Re: working on package
Hello, On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 17:02 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Should I post a message somewhere when I start to work on a package? as you already sent an email you could fill us in anyways, yes. Is it something completely new or an update to an existing package? If it's a new package you may want to file an ITP[0]. -- Stephan [0] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to get an sponsor (need a bit more info)
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 21:00 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Hi, O, I've uploaded an packages and requested for an sponsor, also mailed it to the list. What is next? Wait and see? But what if potential sponsors are not satisfied with my package? Can I get some comments, or does this mean I sit and wait for nothing? It's my first package so, would be nice if I get feedback if it needs improvements... How did you request sponsorship? Did you send an RFS email to this mailing list as suggested on mentors.d.n? If you haven't and plan to do so, please use the RFS template on mentors.d.n. If you don't know where that is go to your package's page and look at the bottom where you should see a link. When someone decides to sponsor your package that person will approach you. Usually you get back comments from not only your prospective sponsor, but from a few other people too after sending the RFS mail. Hope that makes things a bit clearer for you. -- Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: working on package
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 20:56 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Stephan Peijnik wrote: Hello, On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 17:02 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Should I post a message somewhere when I start to work on a package? as you already sent an email you could fill us in anyways, yes. Is it something completely new or an update to an existing package? If it's a new package you may want to file an ITP[0]. It's an package which is reported as an RFP bug An RFP is not an ITP. Change that to an ITP if you Intend To Package (actually you already did that). -- Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: rumor
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 17:08 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Don't know if it has something to do with: fakeroot debian/rules clean test -x debian/rules dh_clean /usr/bin/make -C . -k distclean make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/rumor-1.0.3b' make[1]: *** No rule to make target `distclean'. make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/rumor-1.0.3b' make: [makefile-clean] Error 2 (ignored) when doing pbuilder build That means that there is no distclean target, but you seem to be calling it from within your debian/rules file - that needs fixing. However, in theory that should be unrelated to the problem you are experiencing. Try uninstalling the old version first and then installing the new version. -- Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [jack-mixer]bin/sh: no: command not found
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 21:11 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Hi, I tried to build jack-mixer, but after running: pbuilder build *.dsc I get: You should probably not use globbing and use pdebuild instead. When using pdebuild you can change to the source directory and simply run pdebuild without any arguments, which should do all magic for you. make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/jack-mixer-6' GCONF_CONFIG_SOURCE= no --makefile-install-rule ./jack_mixer.schemas /bin/sh: no: command not found make[3]: *** [install-data-hook] Error 127 make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/jack-mixer-6' make[2]: *** [install-data-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/jack-mixer-6' make[1]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/jack-mixer-6' make: *** [common-install-impl] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 E: Failed autobuilding of package I: unmounting dev/pts filesystem I: unmounting proc filesystem I: cleaning the build env I: removing directory /var/cache/pbuilder/build//32146 and its subdirectories Oh, and what jack-mixer package are you talking about? There is no jack-mixer package in Debian's repository. -- Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Packaging a self-hosting assemler from source
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 12:58 +, Peter Marsh wrote: I'm trying to package FASM (http://www.flatassembler.net/) from source. It's a self-hosting assembler, and upstream doesn't provide a makefile. I can't find anything in the docs about how I should correctly specify a make file and the build-depends (the package will depend on its self, surely?). Having a quick look at the bugger it seems that the tarball is not shipping with any build instructions. Additionally, fasm is non-free. Why? Well, there is a restriction on commercial use in its license, which might warrant calling it open source, but not free software. A circular dependency on itself also seems weird (and probably don't work). You might need to use the binary shipped with the tarball to again compile the assembler itself, but to be honest, I do not see any valid reason to do so (it's compiled already). Also, I wouldn't trust that code personally. Upstream could have slipped pretty much anything into the binary. Lastly, I do see a problem with portability here, since upstream only provides x86 executables, which leaves all other architectures locked-out. Any ideas? If you still want to package this non-free piece of software you probably should contact upstream and ask for build instructions. Again, personally I would go ahead and use a free alternative that has been already packaged (nasm, yasm, binutils-provided as). Still, IANADD, so I might be wrong there. -- Stephan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Packaging a self-hosting assemler from source
Please keep debian-mentors CC'ed when replying... On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:53 +, Peter Marsh wrote: Thanks for the response but I don't see the restriction on commercial use, I thought it was under the BSD licence (according to licence.txt)? Oh, I misread a paragraph in license.txt, my fault. That seems to be fine. Still, there are problems with building it, especially as you probably *have* to build it using a binary of itself, which is not available for all architectures. Asking upstream about build-instructions might be a good idea though. Subject: Re: Packaging a self-hosting assemler from source From: deb...@sp.or.at To: evil_grun...@hotmail.com CC: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:21:03 +0100 On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 12:58 +, Peter Marsh wrote: I'm trying to package FASM (http://www.flatassembler.net/) from source. It's a self-hosting assembler, and upstream doesn't provide a makefile. I can't find anything in the docs about how I should correctly specify a make file and the build-depends (the package will depend on its self, surely?). Having a quick look at the bugger it seems that the tarball is not shipping with any build instructions. Additionally, fasm is non-free. Why? Well, there is a restriction on commercial use in its license, which might warrant calling it open source, but not free software. A circular dependency on itself also seems weird (and probably don't work). You might need to use the binary shipped with the tarball to again compile the assembler itself, but to be honest, I do not see any valid reason to do so (it's compiled already). Also, I wouldn't trust that code personally. Upstream could have slipped pretty much anything into the binary. Lastly, I do see a problem with portability here, since upstream only provides x86 executables, which leaves all other architectures locked-out. Any ideas? If you still want to package this non-free piece of software you probably should contact upstream and ask for build instructions. Again, personally I would go ahead and use a free alternative that has been already packaged (nasm, yasm, binutils-provided as). Still, IANADD, so I might be wrong there. -- Stephan __ Windows Live Hotmail just got better. Find out more! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: What to do if the original tarball contains a debian subdirectory
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 16:17 +0100, Luca Niccoli wrote: I found a very nice little program to take pictures from a webcam, and I would like to package it. The original tarball already contains a debian subdirectory (which needs some corrections anyway), how should I deal with that? If I dh_make straight after unpacking the tarball, dh_make won't modify the debian subdirectory; but I wonder if removing it beforehand will tamper the orig.tar.gz The program is fswebcam, I already uploaded it on mentors.debian.net (just modifing the files in debian/if you want to take a look at it. The upstream site is http://www.firestorm.cx/fswebcam/ Sounds as if you have to repack the upstream tarball. IANADD though. -- Stephan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFH: dupload outguess.
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:18 +0100, Anthony Gasperin wrote: HI, I am interested in adopting outguess package ! I have problems for the dupload, introduction's page at mentors.debian.net give a configuration for dupload to the root of ftp://mentors.debian.net; but it seems it is not the right place ! I am wondering where should I dupload it. Thanks. Anthony. The configuration you can find at mentors.debian.net isn't the problem. Parts of your package have even been uploaded to the FTP server (check ftp://mentors.debian.net yourself). Doing a quick check shows no .changes file for your package on the FTP server. Are you sure your dupload/dput run finished successfully? Also, taking a (very wild) guess, did you sign the package after building and did you use the right PGP key for signing? -- Stephan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Average time to get an answer about package sponsoring
Hello Laurent, On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 21:55 +0100, Laurent Guignard wrote: I would like to know the average time to get an answer from the upload of the package on mentors.debian.net and an answer a mentor. After one month could i have any information about all errors i made in my package and anything else about ? Is this a normal time ? I doubt there are any statistics about this available, however, from the wording of your message it sounds as if you did only upload the package to mentors and not send an RFS mail, as mentors should suggest once you uploaded a package. Did you send such a message to this mailing list? Regards, Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: courier-pythonfilter
Hello, First of all I'd like to mention that I am not a DD, so I cannot sponsor your package, but I do have a quick comment on your lintian problem. On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 14:52 +0100, Frederik Dannemare wrote: courier-pythonfilter: script-not-executable ./usr/share/python-support/courier-pythonfilter/courier/quarantine.py courier-pythonfilter: script-not-executable ./usr/share/python-support/courier-pythonfilter/pythonfilter/greylist.py These .py files are not to be executed directly in any way, other than from within the pythonfilter apps itself. If those files are not to be executed directly in any way removing the shebang might a.) be a good idea and b.) fix your lintian warnings. Hope that helps. Regards, Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building for 'any' architecture?
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 13:41 +0200, Michael Renner wrote: Moin, I made a small package with some X fonts. First I extracted the fonts into a directory, startet 'dh_make' and after some modifications in postinst etc I run 'dpkg-buildpackage -d'. As far as I see is the deb-package ok. But it is a i386 package, I expected a package for any architecture like xfonts-base. I checked for the sting 'i386' in debian/, but I found nothing. So: where can I control this? You might want to give Architecture: all a try. This should give you a *_all.deb. Regards, Stephan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: python-sptest
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-sptest. * Package name: python-sptest Version : 0.2.1-1 Upstream Author : Stephan Peijnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://bitbucket.org/sp/sptest * License : GPL (v3 or later) Section : python It builds these binary packages: python-sptest - Python unittest module extension The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 498586 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-sptest - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-sptest/python-sptest_0.2.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Stephan Peijnik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: python-sptest
Hello, On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 20:44 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-sptest. what would you thi nk about maintaining the package within the Python Modules Team? It makes sponsoring much more easy for us, and it's more easy to find a sponsor for you. If you want, have a look at http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html and join us in #debian-python on the OFTC network. Please lt me know if you want to join the Modules Team, or if I should sponsor the package for you in the common way. First of all, thank you for the offer of sponsoring my package. Right now Oleksandr Moskalenko (malex) is sponsoring my package, so there is no need for you to do that. I am CC'ing debian-mentors as both Oleksandr and me seem to have forgotten to do that. The idea of maintaining the package within the Python Modules team sounds nice to me, I'll drop by in #debian-python. Regards, Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: netmon-applet (updated package)
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 21:51 +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 28 August 2008 17:17:20 Stephan Peijnik wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4-12 of my package netmon-applet. Hello, here are some comments, you might want to address: 1) debian/copyright lacks important information - linux-data.c is copyrighted by another person, but not mentioned in the copyright file. 2) update upstream URL in debian/copyright, or better convert to machine interpretable copyright format [1] 3) code duplication since linux-data.c has been borrowed from xnetload, which is already in Debian -- anti security, but the impact is in fact very low in that case. Btw, why this package should stay in Debian, when we have xnetload, sharing more or less the same functionality ? 4) changes to the upstream code, which are now applied in a combined fashion by diff.gz are best to be broken up in logical diffs and comunicated upstream. No gain in removing unused variables from gnome-ui.c:netmon_draw(), there are quite some more left, so leave them to upstream to clean as they find fit, some like to leave unused vars as a reminder ;-) [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat Thanks for your input George. As noted by Josselin Mouette in Bugreport #335916 dropping netmon-applet completely seems like a good idea though, so I am putting this package back in orphaned status. Regards, Stephan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: netmon-applet (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4-12 of my package netmon-applet. It builds these binary packages: netmon-applet - GNOME2 Network Load Applet The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 270036, 335916, 449867 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/netmon-applet - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/netmon-applet/netmon-applet_0.4-12.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Stephan Peijnik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
