitely in my first mails we
exchanged about fis-gtm. He is known to read the list so I expect him
to respond in case he sees a need to take influence. (A google search
on site:bugs.debian.org also reveals #541242 for vista - in this flavour
as RFP = Request For Packaging. I learned about RFPs in the past that
these in most cases are useless: Either you do something for the
packaging yourself or nothing will happen.)
> Looking at the list of the Debian-med blend
> It looks like fis-gtm is here
> "Hospital Information Systems":
> and that a WNPP report is here:
We try to assemble all useful information about packages (and
so called prospective packages which are high on our todo list)
at these pages.
> Should I do anything about this at this point ?
While I do not see any urgent need formally you can change the
owner of the bug report as described here:
It might make sense to change the owner to
Debian Med Packaging Team <email@example.com>
because the team is also used as maintainer in the packaging. I admit
that I'm personally a bit sloppy with this because we do the
coordination here on the list anyway. The BTS just records that
something is done about the packaging. However, sloppyness is not a
good thing when doing mentoring and thus it might be a good idea if you
do this small task to learn using the Control Request Server of Debian
> > So I would like you to
> > talk to those poeple who are responsible to release the distribution
> > tarball and ask them to unpack the tarball to some directory, say
> > gtm-V54002B
> > and not straigt into the current working directory.
> Got it.
> I just contacted the upstream team at fisglobal.
> We should be able to work with them to make this change.
This would be helpful. The good thing in our actual cooperation is that
the contact to upstream seems to be well established. I had cases where
it took me hours just to research upstream e-mail address and in some
cases I never got any response.
> Just to follow with the exercise,
> I subscribed to the list at:
Subscribing this list might not harm. Some people might consider the
list as a bit crowded. In principle you can post to any mailing list at
lists.debian.org even without subscribing the list. However, you should
be aware that list policy says not to CC the poster and thus it is a
good idea to mention that you are not subscribed and thus are
explicitely asking for a CC. In any case you should observe the web
archive for answers of people who might just forget to CC. I'm
following this procedure for instance in debian-java if I need advise
for some Java packages but I'm subscribed at debian-mentors (in both
> got response:
> uscan --force-download
> fis-gtm-server: Version (54002B) available on remote site:
> (local version is 54002A)
> fis-gtm-server: Successfully downloaded updated package
> and symlinked fis-gtm-server_54002B.orig.tar.gz to it
This is because a new version was released since the last developer
worked on it.
> then typed commands:
> mkdir gtm_54002B
> cd gtm_54002B
> tar -xzf ../../*.orig.tar.gz
> cd ..
> cp -a debian gtm_54002B
> cd gtm_54002B
> and got the message:
> This package has a Debian revision number but there does not seem to be
> an appropriate original tar file or .orig directory in the parent directory;
> (expected one of fis-gtm-server_54002A.orig.tar.gz,
> fis-gtm-server_54002A.orig.tar.lzma or gtm_54002B.orig)
> continue anyway? (y/n) y
A word of warning. If you are asked this question it is a certain sign, that
the version which is mentioned in the latest entry in debian/changelog does
not match the version of your orig.tar.gz. Usually you want to fix this by
adapting the version in the changelog - in this very case by creating a new
What is done if you answer the question above with 'y' dpkg-buildpackage
will create an new original tarball featuring the version in the changelog
entry - which is not really helpful.
> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc
> dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: debhelper (>= 8) tcsh | csh
> | c-shell libgpgme11-dev fis-gtm-initial
> dpkg-buildpackage: warning: Build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied;
> dpkg-buildpackage: warning: (Use -d flag to override.)
> debuild: fatal error at line 1340:
> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed
> So, I think we are in the same page here.
> I'm also missing the "libgpgme11-dev" package,
> but had no trouble installing it with:
> sudo apt-get install libgpgme11-dev
> Yeap. I see your updates in svn.
... fixing the issue with a new changelog entry as explained above.
> > This package should be now in our focus because we at
> > first need to bootstrap GT.M (well, you have choosen a complex package
> > for the beginning - if you manage this one you can do probably 99.9% of
> > all Debian packages. ;-))
> Double happiness... :-)
> mm, I have a question here:
> I see that you replaced the GTM version
> with the GTM version
> but the fis-gtm version that is available at sourceforge:
> Is there a reason for sticking to (54002A-2)
> instead of going after (54002B) ?
Yes, there is a very simple reason: I made a mistake! :-) Please always
expect me to do something wrong (not intentionally for sure but it just
happens - in this case because I did not tested the build afterwards.)
Just use the good chance to do a firct commit by correcting it. :-)
> Will focus on the package:
> > I hope so. As I said I'm no svn-buildpackage expert. You might like to
> > ask separate specific questions here on the Debian Med list.
> I'll skip the path (A) on svn-buildpackage by now,
> and stick to your recipe for path (B), if that is OK
> with you.
It simplifies the mentoring for me because I can save some time I would
need to learn things myself. If others on this list feel obliged to
guide you into this it would be OK. Finally you can learn packaging
proper packages even without svn-package.
> Thanks Luis for your work. I really have to admit that I'm very happy
> > how you were dealing with your first tasks. You did not gave up on the
> > first steps (ssh) but went over to other tasks fighting hard against my
> > incomplete advises. I'm really happy that we startet MoM and I'm quite
> > positive that it will be work and fun at the same time - which finally
> > is the good thing in Free Software.
> Many thanks for your guidance.
This was promised - no need to thank for it. :-)
> If I was not in the MoM program,
> I would have not dared to come thus far. :-)
But without MoM fis-gtm would probably remain stalled and so we all
profit from it.
> and will do a second try,
> this time focusing on "fis-gtm-initial".
Good luck and keep on the fine work