Status of the doc-rfc-* packages
[Please keep Kai and me in CC while responding on the list]
[Jordi, you're in CC because your are my AM, and I want to convince you of
my maintainer abilities ;]
Here is a mail about the status of the doc-rfc-* packages. As anyone knows,
those packages have a bunch of bugs opened, some of them being grave (not
installable/removable) or policy violation (non-free plus FTBFS). I did some
work to try to solve some of them, and I would like to know if you still
want to work on this package, or if we should search for another maintainer
for them. Here is the list of the bugs:
$ querybts -s doc-rfc
Querying Debian bug tracking system for reports on src:doc-rfc
(Use ? for help at prompts.)
15 bug reports found:
Grave functionality bugs - outstanding: 4 reports
1) #111218: Cannot install/remove
2) #111788: doc-rfc-std: dhelp upgrade error
3) #114754: doc-rfc-std: doc-rfc-std doesn't install cleanly
4) #115021: doc-rfc-std: Cannot install properly
Serious policy violations - outstanding: 2 reports
5) #92810: doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free
6) #133563: FTBFS: Build failure of doc-rfc on i386
Normal bugs - outstanding: 3 reports
7) #117561: doc-rfc: useless package description
8) #133124: doc-rfc: rfc2822 is in wrong package.
9) #141149: doc-rfc: errors in doc-base files
Minor bugs - outstanding: 1 report
10) #124559: doc-rfc: Spelling error in description
Wishlist items - outstanding: 5 reports
11) #31383: Glimpseindex of doc-rfc would be nice
12) #74385: doc-rfc: wishlist: I want an rfc tool
13) #116567: doc-rfc-std: /usr/bin/rfc script
14) #119589: doc-rfc-std-proposed: Please include RFC3168
15) #134524: doc-rfc: Data not uptodate
In attachement, you will find some patches, along with the following README:
>>>>>>>>>>>> begin of README
00-ftbfs.diff:
change the right on a script used during the building process to allow its
execution (Close: #153563)
05-install-docs.diff:
Fix the mess done with install-docs. The solution was easy: simply remove
all the hand-made stuff there concerning install-docs, and let
dh_installdocs come clear with it. (Close: #111218, #114754, #115021,
#155021)
06-no-overwrite.diff:
Some install-docs files were shared between various packages. Curiously,
this bug was never reported. Do anyone use force-overwrite around here?
10-descriptions.diff:
Change the description of packages to help newbies to understand what they
contain (closes: #117561).
11-descriptions-typo.diff:
Fix a small typo in description (close: #124559).
<<<<<<<<<<<< end of README
Moreover, using the update-package.sh script existing in the package, both
#119589 and #134524 (data outdated) could be closed. Note that I did not try
this script, and I'm not sure it really works, but I guess so.
So, once we solve all these bugs, only the following stay opened:
Serious policy violations - outstanding: 1 report
1) #92810: doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free
Normal bugs - outstanding: 2 reports
2) #133124: doc-rfc: rfc2822 is in wrong package.
3) #141149: doc-rfc: errors in doc-base files
Wishlist items - outstanding: 3 reports
4) #31383: Glimpseindex of doc-rfc would be nice
5) #74385: doc-rfc: wishlist: I want an rfc tool
6) #116567: doc-rfc-std: /usr/bin/rfc script
I have no idea about #92810. I guess we should either move the package to
non-free, convince the rfc editor to use a more liberal licence, or convince
debian-legal that the used licence is free enough. But since I'm not native
speaker, I don't want to swamp into debian-legal to get a consensus about
it, and I definitevely need help on this point.
#133124 is a bit more puzzling. It seems that the scripts used to split RFCs
in packages are somehow broken. I also think that the split could be better
done. See #111788 for my analyse of this problem. I have some scripts here
to remplace the one found in the package to solve this problem, but they may
be not readdy for release yet. And I would prefer not to make such a change
without maintainer's approval.
#141149 comes from the fact that all doc-base files register html files, but
the only rfc distributed in html form is the rfc1941, belonging to
doc-rfc-fyi-bcp. I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove the HTML
registration from other packages since in the future, more html files could
be registered as RFC and since registering non existing files don't seem to
break anything.
#31383, #74385 and #116567 all ask for an automatic searching tool. It seems
that #31383 present a methodology to solve this problem (based on glimpse),
but I did not investigate this for now, because I would like to see my first
changes adopted before I can go further.
So, here is my question for you, Kai, are you willing to work on your
package, or do the qa team have to declare you Missing In Action, and hijack
your package ?
Thanks for your interress, Mt.
--
Si les grands esprits se rencontrent, les petits esprits, eux, se cognent.
Reply to: