Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Trying to disable error=format-security for clapack

_link_libraries of the .so file. G. [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/clapack.git On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:21:06PM +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > Am Montag, den 16.05.2016, 10:16 + schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: > > Hi Gert! > > > > > > &g

Re: Bug#800406: RFS sayonara/0.8.2

Hi, >license.txt > * Removed license.txt > As some other distributions strictly want this file, I wanted to ask >if I may remove that file with a debian patch? no you shouln't ever remove that file. this is source of reject from ftpmasters. You don't have to install it with make install,

Re: AUTORM: bug closed but still marked for autoremoval

Hi Jerome You need to make the package migrate into stretch if you want the autoremoval to stop https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=singular=unstable armhf is not build anymore, so you can choose from: 1) fixing polybori 2) file a bug against ftpmasters to remove singular [armhf].

Bug#822613: RFS: dynamic-graph/3.0.0-1

control: owner -1 ! Hi, please fix the Pedantic lintian issues https://mentors.debian.net/package/dynamic-graph (e.g. no dep5 copyright, old compat level, typos, missing harderning flags) and then I'll have a look at the package. Il Lunedì 25 Aprile 2016 18:42, Rohan Budhiraja

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aseqjoy/aseqjoy_0.0.2-1.dsc >I just upload to mentors. wonderful! >If use Files: * (for the upstream) and Files: debian/* (for mantainer) >and both have same license this raise the lintian warning. You shouldn't have any issue by doing

Bug#822722: RFS: tldp/0.7.7 [ITP #822181]

Hi, >I did not know about 'sbuild'. Now I do. > >Is this the tool that is used for building all packages to generate >the distributions? DebOMatic isn't the tool used by buildds systems, but sbuild is (with various different resolvers) >If so, then I'll stop building with pbuilder and gbp

Bug#824262: RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system

Hi, >switch to autoreconf done nice! little nitpick before answering to the open points: * debian/patches/manpage-spelling-errors.patch: New, fix two spelling + errors. there is a new space in changelog (pull-debian-source gnustep-make debdiff of the two dsc files, filterdiff the debian

Bug#823140: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-1 -- a deep learning framework [ITP]

Hi Lumin >Done. Updated package has been uploaded to mentors: >https://mentors.debian.net/package/caffe 1) did you try to enable the Debug build too? without CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo you won't be able to get automatic debug packages I think 2) why the python3 support is disabled? note:

Bug#824262: RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system

Hi Eric, >I think there are too many changes in this release. >Is it okay to remove autoreconf for now, >and replace autotools-dev by autoreconf at next release ? it is, just a side note: I never had issues with that move, and in general issues arises when: the configure/Makefiles are

Bug#824262: RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system

Hi Eric, >Well autotools-dev already used. No changes here. >About autoreconf, I'm not familiar with it. >I installed it to test it. Since all seems ok, I've not removed it. https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf I was talking more about removing autotools-dev >In addition, I've just asked

Re: Seek for sponsor: Ananicy

Hi, I think you should read the intro-maintainers guide first https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers BTW that tool might be really appreciated by me :) (same rules applies for the other package you asked for sponsor) BTW you need to crate a debian directory too with the packaging. G.

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >1. My ITP bug seems to be correct. > >On the same site, you can see my try of an RFS bug, I sent it to > with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1 >[ITP]". So the address is correct, but the subject

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, well, as Mattia said, we already have the -g injected by dpkg-builflags, so no action is needed dpkg-buildflags --get CXXFLAGS -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security g. Il Lunedì 4 Aprile 2016 15:39, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it&

Re: Trying to disable error=format-security for clapack

Hi, >/build/clapack-3.2.1/F2CLIBS/libf2c/arithchk.c:125:2: error: format not a >string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security] > Cray1 = printf(emptyfmt) < 0 ? 0 : 4617762; > ^ >cc1: some warnings being treated as errors I would consider this an RC bug. security wise the

Bug#801262: RFS: ppsspp/1.1.1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator

as NotoSansThai-Regular.ttf now? https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-noto-hinted/filelist g. > > cheers, > sergio-br2 > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:49:52 +0200 Gianfranco Costamagna > <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > > FYI: libpng-dev is now provided by li

Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Trying to disable error=format-security for clapack

Hi Gert! >I think, since in this case the (empty) format string passed to the printf >call is not user generated there is no security problem to be exploited. yes, sure, but disabling this flag has a nasty side-effect, it is disabled in the *whole* build, possibly hiding more serious issues

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo that one is good. So, please ping me and remove the moreinfo tag when you fixed the issues pointed on -mentors mail list! thanks G. Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 13:02, Frank Stähr ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests

Bug#824262: RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system

control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Eric, some questions on the changes: 1) why do you need both autotools-dev and autoreconf? 2) did you get an ack from maintainers to add yourself as uploader 3) +Replaces: gnustep-common (<< 2.6.8-1) this is something I don't understand. also, the control.in file

Bug#823895: RFS: lsm/1.0.4-1

control: tags -1 moreinfo Not sure if Adam is going to sponsor the package, but I'm setting at least the moreinfo tag :) g. Il Domenica 15 Maggio 2016 1:57, Adam Borowski ha scritto: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 01:45:32AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Too bad, when

Bug#824186: RFS: pepperflashplugin-nonfree/1.8.3+nmu1 [RC] [NMU]‏

Hi, >Isn't I'm supposed to raise the version number? or is "+nmu1" enough? I'm not sure, but in fact dch --nmu is not raising it, so I guess 1.8.2+nmu1 is fine, so the maintainer can still bump and release an NMU acknowledge called 1.8.3 >It part of the fix, but not needed to fix #818540

Re: Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

Hi, >I know exactly what Mattia felt. :-( git reflog is a good friend in this case :) G.

Re: a few questions on ITP shadowsocks-libev before formal RFS

Hi, >If so, here's our alioth account: rosh-guest, hosiet-guest, >madeye-guest.>Thank you! you need to send a request to join collab-maint, an alioth account doesn't grant your permissions automatically. I suggest you to use an external repository to show your skills, and then ask to join

Re: a few questions on ITP shadowsocks-libev before formal RFS

Hi, alternative proposal >Now I understand my todo-list, briefly: >- package libraries first: libcork/ipset >- create debian/watch and ds repack >- RFS shadowsocks-libev >- apply for collab-maint access - open ITP bugs for all the libraries (search for wnpp and ITP on google) - package

Bug#815444: RFS: lzd/0.8-1

Hi, what happened here? g. On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:38:40 -0300 Eriberto Mota wrote: > Hi Daniel! How are you? Do you remember me? You alrealy were my > sponsor in Forensics Team in the past. > > I can sponsor this package. Please, can you do the the following changes? > > 1.

Bug#824186: RFS: pepperflashplugin-nonfree/1.8.3+nmu1 [RC] [NMU]‏

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, some questions about versioning and changelog: 1) why 1.8.3+nmu1 and not 1.8.2+nmu1? 2) why UNRELEASED? please set unstable "* Validate deb file with sha256sum." <-- isn't this part of the fix for bug #818540? the other stuff LGTM, I hope to

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, sorry for the lag >Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without manually relicensing them. I personally don't prefer, because only the author of each patch will be able to forward it

Bug#823140: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-1 -- a deep learning framework [ITP]

Hi, >set(CFLAGS ...) which should be replaced by set(CFLAGS $(CFLAGS) ...) > >An upstream classic unfortunately. as upstream I did this once, and the side effect was something weird. when you run multiple times cmake .. the cflags gets appended multiple times, so you might end up in a really

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

Hi, >Okay, I can agree that compat 10 is unnecessery. But still someone >someday will have to do it. probably the maintainer, or you if MIA team orphan the package and you adopt it :) BTW maybe lets wait for compat 10 to become stable and then think about it :) >Sorry, can't locate any

Bug#823521: RFS: irstlm/6.00.05-1 -- IRST Language Modeling Toolkit

Hi Balint, so I presume you want to set yourself as owner of this bug, right? thanks for your work! Gianfranco Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 23:40, Balint Reczey ha scritto: Control: reopen -1 Luckily the upload got rejected, thus I did not interfere with the RFS

Bug#823140: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-1 -- a deep learning framework [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Ghislain, thanks for the good review! I remember I looked at this package a while ago, so, if you (lumin) can fix what Ghislain pointed out, I'll be happy to do a new reivew and hopefully sponsor :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 2 Maggio 2016 15:13,

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

Hi >I do not want to put a pressure on anyone, but if it is the only way >to make big changes to package, let's do it. I could understand that, but 1) lets avoid experimental features 2) lets try to keep changes minimal. I mean, a package refactor might be acceptable if the current packaging

Bug#818974: packaging

for now! cheers, G. > Hope this improves things. > > Many thanks, > Rod > > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 17:45 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi, quick answer: > > thanks for the fixes. > > > > > > some quick issues: > > copyri

Re: Mass-rebuilding packages

Hi, what I do in this case: reverse-depends -b dh-elpa |cut -f 2 -d " " > list for i in read list pull-debian-source $i pbuilder-dist sid build $i*.dsc (not bash code, but it is trivial to do ;) ) there are tools, but I never tried them :) https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds cheers, G.

Bug#823575: RFS: asl/0.1.6-2 [RC]

Hi, signed and uploaded, but different orig tarball is *bad* cheers, G. Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 8:53, Ghislain Vaillant ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "asl" * Package name: asl

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

control: tags -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Hi, it would be nice to avoid having a possible and problematic version even in experimental. Specially because it might be source of data-losses to the end users. BTW, please ask xnox to comaintain the package, if you really want to help in

Bug#823575: RFS: asl/0.1.6-2 [RC]

sbuild or send to debomatic. No idea why I end up with a different orig tarball then, do you? Ghis On 06/05/16 09:08, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, signed and uploaded, but different orig tarball is *bad* > > > cheers, > > G. > > > Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 8:53, Ghis

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Alexander, unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters... I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise they won't be coherent license-wise. this seems to be a blocker for now. g. Il Lunedì 2 Maggio 2016 21:27, Alexander Koenig

Bug#822613: RFS: dynamic-graph/3.0.0-1

Hi Andrey! >Your package has several lintian-detected problems of various severiuty, >but the one about embedded jQuery is a blocker one. You will need to fix >it before having a chance for the package to be uploaded. Please look into >other issues as well. Not embedding it might result in a

Bug#822722: RFS: tldp/0.7.7 [ITP #822181]

Hi Martin, >OK, I can do that. Is that a requirement for submitting the >package? I added the bits and bobs that are not provided with >every system to allow testing of all documentation generation on any >platform or distribution. Test coverage is at 92%: > >

Re: Bug#800406: RFS sayonara/0.8.2

w :) btw wrap-and-sort please :) (you just need to run the command) and between Description: and the start there should be a space (I downloaded the package from the ppa, not sure if the git is different) Gianfranco 2016-04-05 21:50 GMT+02:00 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.i

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi, >Done. I did a couple of nme runs in a sid chroot, and then fixed >lintian errors. It might be possible to compact the debian/copying >stanza, but my goal was maximum correctness so I didn't take any >risks. Lintian said that copyright entries for config/* weren't >necessary. Is this

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

know a good way to make it depend on the package providing that file) thanks, in case you have fixes let me know and I'll cancel the upload in deferred and quickly reupload. G. On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:09:06 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi,

Re: Seeking Sponsors for my package - capitan

and you should make it build against the new libpng http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/capitan/1.0.3-dfsg-1/buildlog this should have the needed information https://titanpad.com/libpng16-transistion thanks, G. Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 18:34, Gianfranco Costamagna

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo some questisons: std-version section extra? maybe optional? why this package is not depending on anything else? why exclude WOW? license of debian packaging is stricter than the upstream one, you might not be able to forward patches without

Bug#819396: RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo control: block -1 by 819394 Hi, the package looks good. g. Il Venerdì 8 Aprile 2016 13:33, Pali Rohár ha scritto: Hello, I'm still looking for a sponsor for package "smpq" and its dependences. Please look at bug 819396.

Re: Seeking Sponsors for my package - capitan

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, please fix something (all) of what Paul pointed, open an RFS bug and I'll have another look BTW please please depend on libpng-dev instead of libpng12-dev thanks. G. Il Lunedì 28 Marzo 2016 9:28, Paul Wise ha scritto: On

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo *too* many embedded libraries, please try to exclude them, or list the copyrights correctly. libtomcrypt libtommath bzip2 zlib lzma std-version is 3.9.8 please update watch file is broken "" needs to be changed static libraries --> why? let

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

please also try to fix lintian and symbols http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/stormlib/9.20-1/lintian Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 18:16, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo *too* many embedded lib

Bug#810012: RFS: averell/1.2.4-1 ITP 773793

Hi again, >There is only one binary which is installed with 'dh_install' >Upstream's 'make install' installs the binary in '/usr/local/bin' export prefix=/usr works in rules? I see this in makefile "prefix ?= /usr/local" (I didn't test the above) >Missing authors are from 'erlang.mk' which is

Bug#817949: RFS: niceshaper/1.2.2-1 [ITP]

Hi again, >niceshaper (1.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low *one* single entry. niceshaper (1.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial foo release closes: bar signature. that's all. >Done. New version of upstream (1.2.2) was created.Overwritable BINDIR variable >is introduced to Makefile, thus

Re: ldp-docbook-stylesheets; where to find, how to update

Hi Martin, >I am a Linux Documentation Project (LDP, a.k.a. TLDP) volunteer. *wonderful*! > * Non-Debian TLDP volunteer would like to update a package >ldp-docbook-stylesheets. > * Cannot find source code in Debian lands. > * Request Debian process guidance. non-debian means you

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi again >ok, so maybe this might be a question for -mentors.>did you try to make the >debhelper dependency more explicit? >e.g. >= 9.0.whatever > >IIRC some checks were added based on the debhelper version When building programs that handle untrusted data (parsers, network listeners,

Re: Seeking guidance re assisting with existing Debian package

Hi, MIA team is aware now. If you want to contribute, just send your package (source.changes) to mentors.debian.net and open an RFS bug to have an NMU in debian (the accept mail has a link for the RFS template). fix the RC bug, and the other bugs (optioally update to the new release), and

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi Pali, >Ehm... repacking is ugly! I agree here >Ok, I can ask, but I doubt that upstream will do that. This is windows >project and in windows world is PGP not supported by Visual Studio/MS. >(We can be happy that library working fine under linux with gcc :-)) asking is free :) >

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >You are looking at wrong file! We do not use Makefile.linux, but >CMakeLists.txt. And then cmake in /<>/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu >directory generate own Makefile, nothing from Makefile.linux. ok, so maybe this might be a question for -mentors. did you try to make the debhelper dependency

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

mmm maybe by doing something lie: 0.0.0~20150420 or ask them to put some sort of versioning, otherwise, how could them notify users about new releases? g. Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 18:36, Pali Rohár ha scritto: And I have another question, how to version this package?

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi >> 0.0.0~20150420 > >Ok, I change it to that string. as said by Jakub, 0~20150420 is already fine >I do not care about versioning scheme. If there is some convention I >will use it... wonderful >> or ask them to put some sort of versioning, > >I can ask, but I do not expect any change...

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi >I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional? I think you should >Because this package contains just text files, needed to build reverse >hash table with file names for old mpq archives. There is no need to >depend on something. ok >But package smpq depends on this package.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

(also stormlib needs to have optional priority BTW) > >Files are under public domain. Mark then debian files under public >domain too? yes, if you are fine with that license. it is up to you, not to me :) >I'm not lawyer and really do not know how to check trademark violation >or similar

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

Hi, >> BTW one single symbol file please>I recommend using the C++ support in >> dpkg-gensymbols to achieve this, >it is better than restricting particular symbols to particular arches >etc. this has to be read as: "one single symbol file that covers every architectures please" anyway,

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary storm_dll/storm.dll >==> Not possible, problem with original upstream tarball you can, google for "debian source" repack. Anyway, since this isn't a license violation, nevermind! >debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature >==> Not possible, upstream

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hi, (just answering the alioth part) https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org this should be the maintainer and the account has to be created on alioth.d.o, and then join the group https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-mozext cheers, G. Il

Re: Ready for review: firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hi, some general nitpicks. You really should team-maintain it https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org should be the right place. licenses in debian/copyright needs to be verbose, not links you have to open an ITP bug, then upload on

Bug#818974: packaging

files, files are not needed with new autoconf build system. Q: gpvdm source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.6 (current is 3.9.7)- as above A: Fixed. Q: I: gpvdm source: debian-watch-file-is-missing - well, even if you know when you'll make a new release, this is useful for anyway, as there a

Re: Bug#820879: How to avoid version restrictions for JS libraries (Was: Bug#820879: r-cran-shiny: uninstallable in sid: Depends: libjs-jquery (< 1.11.3+dfsg.0~) but 1.12.3-1 is to be installed)

Hi, I remember having used dh_linktree, but I forgot when and where does this helps? https://codesearch.debian.net/results/dh_linktree/page_0 in the first page there are some examples of fonts linked (the whole directory). HTH Gianfranco Il Mercoledì 13 Aprile 2016 22:10, Andreas Tille

Bug#820900: RFS: [ITP] python-hashids/1.1.0-1

Hi, >> check-all-the-things and lintian print a number of things that could >> be polished. > >What are you seeing on lintian? I hasn't showed anything besides apt-get install check-all-the-things -t experimental g.

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

Hi >I've added sections for Google and Unicode Inc. to d/copyright and >uploaded it to mentors.debian.net. Could you please take a look again? >Thank you! still IBM missing. e.g. +/* Copyright IBM Corporation, 1996-2016. All Rights Reserved. */ +// copyright=" Copyright (c) IBM

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

build is failing. http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/icu4j/57.1-1/buildlog Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 14:36, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> ha scritto: Hi >I've added sections for Google and Unicode Inc. to d/copyright and

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >First of all thank you very much for taking care of me. I had already >given up and left setop behind me. lets recover :) >Is it this one? > >I exactly followed all instructions from >

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Still a copyright issue W missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain (paragraph at line 17) G. Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 21:33, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On Monday 18 April 2016 19:09:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi > > >> 0.0.0~

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more >license texts... What to write into paragraph then?? everything is a license, and public domain is a license too. https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page_0 G.

Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 a...@debian.org Hi Markus! >Yes, I would sponsor the package if we can resolve the remaining issues. (setting you as owner, to avoid double reviews by other potential sponsors) thanks for your work, and sorry for the noise! Gianfranco >> The vim comments at the bottom

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

Hi Frederic, still another question: debian/rules.old <-- you might want to drop it a libsphde1 library that has a binary... usually libraries are installed by the dependencies, and the binaries are split in separate packages. please try to provide a package with the binary and the manpage,

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820297 cheers, G. Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 14:53, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: Hi Frederic, still another question: debian/rules.old <-- you might want to drop it a libsphde1 library that has a binary... usually

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Christian, >activate update-initramfs do you think it is worth adding to the current NMU or it is better to leave it for a future upload? the change looks good, I think it has no side effects, but I would like to hear another opinion :) G.

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Nicholas, >Yes, I read this for my initial upload. When Gianfranco's requested >fixing piupart's warning I inferred that the manual was out of date >relative to the current/sid standard that piupart was checking for. oops, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. IIRC I asked to

Bug#814550: RFS: codecrypt/1.7.3-1 (ITP #814462)

Hi, >This was done roughly for the same reason as with GnuPG, that has the "gpg" >executable. Also I'm not quite a fan of using crypto without reading the >manual >thoroughly :] indeed :) >Anyway, is there some best place (other than documentations) to notify the >users? Possibly create a

Bug#820733: Package Series

or your invaluable help. thanks to you! Gianfranco Il 13/04/2016 11:59, Gianfranco Costamagna ha scritto: > Hi again, > > stuff to do: > > fix lintian, make a real copyright file, fix flags, fix useless files, > convert the format to quilt... > > come back if you don't know how

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Adam, >What's the problem? none, you are right! I read again your previous mail, and yes, there is no conflict assuming we use GPL2 only. I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to tell ftpmasters where to look in the mail list for the license change.

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi Nicholas, >I agree, however, upstream's official recommendation is to use a >version of btrfs-progs at least as new as the kernel. Every release >fixes some bugs, sometimes serious. For example, btrfs-progs-4.5 >fixes "subvol sync: fix crash, memory corruption", but the whole 4.5 >series

Bug#823606: RFS: sphinxcontrib-doxylink [ITP]

Hi, signed and uploading shortly! BTW it fails to build on ubuntu wily. of course not an issue at all, but you might want to look at the failure. Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 15:33, Ghislain Vaillant ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

cribió: > On Fri, May 06, 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > <..> >> I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to >> tell ftpmasters >> where to look in the mail list for the license change. > > OK, to settle this I created a n

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi, >Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848 >"as an RC bug on the package". I have reassigned it to ftpmasters, I don't think there is need to wait for the maintainer opinion, this is a binary without source. >I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing

Bug#813603: RFS: libcxl/1.3-1 [ITP] -- libcxl -- Coherent accelerator shared library

Hi, the package is already in Ubuntu, did you try to look at the packaging and see if it was similar? Gianfranco On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:53:47 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi,

Bug#822856: Another try for dvtm?

Hi Dmitry, due to the partial orphaning of the package in #824284, are you interested in this package, and starting to maintain it properly? I think now can can proceed with this RFS :) let me know what is your best plan, thanks Gianfranco

Bug#822856: Another try for dvtm?

and with #825269 there is also an O: bug :) (thanks Mattia for the ping about it) G. Il Mercoledì 25 Maggio 2016 13:18, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: Hi Dmitry, due to the partial orphaning of the package in #824284, are you interested in this p

Bug#831792: RFS: scid/1:4.6.2-0.1 [NMU]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "scid": lets see. 1) The package will be probably orphaned in 10-15 days, so you might want to set yourself as Maintainer and adopt it 2) +* Copyright (C) 2013-2015 Fulvio Benini maybe you want also

Bug#831792: RFS: scid/1:4.6.2-0.1 [NMU]

last thing: 4) this hack seems useless now sed s/x86_64-linux-gnu/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/ configure > configure.sed chmod 755 configure.sed ./configure.sed BINDIR="$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp/scid/usr/games" \ G.

Bug#830569: marked as done (RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC])

control: reopen -1 reopening. G. Il Mercoledì 13 Luglio 2016 18:45, Debian Bug Tracking System ha scritto: Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:40:55 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC]

Bug#830569: RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC]

Hi (please cc the bug) >I removed it, but does it do any harm? no, I guess not >Might have something to do with -fPIE vs. -fPIC, but one would have to >investigate further to be sure. This is definitely not a regression, >though, since the z3 version currently in the archive has no hardening

Bug#830845: RFS: fatx/1.11-1 [ITP] -- Complete XBOX filesystem support

control: tags -1 moreinfo >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fatx": >http://sourceforge.net/projects/fatx there is no source of a debian directory to look at. we need the source, not the binary, and please upload it on mentors.debian.net (where you can find a lot of documentation and

Bug#830845: RFS: fatx/1.11-1 [ITP] -- Complete XBOX filesystem support

Hi, >I've uploaded it with dput on mentors.debian.net. and it got rejected it seems

Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU]

control: tags -1 moreinfo control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/Yubico/pam-u2f-dpkg/issues/3 control: owner 830908 ! control: owner -1 ! >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pam-u2f" lets see: --- pam-u2f-1.0.3/debian/libpam-u2f.manpages1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi, >https://mentors.debian.net/package/django-notification >https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-notification/django-notification_1.2.0-1.dsc I have some nitpicks :) "usign" <-- typo "python" "python3" should be used with upper case "P" I did a debdiff between unstable and

Re: Bug#823895: RFS: lsm/1.0.4-1

Hi, >by the way, what means ENOTIME? this is a standard error, unfortunately :) https://docs.python.org/2/library/errno.html it means "I have not enough time right now" G.

Re: Question about license file

Hi >wifite.py has the license statement in the header, IMHO this is sufficient. after looking at the github repo, I see the project is made of a single py file, so the internal statement might be good already! Anyway, I opened an "upstream" issue [1] >It should be no problem to create a tarball

Bug#823895: RFS: lsm/1.0.4-1

Lets finish the review: 1) grep copyright . -Ri missing people 2) debian/upstream/changelog what^ 3) did you forward patches upstream? if you can fix/answer the above I think we are good check-all-the-things review: $ codespell --quiet-level=3 ./config.c:169: unkown ==> unknown

Re: hardening Issue

Hi, >sorry, thats because I put lintian-overrides. mmm AFAIK DebOMatic looks also for overridden tags. G.

Bug#832153: RFS: python-prov/1.4.0-1 [ITP]

His one is in new queue since an hour, so mine will be just rejected. g.

Bug#832153: RFS: python-prov/1.4.0-1 [ITP]

Hi, >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-prov" as usual, built signed and sponsored. G.

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >