Debian Bug report logs - #675187
ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key

Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:28:39 +0200 (CEST)

Package: wnpp
Owner: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>
Severity: wishlist

* Package name    : curses-apt-key
  Version         : 0~2012.05.30
  Upstream Author : Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/xtaran/curses-apt-key
* License         : GPLv2+
  Description     : Text-mode key manager for apt-key

This text-mode frontend to the apt-key utility provides an easy way to
maintain digital keys for APT also on servers (compared to
gui-apt-key). Those keys are required to authenticate Debian archives
and prevent malicious packages to creep in.

----

It's basically the gui-apt-key frontend by Joey Schulze rewritten with
Curses instead of Gtk but still using the same backend, i.e.
gui-apt-key's internal backend called GAK::Backend.

Currently curses-apt-key depends on gui-apt-key, which means it pulls
in Gtk, X libraries, etc. which is surely not wanted on servers, but
still saves one from needing to do X forwarding via SSH.

To be widely useful, gui-apt-key needs to be splitted in two binary
packages: a backend and (Gtk) frontend.

I've got a PoC patch that splits up gui-apt-key accordingly which I'll
file as wishlist bug against gui-apt-key soon.

The current curses-apt-key package works fine with both, the current
gui-apt-key and the backend only packages produced by my patch, i.e.
it doesn't need changes once the patch is applied to gui-apt-key.

Binary packages for testing are available at http://noone.org/debian/.

Message #10 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key

Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:56:42 +0200

Axel Beckert wrote:
> I've got a PoC patch that splits up gui-apt-key accordingly which I'll
> file as wishlist bug against gui-apt-key soon.

Done: http://bugs.debian.org/675199

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Message #17 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:47:14 +0200

retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
noowner 675187
tag 675187 - pending
thanks

Hi,

A long time ago, you expressed interest in packaging curses-apt-key. Unfortunately,
it seems that it did not happen. In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open
for a too long time, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to
refrain from packaging the software.

This is an automatic email to change the status of curses-apt-key back from ITP
(Intent to Package) to RFP (Request for Package), because this bug hasn't seen
any activity during the last 12 months.

If you are still interested in packaging curses-apt-key, please send a mail to
<control@bugs.debian.org> with:

 retitle 675187 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
 owner 675187 !
 thanks

It is also a good idea to document your progress on this ITP from time to
time, by mailing <675187@bugs.debian.org>.  If you need guidance on how to
package this software, please reply to this email, and/or contact the
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org mailing list.

Thank you for your interest in Debian,
-- 
Lucas, for the QA team <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>

Message #26 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:03:24 +0200

Control: retitle 675187 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
Control: owner 675187 !

Dear Lucas,

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
> noowner 675187
> tag 675187 - pending

*grrr*

> A long time ago, you expressed interest in packaging curses-apt-key. Unfortunately,
> it seems that it did not happen.

Of course. Did you see the "Fix blocked by 675199"?

Please modify your script so that it doesn't touch WNPP bug reports
with a "Fix blocked by". TIA.

> In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open for a too long time, as
> it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
> packaging the software.

I still disagree on this.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Message #35 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:05:48 +0200

Oh, and once again:

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Subject: [...] changing back from ITP to RFP

This is again a case where you claim that you are "changing back from
ITP to RFP" despite the bug report _never_ was an RFP. Please fix your
script with regards to that case, too.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Message #40 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

Cc: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:44:40 +0200

On 28/07/14 at 16:05 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Oh, and once again:
> 
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Subject: [...] changing back from ITP to RFP
> 
> This is again a case where you claim that you are "changing back from
> ITP to RFP" despite the bug report _never_ was an RFP. Please fix your
> script with regards to that case, too.

Fixed.

Lucas

Message #45 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

Cc: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:46:53 +0200

On 28/07/14 at 16:03 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Control: retitle 675187 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
> Control: owner 675187 !
> 
> Dear Lucas,
> 
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
> > noowner 675187
> > tag 675187 - pending
> 
> *grrr*
> 
> > A long time ago, you expressed interest in packaging curses-apt-key. Unfortunately,
> > it seems that it did not happen.
> 
> Of course. Did you see the "Fix blocked by 675199"?
> 
> Please modify your script so that it doesn't touch WNPP bug reports
> with a "Fix blocked by". TIA.
> 
> > In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open for a too long time, as
> > it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
> > packaging the software.
> 
> I still disagree on this.

It's probably not your case, but I've seen too many ITPs or ITAs be used
as a protective measure to prevent others from working on a package to
disagree with your disagreement.

Does an annual ping really hurt that much?

Lucas

Message #50 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

Cc: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:30:08 +0200

Hi Lucas,

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > This is again a case where you claim that you are "changing back from
> > ITP to RFP" despite the bug report _never_ was an RFP. Please fix your
> > script with regards to that case, too.
> 
> Fixed.

Yay, thanks!

I suspect the fix is to close these bugs instead of retitling them.
At least I would do it that way.  :-)

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open for a too long time, as
> > > it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
> > > packaging the software.
> > 
> > I still disagree on this.
> 
> It's probably not your case, but I've seen too many ITPs or ITAs be used
> as a protective measure to prevent others from working on a package

Oh, ok. I must admit, I can't even imagine that someone tries to do
that consciously. But maybe my world-view is slightly too optimistic
in such things.

> to disagree with your disagreement.

I understand your disagreement. :-)

I also don't disagree with these mails in general. For example I saw
one for diaspora today and I thought it fits well there -- without
having looked at that bug in detail.

> Does an annual ping

IMHO those mails are more than just a ping if you change the state
of a bug report.

> really hurt that much?

It doesn't _hurt_.

As you may have noticed from the temper in my previous mails, it's
mostly _annoying_ in cases where it is IMHO obvious that changing to
RFP doesn't make sense.

In this case I'm eagerly waiting for the blocking bug to be fixed
(splitting up of an existing package to avoid tons of unneeded
dependencies) to finally be able to upload the ITP'ed package to
Debian. (And I won't give up here. ;-)

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Message #55 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

Cc: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:18:47 +0200

On 28/07/14 at 17:30 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > This is again a case where you claim that you are "changing back from
> > > ITP to RFP" despite the bug report _never_ was an RFP. Please fix your
> > > script with regards to that case, too.
> > 
> > Fixed.
> 
> Yay, thanks!
> 
> I suspect the fix is to close these bugs instead of retitling them.
> At least I would do it that way.  :-)

No, I fixed the wording to avoid implying that I was "changing back".
Yeah, weak, I know :(
But querying the past state of a bug in the BTS is not possible (one
could try to parse the mails to figure this out, but eeeek).

> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open for a too long time, as
> > > > it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
> > > > packaging the software.
> > > 
> > > I still disagree on this.
> > 
> > It's probably not your case, but I've seen too many ITPs or ITAs be used
> > as a protective measure to prevent others from working on a package
> 
> Oh, ok. I must admit, I can't even imagine that someone tries to do
> that consciously. But maybe my world-view is slightly too optimistic
> in such things.
> 
> > to disagree with your disagreement.
> 
> I understand your disagreement. :-)
> 
> I also don't disagree with these mails in general. For example I saw
> one for diaspora today and I thought it fits well there -- without
> having looked at that bug in detail.
> 
> > Does an annual ping
> 
> IMHO those mails are more than just a ping if you change the state
> of a bug report.
> 
> > really hurt that much?
> 
> It doesn't _hurt_.
> 
> As you may have noticed from the temper in my previous mails, it's
> mostly _annoying_ in cases where it is IMHO obvious that changing to
> RFP doesn't make sense.
> 
> In this case I'm eagerly waiting for the blocking bug to be fixed
> (splitting up of an existing package to avoid tons of unneeded
> dependencies) to finally be able to upload the ITP'ed package to
> Debian. (And I won't give up here. ;-)

Have you tried insisting a bit, or suggesting a very-DELAYED NMU?
As your last message is from May 2012, it might not be clear to the
maintainer that you are still waiting for that bug to be fixed, and that
this is actually a blocker for you.

Lucas

Message #60 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:42:19 +0200

Hi Lucas,

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I suspect the fix is to close these bugs instead of retitling them.
> > At least I would do it that way.  :-)
> 
> No, I fixed the wording to avoid implying that I was "changing back".

Oh, ok. Well, I still appreciate that you care. :-)

> But querying the past state of a bug in the BTS is not possible (one
> could try to parse the mails to figure this out, but eeeek).

I see. I somehow expected that one of the three "View this report as"
mbox links

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mbox=yes;bug=675187
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mbox=yes;bug=675187;mboxstatus=yes
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mboxmaint=yes;mbox=yes;bug=675187

would contain the "Processed" mails a maintainer gets upon status
change, but I couldn't find any of them in any of these mail boxes.

Without them it's indeed impossible to track the state properly. Even
the "useless messages" on https://bugs.debian.org/675187 itself only
say that something happened but not what. And refer to the mails which
triggered the action, but there's no contents showing the actual
result.

I'm currently thinking about filing a wishlist bug about this against the
pseudo package bugs.debian.org. It should offer either a fourth
mailbox type including or only containing those Processed message or
to include them in the Status mailbox.

Thanks for sharing these issues with me as I now understand way better
why your script occassionally seems to make inappropriate
modifications.

> > In this case I'm eagerly waiting for the blocking bug to be fixed
> > (splitting up of an existing package to avoid tons of unneeded
> > dependencies) to finally be able to upload the ITP'ed package to
> > Debian. (And I won't give up here. ;-)
> 
> Have you tried insisting a bit, or suggesting a very-DELAYED NMU?

I tend to show a lot of restrain with regards to NMU a wishlist bug
which would make the package to go through NEW.

But yes, I did more than just the bug report:

> As your last message is from May 2012, it might not be clear to the
> maintainer that you are still waiting for that bug to be fixed, and that
> this is actually a blocker for you.

I pinged him later in German (as it's our both's mother tongue and we
both know each other also in real-life) and he's aware of the issue. I
didn't want to Cc a German-written mail to the bug report.

Your mail triggered that I wrote him again (in German, again), not
only about this issue, but also about others in the same package. And
he agreed on an NMU for at least a few of the other open and more
severe issues in the blocking package. But I won't NMU this issue
without explicit consent from him, so it may take one more iteration.

So, yes, your "ping" helped to bring my attention to this bug again.
(But a pure ping would have sufficed, too. :-) And there's a little
bit going again, but not too much yet.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Message #65 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

To: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: curses-apt-key: changing from ITP to RFP

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:17:00 +0100

retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
noowner 675187
tag 675187 - pending
thanks

Hi,

A long time ago, you expressed interest in packaging curses-apt-key. Unfortunately,
it seems that it did not happen. In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open
for a too long time, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to
refrain from packaging the software.

This is an automatic email to change the status of curses-apt-key from ITP
(Intent to Package) to RFP (Request for Package), because this bug hasn't seen
any activity during the last 12 months.

If you are still interested in packaging curses-apt-key, please send a mail to
<control@bugs.debian.org> with:

 retitle 675187 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
 owner 675187 !
 thanks

It is also a good idea to document your progress on this ITP from time to
time, by mailing <675187@bugs.debian.org>.  If you need guidance on how to
package this software, please reply to this email, and/or contact the
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org mailing list.

Thank you for your interest in Debian,
-- 
Lucas, for the QA team <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>

Message #74 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>

Cc: 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing from ITP to RFP

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:09 +0100

Control: retitle 675187 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
Control: owner 675187 !
Control: tag -1 + pending

Dear Lucas,

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
> noowner 675187
> tag 675187 - pending
> thanks

I'd appreciate if you would look at blocking bugs before changing an
ITP bug report to a non-ITP one.

And besides, this was initially an ITP, so it doesn't make sense to
change it "back" into an RFP as it never was an RFP before.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

Message #89 received at 675187@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: bartm@debian.org, 675187@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Processed: retitle to RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:28:40 +0200

Control: retitle -1 ITP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key
Control: owner -1 !

*sigh*

Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > retitle 675187 RFP: curses-apt-key -- Text-mode key manager for apt-key

Bart: How often do I have to tell you: You have to _read_ wnpp bugs
before retitling them from ITP to RFP.

This one is blocked by another bug and hence it's totally normal that
nothing happens until that other issue is solved.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.