link to gnomescan homepage broken

[Michael Nagel]

Binary package hint: gnomescan

when clicking on
about -> gnome scan website
i am taken to http://www.gnome.org/project/gnome-scan/index but that page does not exist...

ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
Date: Sat Nov 14 13:53:25 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
Package: gnomescan 0.6.2-0ubuntu1
PackageArchitecture: all
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-14.48-generic
SourcePackage: gnomescan
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-14-generic i686

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

This bug seems a bit unimportant for SRUing, but I've opened a Lucid task, the SRU team can still weigh in.

Rolf: The lucid debdiff looks ok. For the maverick change: There are currently no patches to the upstream source in the Ubuntu package, please enable a patch system (I recommend source format 3.0 (quilt) as the easy option) and turn this into a quilt patch. For bonus points, use DEP3 headers on th patch.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

I don't agree this is an unimportant bug, at all. That menu entry is one of the first entries a user will be looking for help. It really should work. Please reopen the karmic task.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

I also don't understand why you assign to me and then set to incomplete. It's my understanding that incomplete is to request for more information from people affected, not to bug developers. You set to incomplete but I don't see what information you are looking for from Michael.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

I think the Maverick debdiff is perfectly fine as is. If you insist on bloating the Ubuntu diff more than necessary I kindly suggest you make the changes as you see fit. But if you really want to do the right thing then I suggest you merge the Debian package and work together with the Debian maintainer to resolve the dead-end that Ubuntu got itself in with this package (names in Debian and Ubuntu differ, you will need to get Debian to add some conflicts lines or else Ubuntu will never get rid of the delta in this package and never be able to go sync'ing). I don't have time to go to all this length. As such, I think patching the source straight is currently the best solution, better than creating even more delta by introducing a patch system.

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

> I also don't understand why you assign to me and then set to incomplete.

Standard sponsor procedure. Unsubscribing sponsors doesn't show up in e-mail, and I've never sponsored for you before.

> Please reopen the karmic task.

Opened.

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

BTW: I can't SRU both karmic and lucid with the same version numbers, you'll need to differentiate them. See here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update%20the%20packaging

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

On 15.08.2010 22:25, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> I also don't understand why you assign to me and then set to
> incomplete.
>
> Standard sponsor procedure. Unsubscribing sponsors doesn't show up in
> e-mail, and I've never sponsored for you before.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. FWIW, your explanation doesn't
make sense to me. I think what you are saying is that you assigned to
me to trigger a mail to the sponsors ml to document the status there.
Please correct if that's incorrect.

So far, so good. I still don't understand why you then set to
incomplete. Only reasonable explanation I can find is that you are
bugging the assigned dev (me in this case) which is a no-no and you
should know that, having much larger powers than me.

>> Please reopen the karmic task.
>
> Opened.

Thanks.

As far as the lucid and karmic SRU are concerned, you are right about
the version number. I thought about the possible conflict, but could
not remember the correct solution and eventually settled on "as long as
it's not the same release pocket, it seems to be/must be OK".

FWIW, the current system in Ubuntu is flawed. Instead of mixing SRU
releases as 2.0-2.1, 2.0-2ubuntu0.5.04.1 and 2.0-2ubuntu0.5.10.1 we
should just do what debian does in that case and ALWAYS upload SRU as
2.0-2karmic1 and 2.0-2lucid1 (IMVHO). Not sure where that suggestion
would need to be raised.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

FWIW, let's not worry about the SRU before we have agreed how to fix maverick. That's really the first step.

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

> Please correct if that's incorrect.

That's incorrect. ubuntu-sponsors receives no bugmail.

I assigned you, as you'd taken on the packaging part of this bug, and it needed more work. If you don't like being assigned to bugs, I can try to remember that for the future. You obviously have no obligation to actually work on this (you can unassign yourself and unsubscribe), but seeing as you seemed interested, it made sense that you'd want to know this bug needs work from you.

> FWIW, the current system in Ubuntu is flawed.

I don't see how that's flawed. Best place to take that up is probably with ubuntu-security, as this is their policy. The ubuntu-devel list also seems a reasonable place.

> FWIW, let's not worry about the SRU before we have agreed how to fix maverick. That's really the first step.

Agreed.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

On 16.08.2010 10:52, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> seeing as you seemed interested, it made sense that you'd want to know
> this bug needs work from you.

Feel free to continue to assign bugs to me.

But it seems you have an incorrect assumption about the incomplete status. Again, it's NOT meant to poke and bug devs. It's for requesting more information from affected people, Michael in this case. As such, I'm going to revert the incorrectly set incomplete status.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

do you want to work on merging gnomescan from Debian? Because otherwise I maintain that my original patch is and always was the most appropriate way to deal with this. I think merging the Debian package is even better, but I'll have to leave that to others (you?)

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

Michael: Sorry you ended up in the middle of this, but at least your bug is being worked on :)

Rolf (sorry I missed this message in the flurry):
> If you insist on bloating the Ubuntu diff more than necessary I kindly suggest you make the changes as you see fit.

I was working under the assumption that this was a pure-ubuntu package, I didn't notice the Debian package there (under another name). Yes, I agree with your comments. We should get this resolved. I can take it up with the maintainer if you have no time (not that I have much either), but let's go with your patch in the meantime... The standards-version bump seems unnecessary, but it won't hurt.

> Again, it's NOT meant to poke and bug devs.

Please take this up on the ubuntu-devel or ubuntu-motu mailing lists. The current sponsorship approach is stated here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Sponsorship/SponsorsQueue

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package gnomescan - 0.6.2-0ubuntu2

---------------
gnomescan (0.6.2-0ubuntu2) maverick; urgency=low

  * fix link to project page. (LP: #482618)
  * update to standard version 3.9.1
    - fix obsolete-relation-form-in-source warning
 -- Rolf Leggewie <email address hidden> Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:17:44 +0200

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

somebody please sponsor the last two patches. Thank you.

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

Uploaded to karmic-proposed and lucid-proposed. Pending SRU team approval.

[Stefano Rivera (stefanor)]

Rolf: BTW I was still subscribed from the previous upload, but you need to resubscribe ubuntu-sponsors if you want to find "somebody".

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

Thank you, Stefano.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Accepted gnomescan into lucid-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

I don't think this is important enough to warrant a Karmic SRU really. I'ts out for almost a year, so people learned to live with that. So why risking a rebuild now and inflicting an update to every user in karmic?

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel)]

SRU verification for Lucid:
I have reproduced the problem with gnomescan 0.6.2-0ubuntu1 in lucid and have verified that the version of gnomescan 0.6.2-0ubuntu1+lucid1 in -proposed fixes the issue.

Marking as verification-done

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package gnomescan - 0.6.2-0ubuntu1+lucid1

---------------
gnomescan (0.6.2-0ubuntu1+lucid1) lucid-proposed; urgency=low

  * fix link to project page. (LP: #482618)
 -- Rolf Leggewie <email address hidden> Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:14:55 +0200