Bug#1036751: RFS: mini-httpd/1.30-4 [ITA] -- Small HTTP server
Hi Nicholas,I've uploaded again to mentors, the (now gone) lintian warning complained about missing the SystemD service for the package. I've added one from scratch and upon initial testing it performs OK.
I modified debian/rules to take the service into consideration though this raises some concerns for non-systemd Debian installations. I assume further modifications are required to intelligently enable or ignore the service (use old init.d mechanism).
mini-httpd already depends on init-system-helpers so that might not be an issue, I'll have to test on a non systemd system.
As for the old bugs, at least #491078 and #1018900 are stil present, I shall test a user submitted patch for the first one. I'll also create a salsa account soon.
I hope this mail finds you well !
Kind regards,
Alexandru Mihail
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 00:53, Alexandru Mihail <
alexandru_mihail@protonmail.ch> wrote:
Hello again, Nicholas
ProtonMail wins this time, I shall send directly to the bug as of now.
> Since you're comfortable with git, please consider creating a Salsa
> account and continuing to maintain the package in the Debian (previously
> collab-maint) group. Here's more info on what that means:
Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that
> That's ok, and totally understandable. What I meant is that 1.30 isn't
> that old compared to Bug #437932 (14 Aug 2007), #516307 from 2009.
> Those look like they may have already been fixed upstream. Then there
> are ones like #491078 that may have been fixed in Debian and/or
> upstream, or could be fixed in the next upload to Debian.
I'll check if those are resolved, of course; I'll add a suitable systemd service to resolve "missing-systemd-service-for-init.d-script".
>
> Thank you, I hope yours was as good as mine!
>
Sure was, thank you too and have a great day/night !
Best,
Alexandru
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, May 31st, 2023 at 00:06, Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> wrote:
> Hello Alexandrus,
>
> It appears that your mail user agent (possibly webmail) is encrypting
> emails to me when you "reply all" to the bug; the effect is non-public.
> It may be that the only way to fix that effect is to either 1. not CC me
> (just send to the bug) 2. Make that interface forget my key, because it
> always encrypts when a key is available. 3. Maybe there's a config
> toggle that disables unconditional encryption, for use with mailing
> lists?
>
> Alexandru Mihail alexandru_mihail@protonmail.ch writes:
>
> > Hello Nicholas,
> > Of course, please quote the first email at the bug. My apologies for omitting to reply all :)
>
>
> -- Re PM follows:
>
> > Thank you a lot for taking the time to sponsor my work, it is a great pleasure and honor for me to finally contribute to Debian packages, after 11 years of daily usage :) . Sorry for the later reply, it's morning here.
>
>
> You're welcome! :) No worries with taking time to reply, and feel free
> to ping me if I take to long to reply.
>
> > > "Do you intend to continue to maintain mini-httpd at this location (Vcs location), or do you have a new one in mind?"
> >
> > Do you have any preferences/suggestions regarding this question?
> > I am comfortable with git so forking on git wouldn't be a problem. I have no remote to share so far.
>
>
> Since you're comfortable with git, please consider creating a Salsa
> account and continuing to maintain the package in the Debian (previously
> collab-maint) group. Here's more info on what that means:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/Doc#Collaborative_Maintenance:_.22Debian.22_group
>
> It's ok if you don't want to; however, in this case we'll need to update
> the Vcs links in the package.
>
> > > "On the topic of work, has upstream resolved any of these old bugs"
> >
> > The latest upstream release is still mini_httpd-1.30.tar.gz. ACME
> > produces quality releases in general, but their release cycle is
> > pretty lethargic as they are a small team working on many tools.
>
>
> That's ok, and totally understandable. What I meant is that 1.30 isn't
> that old compared to Bug #437932 (14 Aug 2007), #516307 from 2009.
> Those look like they may have already been fixed upstream. Then there
> are ones like #491078 that may have been fixed in Debian and/or
> upstream, or could be fixed in the next upload to Debian.
>
> > As context, I've worked professionally on patches for mini-httpd for about 9 months, adding PAM support and AAA authentication. Sadly, the license of my work is evidently proprietary. If I have the time I can try to tackle all the bugs alone, as I know everything that's happening in mini_httpd.c. I'll try mailing Jef (from ACME) to see if any fixes are in the pipeline.
>
>
> Nice, it sounds like you're the ideal maintainer for Debian's
> mini-httpd! It also sounds like you already know work to get things
> merged upstream whenever possible.
>
> > I might need a wee bit of assistance with lintian errors/Debian
> > conventions as I mainly come from RPM land. I've packaged debs before
> > for my employer, but Debian's standards and procedures are very
> > different (and that's a good thing !).
>
>
> Oh good, you're already using lintian :) Please take care to use a
> recent version like 2.116.3 or 2.115.1~bpo11+1 (bullseye backport). Run
> it with the "--info" argument to get explanations. There is currently
> one warning (W) that needs to be fixed before this package is ready to
> upload.
>
> > I'm looking forward to your input and have a great weekend !
>
>
> Thank you, I hope yours was as good as mine!
>
> Regards,
> Nicholas
Reply to: