[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1093795: marked as done (RFS: lighttpd/1.4.77-1 -- light, fast, functional web server)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Jan 2025 12:38:56 -0500
with message-id <Z5J-sMFcNqNdxU7F@nysos>
and subject line Re: Bug#1093795: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.77-1 -- light, fast, functional web server
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093795,
regarding RFS: lighttpd/1.4.77-1 -- light, fast, functional web server
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1093795: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1093795
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian.org@gluelogic.com

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd":

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/

I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in
maintaining lighttpd on Debian for a number of years.

I am listed as an uploader on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd

lighttpd-1.4.77-1 passes autopkgtests and expected CI tests,
and is tagged.  (This is a non-DD maintainer upload.)

 * Package name     : lighttpd
   Version          : 1.4.77-1
   Upstream contact : team+lighttpd@tracker.debian.org
 * URL              : https://lighttpd.net/
 * License          : BSD-3-Clause
 * Vcs              : https://git.lighttpd.net/lighttpd/lighttpd1.4

Thank you.  Glenn

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
tl;dr: I have uploaded lighttpd_1.4.77-1_source.changes

I don't sponsor much but since I'm going to provide input I'd like to
offset my comments with action. The package looks fine to me. Thank you
for your contribution.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:04:32AM -0500, Glenn Strauss wrote:
> I appreciate the response.  Please take a moment to review my broader
> critique that *everything* in the wall of text you posted was
> pre-existing in the lighttpd package and should have been reported on
> tracker.d.o, *especially* any issue that would be Release Critical (RC)
> blocking for a future release.

I agree with both of you.

  1) The sponsorship process for a routine package update is not the
     time to hold their package hostage for very small changes that
     don't meaningfully fix things with the quality of the package. If
     someone cares about them, I'd encourage them to send diffs across
     the archive, not just holding up folks without commit bits, doubly
     so when it's already in the archive. If someone truely cares please
     submit a diff to the lighttpd maintainers for their review.

  2) A lot of actual material issues don't show up as RC, in the tracker
     or even a bug as such. If something isn't tracked in the BTS, it
     ought to get opened -- but there's a slew of stuff that can only be
     found by hand, and likely only resolvable with human judgement in
     the specific circumstance we operate in. This is why we have human
     maintainers and not a cronjob :)

> If you review other RFS, kindly highlight the blocking issues separately
> from the wall of text on non-blocking issues since outsiders like myself
> do not immediately sniff out the Release Critical (RC) policies.

I would tweak this to say "blocking for sponsorship", rather then RC.
There's a class of things that aren't RC that we shouldn't upload if we
can avoid it which is a judgement call, and I don't think anyone thinks
any of the review above was RC. I didn't see any, anyway. free of RC
doesn't mean "good to upload", inherently.

I have used my judgement with lighttpd (which I use btw; thank you for
your work), and there are a bunch of lintian nits that I have ignored that
are:

  1) not worth overriding
  2) not material to the quality of the package

In fact, doing 1 or 2 to fix the lint would *harm* the quality of the
package.

> lintian would be taken more seriously if the signal to noise ratio in lintian
> was much higher.

I think this is a good callout. Lintian is maintainer-less (IIRC) and
the prior maintainer(s) are off on other things because it's a mess.

Maybe someone on this thread can put some energy into lintian to remove
bad lints, fix existing lints, or add good higher signal ones would be
appreciated by the project.

  paultag

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀               Paul Tagliamonte <paultag>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://people.debian.org/~paultag | https://pault.ag/
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋        Debian, the universal operating system.
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀  4096R / FEF2 EB20 16E6 A856 B98C  E820 2DCD 6B5D E858 ADF3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: