Bug#703237:
Looking at packages.debian.org i believe this was fixed some time ago, please correct me if i'm wrong. Could this be closed? Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#822915:
Control: tags 822915 confirmed Control: tags 822915 pending Control: severity 822915 minor thanks Hi, Thanks for reporting this, I've just got in charge of jwm and there's still little things that need to be changed. I'm lowering the severity of this bug because i believe it fits better, i should wait for the next release of jwm to fix it, if it takes too much time for it to happen i will fix it before, the next version of jwm will implement various patches that the package currently uses. Unfortunately i don't think i can fix this on stable since it's not a serious bug, but a fix should definitely arrive to jessie-backports as soon as to testing. Please let me know if you have any considerations or disagreements so we can discuss this further. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#811324: menulibre: FTBFS: ImportError: cannot import name Gtk, introspection typelib not found
Control: tags 811324 patch Control: tags 811324 pending Hi, I uploaded a NMU to 5-day/delay queue. Feel free to cancel this upload if needed. The debian/changelog is: menulibre (2.0.7-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. * Build-depend on python3-psutil, gir1.2-gtk-3.0 (closes: #811324). * debian/clean: Create and add missing entry for po file. I attached a debdiff. Thanks. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] menulibre.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#815567: Amarok should depend on virtual-mysql-server-core to support MariaDB
2016-04-24 13:15 GMT-03:00 Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org>: > My concerns are primarily about the Build-Depends(-Indep), because these > are going to break at some point for sure. > I'm sorry, could you explain why we can't depend on mysql-server instead of mysql-server-core-5.6 on the Build-Depenps(-Indep)? I believe i don't have as much experience packaging as you do, i just started recently. I've got the impression that you mean asking for the mysql team to package mysql-server-core and mariadb-server-core wouldn't be a solution, is that right? If so, why? Also, I just saw that the Debian Release Team decided that the default database option should be MariaDB[1], so instead of mysql-server, we put mariadb-server. [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MySQL/virtual-mysql-server Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#815567: Amarok should depend on virtual-mysql-server-core to support MariaDB
Hi Andreas, I agree with your considerations, but i don't quite understand what's your proposed solution,.did you talk to anyone from Debian MySQL Maintainers about packaging mysql-server-core? I will send them this request if you didn't. Also, amarok can use mysql-server instead. The depedency tree mysql-server -> mysql-server-5.6 -> mysql-server-core-5.6 Will handle the missing.mysql-server-core package I believe this should be the fix if we cannot get mysql-server-core, making amarok a litle bloated but again if we don't get mysql-server-core. Thanks. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#525314:
Hi Axel, It looks like efte is already packaged[1]. I'm assuming that I should follow the procedure explained here[2] in order to substitute fte with efte, am I right? [1]https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/efte [2]https://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package Thanks Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#815567:
Control: tags 815567 patch Control: tags 815567 pending Hi, I uploaded a NMU to 15-day/delay queue. Feel free to cancel this upload if needed. The debian/changelog is: amarok (2.8.0-4.1) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. * debian/control: - Update to Debian Policy 3.9.7. - Build-Depends-Indep: Change build dependency from mysql-server-core to virtual-mysql-server-core to allow mariadb usage (closes: #815567). I attached a debdiff. Thanks. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] amarok.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#701903: Issue still exists
Just got hit by this bug. Fixed using Matt Moldvan workaround. This was reported three years ago, is upstream aware of it? Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#819418: fte: watch file broken
Hi Axel, Samuel Henrique Oltramari Pinto wrote with subject "Accepted fte > 0.50.2b6-9 (source) into unstable)": > >* debian/watch: Create. > > This is contra-productive. :-( >> > I'm sorry, what should i have write on the changelog instead? I thought the creation of watch file didn't need a detailed changelog because its purpose is always the same and the only difference would be the regex, watch version and url, also the changes would easily be recognizable because the file didn't exist before, should've detailed/explained the watch entirely? https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fte now claims that there is a new > upstream release while there isn't. > > fte upstream has the annoying behaviour to _not_ put the version > number but the release date into the tar ball file names which is why > there never has been a watch file in the past. See > /usr/share/doc/fte/changelog.gz: > Wow, that was a very silly mistake. I think i didn't pay attention to uscan output when testing the watch file, I won't let this happen again. I'm tempted to do another QA upload to fix this false positive. The > other option would be to either remove the watch file or the comment > out its content. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] 2016-03-28 7:50 GMT-03:00 Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>: > Package: fte > Version: 0.50.2b6-9 > > Hi, > > Samuel Henrique Oltramari Pinto wrote with subject "Accepted fte > 0.50.2b6-9 (source) into unstable)": > >* debian/watch: Create. > > This is contra-productive. :-( > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fte now claims that there is a new > upstream release while there isn't. > > fte upstream has the annoying behaviour to _not_ put the version > number but the release date into the tar ball file names which is why > there never has been a watch file in the past. See > /usr/share/doc/fte/changelog.gz: > > 0.50.2b6 -- 2011 > […] > 0.50.2b5 -- March 2010 > > Hence we _cannot_ check for new versions with watch files unless we > change the version number of the package. I recommend to _not_ change > the version number to only use the date based numbers. A proper > upstream version number which would work with an according watch file > would be e.g. > > 0.50.2b6-20110708 > > I'm tempted to do another QA upload to fix this false positive. The > other option would be to either remove the watch file or the comment > out its content. > > Regards, Axel > -- > ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ > : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin > `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 > `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE >
Bug#805684: python-box2d: FTBFS: swig doesn't like some comment styles any more
Thanks a lot Jonas, Eriberto (my sponsor) already uploaded the new changes. I'm currently starting at the packaging proccess and making some NMUs is great to achieve more experience. Are there any plans to update to pybox 2.3.1? Is there anything I can help? Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Bug#805684:
Control: tags 805684 patch Control: tags 805684 pending Hi, I uploaded a NMU to 10-day/delay queue. Feel free to cancel this upload if needed. The debian/changelog is: python-box2d (2.0.2+svn20100109.244-1.2) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. * debian/control: - Change to new Homepage. - Update to Debian Policy 3.9.7. * debian/patches: - fix_comments.patch: Add patch to fix comment formatting so that the package doesn't FTBFS with SWIG 3 (patch courtesy of Jitka Plesnikova), thanks to Logan Rosen <lo...@ubuntu.com> for ponting out the patch (closes: #805684). * debian/watch: - Change to new url from GitHub. - Update to version 4. I attached a debdiff. Thanks. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] python-box2d.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#805084:
Control: tags 805084 patch Control: tags 805084 pending Hi, I uploaded a NMU to 10-day/delay queue. Feel free to cancel this upload if needed. The debian/changelog is: python-srp (1.0.4-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. * debian/control: - Build-Depends: Add dh-python. - Depends: Remove hardcoded libssl1.0.0 from all binaries (closes: #805084). - Update to Debian Policy 3.9.7. I attached a debdiff. Thanks. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] python-srp.debdiff Description: Binary data
Bug#800284: ciphersaber: Please migrate a supported debhelper compat level
Control: tags 800284 patch
Control: tags 800284 pending
Hi,
I uploaded a NMU to 10-day/delay queue yesterday. Feel free to cancel this
upload if needed.
The debian/changelog is:
ciphersaber (0.61-4.2) unstable; urgency=medium
* Non-maintainer upload.
* Update DH level to 9 (closes: #800284, #817315).
* debian/control:
- Depends: Add ${misc:Depends}.
- Standards-Version: Update to 3.9.7.
* debian/watch:
- Update to version 4 (closes: #529102).
- Use new URL (closes: #449849).
I attached a debdiff.
Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]
Técnico em Informática - UTFPR [2012].
Estudante de Engenharia de Computação - UTFPR.
ciphersaber.debdiff
Description: Binary data
Bug#789279: ITA: jwm -- very small lightweight pure X11 window manager
Hi Reiner, Actually, I am doing the same and already did some considerable amount of work on the package, you can see it here[1]. Eriberto is sponsoring me, the plan was to upload it on this weekend (there's a few things that i have to finish today and tomorrow [there's a todo on the changelog]). I already did a QA upload of this package about 6 days ago. I really don't know what we should do now. When are you planing to finish and could you share your improvements? I will probably add png and svg support to the package as well. [1]:https://mentors.debian.net/package/jwm Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] Técnico em Informática - UTFPR [2012]. Estudante de Engenharia de Computação - UTFPR. 2016-03-17 21:14 GMT-03:00 Reiner Herrmann <rei...@reiner-h.de>: > Hi Samuel, > > I just saw that you are intending to adopt the jwm package. > I'm currently preparing a QA upload of the new upstream version > and a couple of fixes. > Before we unnecessarily duplicate any work, could you please wait > with your changes/adoption until the package is uploaded? > Mattia will push the changes also to the collab-maint repository > after uploading. > > Thanks! > > Kind regards, > Reiner >
Bug#800396:
I was having this same problem. Can confirm disabling media.fragmented-mp4.exposed works.
