RFS: yum-metadata-parser (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.1-2 of my package yum-metadata-parser. It builds these binary packages: python-sqlitecachec - A fast metadata parser for YUM The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL:

RFS: createrepo (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4.10-1 of my package createrepo. It builds these binary packages: createrepo - generates the metadata necessary for a RPM package repository The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:

debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

Hello, I got hit by this so I wanted to note it down where it might be of use to others. It *is* elementary but then ... Suppose pkg_123.45.orig.tar.gz is already in the Debian archive. To build a new version pkg_123.45-xxx of the Debian package. *Always* use the Debian version of the

Re: RFS: yum-metadata-parser (updated package)

I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.1-2 of my package yum-metadata-parser. You can contact me directly as I sponsored previous upload, consider also joining Debian Python Modules Team [1] About changes in -2: Please change python-sqlite to python (= 2.5) | python-sqlite (see

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:18:52 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I got hit by this so I wanted to note it down where it might be of use to others. It *is* elementary but then ... It sounds wrong to me - which package is this? Does the debian changelog mention that the

good kernel module skeleton?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, which source package would you recommend to have a look at as a good skeleton to create a new package? Bjoern -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:44:20AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Always* use the Debian version of the .orig.tar.gz by doing apt-get -d source pkg. Do *not* get the upstream .tar.gz which may have changed for some mysterious reason. ? It

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

Hello, On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Neil Williams wrote: I'm confused. Is this related to the other messages in this thread or did you mean to start a new thread? I'm sorry that I posted to your thread and confused the issue. Many apologies for the hijack. On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Neil Williams wrote:

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:46:56 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not just debian/changelog but README.Debian-source. However, the point of my mail was not about *how* pkg_123.45.orig.tar.gz turned out to be different from upstream's version but what to do *if* it turned out to

one-liner to install building software

Hi, I have to setup a new packager box. I would like to install in one apt-get install line all the possibly needed things. Ine the debian new maintainer guide (http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-start.en.html#s-needprogs) is a kind of list of these software. Would you know where could I

Re: RFS: anubis

2007/8/27, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +0200 Krzysztof Burghardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package anubis. anubis - an SMTP message submission daemon Please include the long description to give sponsors some idea of why

Re: RFS: anubis

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:24:38 +0200 Krzysztof Burghardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/8/27, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +0200 Krzysztof Burghardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package anubis. anubis - an SMTP message

Re: RFS: anubis

2007/8/27, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What is the difference between this and procmail | maildrop? This two tools are used (mostly) for processing incoming mails (and to store mails into local mail boxes). GNU Anubis is for different purpose. It process outgoing mails and decide how to

Re: Help with a debian/watch file (getting tarball via websvn)

Am Montag, den 27.08.2007, 07:19 +0530 schrieb Kumar Appaiah: [watch file for melekel] With this watch file: version=3 http://bioinformatics.org/websvn/listing.php?repname=molekelpath=%2Ftags%2Frev=0sc=0 \ listing.php\?repname=molekel\amp;path=%2Ftags%2F([\d\.]+)%2F\amp;rev=0\amp;sc=0

RFS: sanduhr (restoring removed package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.93-2 of my package sanduhr (currently removed from unstable). It builds these binary packages: sanduhr- An alarm clock designed as an hourglass The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 439824

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

Hi Kapil, Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got hit by this so I wanted to note it down where it might be of use to others. It *is* elementary but then ... Suppose pkg_123.45.orig.tar.gz is already in the Debian archive. To build a new version pkg_123.45-xxx of the

Re: RFS: sanduhr (restoring removed package)

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:26:28 -0700 Thanasis Kinias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.93-2 of my package sanduhr (currently removed from unstable). This just isn't good enough - not by a long way. Packages are not removed from unstable

Re: debian/watch and different action than `uupdate'

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: 2) Is it possible to use a different action than uupdate, e.g. `fakeroot debian/rules get-orig-source'? Nice idea. Unfortunately uscan --force-download does not call the script. Instead it tries to get the archive I'm

Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 06:37:36AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: Should I upload with just the change from (1)? Yes. I agree with your reasoning. Ready. The new package at

Re: good kernel module skeleton?

On 8/27/07, Bjoern Boschman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: which source package would you recommend to have a look at as a good skeleton to create a new package? That depends on what kind of package you are thinking of making. Generally the templates from dh_make are good. Otherwise, perhaps the

Re: RFS: sanduhr (restoring removed package)

scripsit Neil Williams: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:26:28 -0700 Thanasis Kinias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.93-2 of my package sanduhr (currently removed from unstable). This just isn't good enough - not by a long way. Packages

Re: good kernel module skeleton?

scripsit Paul Wise: On 8/27/07, Bjoern Boschman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: which source package would you recommend to have a look at as a good skeleton to create a new package? That depends on what kind of package you are thinking of making. Generally the templates from dh_make are good.

Re: RFS: funguloids - space-flying-mushroom-picking-simulator game

On Sunday 26 August 2007 21:37:19 Andres Mejia wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package funguloids. This is actually a new package that has never been uploaded to Debian. * Package name: funguloids [...] I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I would be happy to

Re: RFS: funguloids - space-flying-mushroom-picking-simulator game

On Monday 27 August 2007 19:09:59 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: I would be happy to sponsor this, but I can't get it to build currently at the moment. This doesn't look like your bug, but a transitional bug with libogre. I'm guessing this will go away once all the correct dependencies make it into

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

Hello, On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jörg Sommer wrote: Do *not* get the upstream .tar.gz which may have changed for some mysterious reason. I don't think the upstream tar.gz have changed, but your orig.tar.gz is not the same as the upstream tar.gz. This happens if the orig.tar.gz was repacked to

Re: debian .orig.tar.gz vs. upstream tar.gz

Hello, On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: In any case if this is done then it *must* be documented in debian/changelog and/or README.Debian-source. The *must* in the above line is not supported by Debian policy. So I'll change that to a *should* :-) Regards, Kapil. -- -- To

RFS: steam-powered

Dear mentors and games team, I am looking for a sponsor for my package steam-powered. * Package name: steam-powered Version : 5 Upstream Author : Michael Gilbert * URL : no website * License : gpl Section : contrib/games It builds these binary

Re: RFS: alien-arena [updated package]

On Sunday 26 August 2007 21:35:41 Andres Mejia wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 6.05-4 of my package alien-arena. Uploaded. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Re: RFS: alien-arena [updated package]

On 8/27/07, Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 26 August 2007 21:35:41 Andres Mejia wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 6.05-4 of my package alien-arena. Uploaded. Thanks :) -- Regards, Andres Mejia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: good kernel module skeleton?

On 8/28/07, Thanasis Kinias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think (based on the subject line) he's looking to package a kernel module, though that's not at all obvious from the message body... Gah, I should learn to read. In that case, the dh_make templates look fairly comprehensive. Other than