[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy

[Alec Leamas]

[Impact]

The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users to the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a source package etc.

[Scope]

This is about backporting 5.6.0 from Jammy to Focal/20.04

[Other Info]

5.6.0 is in Debian Testing. The Bullseye backport is currently in the backports new queue.

Package sources: https://gitlab.com/leamas/opencpn/-/tree/focal-backports

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

Adding the Debian backport checklist

- Current version is two versions behind. As a result, upstream directs all users to the PPA, a packaging which does not meet basic standards. Ergo: backporting is meaningful.
- The package has a substantial user base although this for now means the PPA users.
- Package is available in Debian Bookworm and Jammy.
- Opencpn is a leaf package, no reverse dependencies.
- No other Ubuntu backports exist.
- I also maintain the Debian package and is also fairly active in the upstream project.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

FWIW, the corresponding Debian backport to bullseye-backports is accepted.

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

Very minor comments on changelog:

+ * Closes: #1956004

While Debian uses 'Closes:', Ubuntu uses 'LP:', so this should be
  * LP: #1956004

+ * d/control: debhelper compat 13 -> 12.

technically, debhelper 13 is in focal-backports (and even bionic-backports), but if you don't actually need level 13 it's fine to reduce it in the backport.

Only other comment is that I see focal has opencpn-plugins_5.0.0+dfsg-1_all.deb, which is a dummy transitional package, but there's no corresponding opencpn-plugins package in later releases. Since it's just dummy/empty, having it installed along with the -backports version of opencpn and opecpn-data shouldn't actually cause any problem, but it was confusing for me (and I had to spend time investigating it during review) and might be confusing for end-users to see different versions of the packages installed, e.g.:

$ dpkg -l|grep opencpn
ii opencpn 5.6.0+dfsg1-1~bpo20.04.1 amd64 Open Source Chartplotter and Marine GPS Navigation Software
ii opencpn-data 5.6.0+dfsg1-1~bpo20.04.1 all Open Source Chartplotter and Marine GPS Navigation Software (data)
ii opencpn-plugins 5.0.0+dfsg-1 all Open Source Chartplotter and Marine GPS Navigation Software (transition)

Maybe the Replaces: should be updated to remove the version specifier (<< 4.8.8~)?

Otherwise, assuming you've built and tested it on focal, I see no other issues. Do you have upload rights? If not you may need to find a sponsor, or alternately you can apply to the DMB for PPU rights just for opencpn.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@Dan: Thanks for review!

> While Debian uses 'Closes:', Ubuntu uses 'LP:', so this should be

Done

> technically, debhelper 13 is in focal-backports (and even bionic-backports), but if you don't actually need level 13 it's fine to reduce it in the backport.

Actually, it turns out the I did need it in a way. I had dropped override_dh_missing which is
default in 13 but not in 12. It's now back in place, and the compat-level == 12 is OK as far as I can see.

> I see focal has opencpn-plugins_5.0.0+dfsg-1_all.deb, which is a dummy transitional package, but there's no corresponding opencpn-plugins package in later releases.

Good catch, which my Debian reviews missed... Anyway, I followed your advice and made the Breaks: and Replaces: unconditional. Update smoke test seems OK.

> If not you may need to find a sponsor

Yes, I need a sponsor; assuming this is the hard part. Had one contact (Gianfranco) but he seems unavailable.

Is there a formal process for getting in touch with a sponsor, like the mentors site and RFS bugs in Debian? Or should I drop a mail in the ubuntu-backports mailnig list? Or?

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

> Is there a formal process for getting in touch with a sponsor, like the mentors site and RFS bugs in Debian? Or should I drop a mail in the ubuntu-backports mailnig list? Or?

you've subscribed the ubuntu-sponsors team, so that's probably the best bet for passively finding a sponsor; there is a list that sponsors occasionally go through to find bugs to help with sponsoring:
https://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/

However as you can see from the age of some bugs in there, I would not describe it as a 'speedy' way to get a sponsor.

Individually asking people who have upload rights will definitely be faster, if you have previous experience with any sponsors. If you have more contact with Debian people, it's likely that some of them may also have upload rights in Ubuntu. Note that anyone from either of these teams can sponsor this package for you, in case you see someone who you know:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/+members
https://launchpad.net/~motu/+members

Also, I really would recommend applying for PPU upload rights just for this package, either soon or (preferably) after you have been sponsored for a couple uploads.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@Dan: thanks for input, just what I needed.

PPU rights... I first need to become a DD. I have so far said no to this, but is about to reconsider.

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

> PPU rights... I first need to become a DD. I have so far said no to this, but is about to reconsider.

No that's not true, being a DD helps but isn't required. You can have PPU rights in Ubuntu without any upload rights for Debian.

If you mean you would *prefer* to become DD first, then yeah that's fine and a good approach for sure.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

hm... when I read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess, the "Debian Developers applying for Per-Package upload rights" paragraph, the first sentence is

"The DMB has establised a procedure for interested Debian Developers to gain upload rights to their packages"

As I read this, it's pretty clear. But I could of course be wrong, and so can of the documentation. Thoughts?

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

> "The DMB has establised a procedure for interested Debian Developers to gain upload rights to their packages"

that's just the process for existing DD who also already have PPU rights to have their list of PPU packages extended.

You can apply for PPU completely separately from being DD.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

Sllly me read on the wrong place. Sigh. And thanks.

But the devil is in the details. That paragraph links to the process described in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess. But there is no description for this case. Any idea how this application should be done?

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

I'll try to make an application. F

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

...irst step is to become member of the wiki group. Waiting for that,,,

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

Hmm yes you're right that the wiki pages are a bit confusing, they probably could do with a bit of updates to clarify things.

In any case for you, this is the section for *all* applications:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess#Applying_for_team_membership

so you only need to create a wiki page using the normal template:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/DeveloperApplicationTemplate

Since you have a LP account, I'm pretty sure you should be able to create a wiki page for yourself.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

I guessed something like that. However, to be able to do it I need to be member of the Ubuntu Wiki Editors Team. My application for that is pending: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors.

I have so far tried to learn the virtue of patience in the Debian community. I have my background in Fedora, and the longish Debian processes is, well, fostering your character. Guess Ubunti is the same...

Thanks for all support!

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

> Since you have a LP account, I'm pretty sure you should be able to create a wiki page for yourself.

Nope.

[Dan Streetman (ddstreet)]

> However, to be able to do it I need to be member of the Ubuntu Wiki Editors Team. My application for that is pending: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors.

hmm, that doesn't sound right to me, I'm not a member of that team but I can create/edit wiki.ubuntu.com pages...granted that might be because of some other team I'm on, but I thought wiki.ubuntu.com was editable by anyone with an Ubuntu One account (i.e. anyone who can log in at login.ubuntu.com).

What wiki page are you trying to create? Something named similar to this right?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlecLeamas/PPUopencpn

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

Havn't tried that one, doing it now... result: "You are not allowed to edit this page."

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

Turns out that this application process is a interesting chicken and egg problem ;)

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@dan: I can understand if this thing take too much time for you. I'm just a newbie which runs into obstacles others doesn't know about -- that's what newbies do.

Also, this discussion does not really belong to the issue. Should we start a thread on ubuntu-devel instead, to get more eyes on it? Continue here? or?

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

I sponsored this to focal-backports.

One oddity is that the orig.tar.xz file includes a debian/ folder including a debian/compat file. I had to remove the d/compat file to be able to run debuild() successfully.

@Alec: Please unsubscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors from this bug.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@Gunnar: Man tackar (a. k. a. thanks for sponsoring)!

> Please unsubscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors from this bug.

Done

> One oddity is that the orig.tar.xz file includes a debian/ folder

WTF?! Something is rotten in pristine-tar, will check again. Thanks for notifying.

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

On 2022-01-18 22:53, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> One oddity is that the orig.tar.xz file includes a debian/ folder
>
> WTF?! Something is rotten in pristine-tar, will check again. Thanks
> for notifying.

Note that I didn't grab orig.tar.xz from the repo, but simply downloaded it from the Ubuntu archive.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@gunnar: I found the bogus debian/ files. It's in the upstream sources, used for PPA builds. The strange thing is that "gbp buildpackage" works without problems which has made the package sail through all Debian checks.

Anyway, the package is repackaged, so it's just to add debian to the directories to strip. Will do.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

Deleted: Swedish talk

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

please remember to subscribe ~ubuntu-backporters for BPO bugs...

As a backports team member learning about this bug from a ubuntu-devel-discuss mail felt odd :3

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@Mattia: OK, will do. Still learning.

Seems that having a discussion on ubuntu-devel is fruitful in many ways, though ;)

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

On 2022-01-19 13:36, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> please remember to subscribe ~ubuntu-backporters for BPO bugs...

Is that mentioned at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports ? (I don't see it.)

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

> Is that mentioned at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports ?

u.U - somehow, despite the plenty of reviews we made to the drafts of that page we still managed to miss it.

thank you!

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@gunnarhj:

Now, it was some days since you sponsored me, thanks for that. However, I still don't see it in focal-backports, at least not when browsing. Is this normal i. e., how long am I supposed to wait before package becomes visible?

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

It's in the focal unapproved queue:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue?queue_state=1

That's as far as I can do as a sponsor. Next it will be reviewed by somebody in the backporters team.

[Thomas Ward (teward)]

Sponsoring alone doesnt approve it for Backports, the Backports team has to review and approve. I'll take a look later, in the middle of my FT job right now.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@teward, @gunnarhj: Ah, right, this is similar to the Debian process.

Looking at that queue is somewhat scary, I see an entry from 2021-10-28. Can just hope this goes faster.

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

> Looking at that queue is somewhat scary, I see an entry from 2021-10-28

that's for the proposed pocked (i.e. SRUs), for backports yours is the
only package in the queue...

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

Looking at the diff, I also find it odd that you are changing d/watch (according to the changelog, to please lintian?). That's totally useless and just noisy (nobody is going to run uscan on this...), so I recommend you don't do that at the next backport update.

Likewise I'm not sure why you didn't drop that delta related to debhelper 12/13 as Dan suggested. It also doesn't really matter in the end, but I don't understand your point about d/rules and dh_missing…

It also looks like you added a debian/docs file adding a README. I'm going to ignore this as it is of little consequence, but if you'd like to install such README please do that in a debian/opencpn.docs file (instead of debian/docs) and do that in debian first.

With this, consider the package approved.

[Alec Leamas (leamas-alec)]

@Mattia:

Thanks for review and uploading.

I guess the review boils down to that while the delta against Jammy is reasonable small it could and should have been smaller. I can nothing but agree. Of course, there are some explanations. Doubt they are interesting, though.

If I get this right this was the final roadblock, and the package is now under way without any big delays. Which means that I have completed my first backport after stirring up quite some dust. Hopefully, it might be smoother next time.

Thanks to all of you who helped me here: Dan, Hjalmar and Mattia.

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

Yeah, it's fine, those are really small details that just raises a small eyebrow but do nothing else :)

You are right, the process is completed. The package also already built, and will be available in the archive in a matter of minutes/hours when the publisher runs :)