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

Control: block -1 by 799262 one more functional blocker, python3-opencv opencv is (I guess) frequently used by caffe users, Debian should have python3-opencv if we provide python3-caffe. when is the EOL of python2.x? I forgot it. If it is not 2017, can we first upload python2-caffe-* ? I'll

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

Control: block -1 by 795841 Control: block 788539 by 795841 On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 21:12 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi Lumin, > > >Thank you James, I've solved this problem. > I don't want to do the final checks until Ghislain gives me his personal ack, > but > I see that the python3

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

hi, so the advice i received regarding the name was that i must get it renamed upstream[1]. i don't think this will be possible because: - upstream is an established package, present in PYPI and macports - the developer is MIA (additionally, the official Protocol Buffers 3 supports Python

Bug#819615: RFS: spin/6.4.5-1 [ITP] -- formal software verification tool

Cheers for the review Mattia! I'll look into all of this. A few comments: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > ... > * d/patches/01_makefile_fixes.patch: > + Probably use += instead of ?= in the first CFLAGS? > + I'd rather use install(1) instead of

Bug#824713: marked as done (RFS: rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar/0.17.1-1)

Your message dated Thu, 19 May 2016 01:48:18 +0200 with message-id <20160518234818.ga17...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#824713: RFS: rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar/0.17.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824713, regarding RFS: rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar/0.17.1-1 to be

Bug#824714: marked as done (RFS: testu01/1.2.3+ds-2 [Refreshment] - testing suite for uniform random number generators)

Your message dated Thu, 19 May 2016 01:27:37 +0200 with message-id <20160518232737.ga15...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#824714: RFS: testu01/1.2.3+ds-2 [Refreshment] - testing suite for uniform random number generators has caused the Debian Bug report #824714, regarding RFS:

Bug#824714: RFS: testu01/1.2.3+ds-2 [Refreshment] - testing suite for uniform random number generators

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Sponsors, I am looking for a sponsor for the Debian package testu01 [1], an applied mathematical suite for testing URNG. This very version is a refreshment of the Debian material. Thanks in advance, Jerome [1]

Bug#824713: RFS: rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar/0.17.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear Mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar" * Package name: rhythmbox-plugin-alternative-toolbar Version : 0.17.1-1 Upstream Author : David Mohammed * URL

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

Hi Lumin, >Thank you James, I've solved this problem. I don't want to do the final checks until Ghislain gives me his personal ack, but I see that the python3 dependencies might be fixed with not-much effort. issues I would like to see fixed or answered: python/requirements.txt <-- please check

Re: upload vsftpd

Hello Jörg, In advance thank you for your work in this package. >vsftpd (3.0.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Orphan this package. > * Set maintainer to Debian QA Group (See: #824694). You already reported an orphan bug. It's not necessary the upload. Kind regards, -- Julián Moreno

Re: upload vsftpd

hi, sponsoring soon. g. Il Mercoledì 18 Maggio 2016 21:39, Jörg Frings-Fürst ha scritto: Hi, please can someone upload the package vsftpd? The includes only this changes: vsftpd (3.0.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium * Orphan this package. * Set maintainer to

upload vsftpd

Hi, please can someone upload the package vsftpd? The includes only this changes: vsftpd (3.0.3-4) unstable; urgency=medium   * Orphan this package.   * Set maintainer to Debian QA Group (See: #824694).  -- Jörg Frings-Fürst   Wed, 18 May 2016 21:11:49 +0200 The

Bug#824688: marked as done (RFS: golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1/1.2.5-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 18:08:06 + with message-id <20160518180805.gi20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824688: RFS: golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1/1.2.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824688, regarding RFS: golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1/1.2.5-1 to be marked

Bug#824687: marked as done (RFS: golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1/1.0.14-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 17:44:58 + with message-id <20160518174456.gg20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824687: RFS: golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1/1.0.14-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824687, regarding RFS: golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1/1.0.14-1 to

Bug#824688: RFS: golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1/1.2.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the package "golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1": git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-tylerb-graceful.v1.git

Bug#824687: RFS: golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1/1.0.14-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the package "golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1": git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-hlandau-easyconfig.v1.git

Bug#824489: RFS: dwarfutils/20160507-1 [ITA] -- utility and library to work with DWARF debug information

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:29:33PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > > >Done. I removed the override in debian/rules. > > wonderful > > >I went with a mixture of both patches you proposed. I also forwarded>the > >patches to upstream & removed the now useless exports in >

Bug#824489: marked as done (RFS: dwarfutils/20160507-1 [ITA] -- utility and library to work with DWARF debug information)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 15:29:33 + (UTC) with message-id <1909380391.7270110.1463585373317.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#824489: RFS: dwarfutils/20160507-1 [ITA] -- utility and library to work with DWARF debug information has caused the Debian Bug report

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

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > 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

Bug#824489: RFS: dwarfutils/20160507-1 [ITA] -- utility and library to work with DWARF debug information

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:59:10AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I don't see why it can't be patched to work like almost every other tool > that uses a build system, but I don't care a lot about upstream. > > The (possible) issue I foresee is: somebody updates the upstream build system >

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

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

* lumin , 2016-05-18, 12:44: * add debian/upstream/metadata , but lintian says W: caffe source: upstream-metadata-yaml-invalid Is there anything wrong with this file? I have no idea I've just commited fix for Lintian to include validation error in the output, so in

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

> Title: 'Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding' Thank you James, I've solved this problem. Mentors, please check the latest caffe package on mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/package/caffe debomatic result should be the same as that obtained 1 hour ago. I think

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

[Add Max and Boyuan from upstream to CC] Thanks Gianfranco and Jakub! I comment when I still have question, for other parts I'll follow your suggestion. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Roger Shimizu , 2016-05-18, 02:14: >> >>

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

> On 18 May 2016, at 14:15, James Clarke wrote: > >> On 18 May 2016, at 13:44, lumin wrote: >> * add debian/upstream/metadata , but lintian says >> >>> W: caffe source: upstream-metadata-yaml-invalid >> >> Is there anything wrong with this file? I have

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

> On 18 May 2016, at 13:44, lumin wrote: > * add debian/upstream/metadata , but lintian says > >> W: caffe source: upstream-metadata-yaml-invalid > > Is there anything wrong with this file? I have no idea > > ``` > Homepage: http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/ > Name: Caffe

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

debomatic result * build pass, * autopkgtest OK, according to log no error occurs * lintian remains 1 warning about that weird YAML issue * piuparts fails because of DoM problem updated package was uploaded to mentors https://mentors.debian.net/package/caffe

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

On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 16:55 +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On 17/05/16 15:42, lumin wrote: > > Thank you for this careful and thorough review! http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/caffe.git/ Let me summarize the changes this time * remove python script for autogen, generate

Bug#824262: marked as done (RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 11:11:02 + (UTC) with message-id <1807413204.7088758.1463569862453.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#824262: RFS: gnustep-make/2.6.8-1 [RC] -- GNUstep build system has caused the Debian Bug report #824262, regarding RFS:

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

Hi Gianfranco, Le 16/05/2016 15:16, Gianfranco Costamagna a écrit : > Hi Eric, > > nice indeed, so please wait some more time, and ping me back in 7-15 days if > nobody > picked up the work in the meanwhile. > > Iain R. Learmonth has uploaded gnustep-make. Thanks to you for helping me to

Bug#806815: RFS: lirc/0.9.4~pre1-1.3 [NMU]

On 15/05/16 17:19, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 03:16:01PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: Given that nothing happened here in the last 6 months, I'm closing this RFS ticket. Feel free to open a new one if/when you'll come back. I mean, Stefan is (at least in Debian) very much

Re: Binaries under "/usr/lib/"

Hi all, On 18/05/2016 11:48, Ben Finney wrote: > On 18/05/2016 10:21, Tiago Ilieve wrote: >> On 17 May 2016 at 21:06, Ben Finney wrote: >>> How many process calls are there? The ideal solution IMO is to: >> Not much of them. In my case, there's just one. I was

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

* Roger Shimizu , 2016-05-18, 02:14: I'm doing ITP packaging on shadowsocks-libev. I have a few questions in detail. I have set up a git repo on github: https://github.com/rogers0/shadowsocks-libev My current changes are pushed to branch: RFC Package builds fine with

Re: Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

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

Re: Binaries under "/usr/lib/"

Tiago Ilieve writes: > Thanks for your input. I like your suggestions, as they look pretty > straightforward, but this is how this is being done for other > packages? Differently, depending on the state of upstream. > I was looking at § 9.1.1 File System Structure[1]

Re: Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

Jonathon, On 18 May 2016 at 05:52, Jonathon Love wrote: >> umh, you force pushed everything, master, upstream and pristine-tar >> branches. WHY? what did you do? > > oh, sorry, i never intended for you to look at that repo, assuming you'd > look at the debian-mentors one. This

Re: package name for what upstream calls protobuf3

* Jonathon Love , 2016-05-18, 18:45: i'm in the process of packaging protobuf3: https://github.com/Pr0Ger/protobuf3 this is an implementation of protocol buffers 2 for python 3. according to debian policy, this should be named python3-protobuf3, but i think this name isn't

package name for what upstream calls protobuf3

hi, i'm in the process of packaging protobuf3: https://github.com/Pr0Ger/protobuf3 this is an implementation of protocol buffers 2 for python 3. according to debian policy, this should be named python3-protobuf3, but i think this name isn't ideal, because it could be mistaken for: a) an

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

umh, you force pushed everything, master, upstream and pristine-tar branches. WHY? what did you do? oh, sorry, i never intended for you to look at that repo, assuming you'd look at the debian-mentors one. And still it doesn't build, if that was meant to fix it. Without thinking of it I

Re: Binaries under "/usr/lib/"

Hi Ben, On 17 May 2016 at 21:06, Ben Finney wrote: > How many process calls are there? The ideal solution IMO is to: Not much of them. In my case, there's just one. I was thinking about a corner case, where there would be multiple process calls, possible making a

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:07:05PM +1000, Jonathon Love wrote: > thanks for the review, and sorry for the embarrassing "does not build" > situation. i was packaging on ubuntu, and my experience has been that if it > works there, it will work on debian - but apparently not, i'll be more > careful

Bug#824619: marked as done (RFS: golang-github-hlandau-degoutils/0.0~git20160421.0.389a847-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 08:04:55 + with message-id <20160518080454.ge20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824619: RFS: golang-github-hlandau-degoutils/0.0~git20160421.0.389a847-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824619, regarding RFS:

Bug#824621: marked as done (RFS: golang-gopkg-cheggaaa-pb.v1/1.0.3-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 08:00:32 + with message-id <20160518080027.gd20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824621: RFS: golang-gopkg-cheggaaa-pb.v1/1.0.3-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824621, regarding RFS: golang-gopkg-cheggaaa-pb.v1/1.0.3-1 to be marked as done.

Bug#824622: marked as done (RFS: golang-gopkg-square-go-jose.v1/1.0.2-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 07:53:09 + with message-id <20160518075307.gc20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824622: RFS: golang-gopkg-square-go-jose.v1/1.0.2-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824622, regarding RFS: golang-gopkg-square-go-jose.v1/1.0.2-1 to be marked as

Bug#820383: marked as done (RFS: photocollage/1.4.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 07:39:18 + with message-id <20160518073917.gb20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#820383: RFS: photocollage/1.4.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #820383, regarding RFS: photocollage/1.4.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#824625: marked as done (RFS: pentobi/12.0-1)

Your message dated Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:09 + with message-id <20160518071007.ga20...@chase.mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#824625: RFS: pentobi/12.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #824625, regarding RFS: pentobi/12.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

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

Hi, >I have set up a git repo on github: >https://github.com/rogers0/shadowsocks-libev >My current changes are pushed to branch: RFC (I won't clone that right now, only answering questions) >Package builds fine with command: gbp buildpackage -us -uc --git-ignore-branch you should also try

Bug#824489: RFS: dwarfutils/20160507-1 [ITA] -- utility and library to work with DWARF debug information

Hi Fabian >dh_auto_install does not do anything useful here: `make install` for >some reason does not actually install anything but just compiles some >examples (that won't be part of the Debian package) and then finishes >with the note > >"No install provided, see comments in the README" >