Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Rene Engelhard wrote: URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openoffice.org-voikko I guess you want to conflict against openoffice.org-soikko? I did the change to 1.1-2 yesterday evening. I soon got a few notices that multiple spellcheckers work in OOo just fine. What do you think? Of course it's not maybe that wise to use more than one spellchecker for a language, but apparently it's entirely possible. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: png2html (updated package)
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 11:10:58PM +0100, Jack Grahams wrote: Thanks again for your help. I've uploaded it to mentors.debian.net. Please let me know if it's suitable for sponsorship. Well, IMHO it is. Just uploaded. If you want to update your packaging any time in the future please simply contact me directly via private mail. Thanks for your contribution, cheers, Flo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: drapes (updated)
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:41:06PM +0100, James Westby wrote: On (25/09/06 01:48), Francesco Namuri wrote: On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote: If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file. It's not my solution, :) I have found it taking a look in the dpatch examples (/usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/dpatch/01_config.dpatch.gz). considering that it is among the examples of dpatch, I have thought that it is released under GPL, your opinion? If dpatch is under GPL then yes probably, but confirmation should be sought. You can also check the debian/copyright of dpatch, as it should be documented in there. hi, yesterday I have written to the author of the patch, this morning I have received an answer... in short, the author (Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]) says that: (quoting his words) You may use, modify, redistribute with or without modifications in any way you wish. and that it's not necessary to put information about the copyright of the patch in debian/copyright... kind regards francesco -- Francesco Namuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.namuri.it/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 08:22 schrieben Sie: I did the change to 1.1-2 yesterday evening. I soon got a few notices that multiple spellcheckers work in OOo just fine. What do you think? Of course Right. it's not maybe that wise to use more than one spellchecker for a language, but apparently it's entirely possible. Right. But soikko/voikko are sufficiently similar (and soikko is unmaintained upstream afaik and non-free) so that it doesn't really make sense to install both soikko and voikko? [ and soikko could be removed if voikko is in the archive if no one objects ] I didn't say you should conflict against myspell-fi or so but soikko/voikko conflicts seem sensible... Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: Building a program with the library shipped in Debian, not in orig.tar.gz
At 1158313616 past the epoch, Charles Plessy wrote: EMBOSS is shipped and built with its own copy of libpcre. As a result, the EMBOSS Debian package contains some files wich are also in the libpcre Debian package, and they conflict together. Argh. Reading the -devel mesg you linked to, I take it that this software is using stuff which is not exposed in libpcre as a public function. The correct solution would be for the upstream software to be adjusted such that a) it did not use bits of pcre that are not exposed in the library b) it was feasible to link to an external pcre (perhaps by default) -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Rene Engelhard wrote: Right. But soikko/voikko are sufficiently similar (and soikko is unmaintained upstream afaik and non-free) so that it doesn't really make sense to install both soikko and voikko? [ and soikko could be removed if voikko is in the archive if no one objects ] I didn't say you should conflict against myspell-fi or so but soikko/voikko conflicts seem sensible... I understand. And yes, soikko is non-free, non-maintained (except for packaging/installer) and will be obsolete in the near future because of voikko. Currently there might be some objections to removal of soikko because many people probably have it installed (though it's non-free so you have to search for it), but really voikko is quite good at replacing it already. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Building a program with the library shipped in Debian, not in orig.tar.gz
Le Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:10:34AM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit : At 1158313616 past the epoch, Charles Plessy wrote: EMBOSS is shipped and built with its own copy of libpcre. As a result, the EMBOSS Debian package contains some files wich are also in the libpcre Debian package, and they conflict together. Argh. Reading the -devel mesg you linked to, I take it that this software is using stuff which is not exposed in libpcre as a public function. The correct solution would be for the upstream software to be adjusted such that a) it did not use bits of pcre that are not exposed in the library b) it was feasible to link to an external pcre (perhaps by default) Hi, This is definitely what I will do, but EMBOSS releases a stable version every 3-4 month, and a major version every 1-2 years, so I do not think that it is compatible with having EMBOSS in Debian soon. Other distributions, such as RHEL, FreeBSD, Gentoo, and Fink all manage to distribute EMBOSS, so I wonder if the problem my inexperience rather than EMBOSS itself... For the packaging of EMBOSS, I started with the preliminary work of somebody else, which was made at a time where EMBOSS was not using pcre. It happens that when used on the latest version, it includes the headers from pcre in the a emboss-lib package which also contains libraries specific to EMBOSS. If I understand correctly, this symptom can be cured easily (removing the pcre headers from the package), but this leaves the possibility that the EMBOSS binaries will have a wrong behaviour because they would use a different libpcre than the one they have been compiled with. But maybe the binaries are statically linked... How can I figure out? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libapp-info-perl (updated package)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:34:11 +0200 Nacho Barrientos Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.50-1 of my package libapp-info-perl. Sponsored, thanks to Ricardo Mones. -- bye, - Nacho -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Building a program with the library shipped in Debian, not in orig.tar.gz
Hello, On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:10:34AM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit : At 1158313616 past the epoch, Charles Plessy wrote: EMBOSS is shipped and built with its own copy of libpcre. As a result, the EMBOSS Debian package contains some files wich are also in the libpcre Debian package, and they conflict together. Other distributions, such as RHEL, FreeBSD, Gentoo, and Fink all manage to distribute EMBOSS, so I wonder if the problem my inexperience rather than EMBOSS itself... I had a similar issue with building pngcrush and libpng. If you build using the upstream's copy of libpcre which is included with the code, then the security team will raise the following question: Who is responsible for fixing the security issues that arise in the libpcre library as they apply to your package? This is forever a problem with forked code. If there is a security bug in one version the security team will be forced to examine its implications in all other forks. For this reason the Debian version of pngcrush is built using the Debian libpng. This is something that is deprecated by the upstream author but he has been kind enough to facilitate it anyhow. The Debian version of optipng is done differently. It includes a separate library of png functions which are only for its own use. Hence it does not depend on Debian's libpng at all. Hope this experience will help you to solve your problem. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: logwatch (temporary sponsor)
Hi! I'm searching for a temporary sponsor for logwatch 7.3.1-2. It's available from http://pkg-logwatch.alioth.debian.org/apt/pool/main/l/logwatch/ I want to get 7.3.1 into etch, because the current 7.3-2 doesn't properly support postfix 2.3 any more and reports some other lines concerning logs from shadow as unmatched. 7.3.1-1 wasn't uploaded to the official archive, because my usual sponsor Michael Vogt is currently loaded with other work. So please build with -sa -v7.3-2 The diff also contains some fixes and improvements including a script to summarise the dpkg log. (They have of course been submitted upstream already.) My changes since the last uploaded revision are on svn.debian.org. http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-logwatch/trunk/ Just compare revision 47 with revision 53. Willi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: logwatch (temporary sponsor)
Sponsored. Cheers, tony Willi Mann wrote: Hi! I'm searching for a temporary sponsor for logwatch 7.3.1-2. It's available from http://pkg-logwatch.alioth.debian.org/apt/pool/main/l/logwatch/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RFS: php-xdebug
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package php-xdebug. * Package name: php-xdebug Version : 1.99+2.0.0beta6-1 Upstream Author : Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.xdebug.org * License : The Xdebug License, version 1.01 (Based on The PHP License, version 3.0) Section : web It builds these binary packages: php4-xdebug - xdebug extension module for PHP4 php5-xdebug - xdebug extension module for PHP5 The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 377348 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/php-xdebug - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/php-xdebug/php-xdebug_1.99+2.0.0beta6-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Marcelo Jorge Vieira (metal) alma alucinada - http://metal.alucinados.com orkut - http://orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=5437960137818787471 flickr - http://flickr.com/photos/marcelometal/ jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: drapes (updated)
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Francesco Namuri wrote: On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:41:06PM +0100, James Westby wrote: On (25/09/06 01:48), Francesco Namuri wrote: On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote: If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file. hi, yesterday I have written to the author of the patch, this morning I have received an answer... in short, the author (Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]) says that: (quoting his words) You may use, modify, redistribute with or without modifications in any way you wish. and that it's not necessary to put information about the copyright of the patch in debian/copyright... So, probably the right thing is to put the copyright information and quote the author's mail in there. -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: gastman
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gastman. * Package name: gastman Version : 1.0~rc1-1 Upstream Author : Mark Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://ftp.digium.com/pub/gastman/ * License : GPLv2 Section : comm It builds these binary packages: gastman- GUI tool for Asterisk administration and monitoring The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gastman - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gastman/gastman_1.0~rc1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Lionel Porcheron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gastman
Please consider joining [EMAIL PROTECTED] where most pkg-voip related packages are maintained on a team basis. The DDs on that list will happily sponsor the uploads for your package. Regards. El mié, 27-09-2006 a las 21:47 +0200, Lionel Porcheron escribió: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gastman. * Package name: gastman Version : 1.0~rc1-1 Upstream Author : Mark Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://ftp.digium.com/pub/gastman/ * License : GPLv2 Section : comm It builds these binary packages: gastman- GUI tool for Asterisk administration and monitoring The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gastman - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gastman/gastman_1.0~rc1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Lionel Porcheron -- Alejandro Ríos Peña signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
RFS: lusernet.app (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4.2-1 of the package lusernet.app. It builds these binary packages: lusernet.app - News Reader for GNUstep The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 350435, 356531 It would also help the completion of the ongoing GNUstep transition and would enable us to drop the old Pantomime 1.1.2 framework (source package pantomime) from the archive completely; lusernet.app is the only rdepends. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lusernet.app - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lusernet.app/lusernet.app_0.4.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version 1 accidentally released as version 2...
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 06:26 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: What's upstream doing about it now? Are they releasing a 2.0.1 or 2.1 or 3 or something to replace that one, or are they just sticking with the V2 package? Again, what are upstream's plans? That will have a massive bearing on what you do. Agreeing with and extending what Mathew said, I think the sensible solution would be for upstream to make a new release, in order to avoid more confusion. If that's done then you're job's simple, repackage with the new version and that's it. Make it as fast as possible though, since your users are probably a bit confused by now... and if upstream takes a while to release officially (for any reason), you could just get the CVS version tagged as 2.0, name it 2.0+1-1 or something like that and upload fast. If, however, upstream decides to not release a new tarball you repackage it yourself and use the same naming convention as above. Hope it helps. Cheers -- Leo Antunes [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: lusernet.app (updated package)
Yavor Doganov wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4.2-1 of the package lusernet.app. This package is maintained by Gurkan, and since he didn't orphan the package, it would normally not be considered for an upload unless there's an RC bug or as long as he is not MIA. I'm his current 'lets-upload-everything-GNUstep-ish-found-on-Internet' package-sponsor, so I can say that he's not MIA, and there's no open RC neither. However, your package is really much better than Guerkans and it would be really bad to waste the good work you made, so CC'ing him. Although he is maybe busy until next Monday, he's a friendly guy and will answer you quickly :P I think he will offer you co-maintainership, and if so, I'll sponsor the upload if you want. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: lusernet.app (updated package)
Daniel Baumann wrote: I think he will offer you co-maintainership, and if so, I'll sponsor the upload if you want. He already offered me (although not documented on a public ML/buglog), and he's aware that I've been working with Sergey Golovin for the new Pantomime stuff. Gürkan, could you please confirm that to -mentors or at least to Daniel?
Re: RFS: frown
Hi, I hereby renew my request for sponsorship. I have update the package after some remarks of James Westby and Stephane Bortzmeyer and hope that someone is willing to upload it, * Package name: frown Version : 0.6.1-3 Upstream Author : Ralf Hinze [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/~ralf/frown/index.html * License : GPLv2 Section : devel It builds these binary packages: frown - LALR(k) parser generator for Haskell 98 The package is linda an lintian clean. An upload would close ITP bug 336978. The package can be downloaded from my repository: - URL: http://moonshine.dnsalias.org/debian/unstable - Source repo: deb-src http://moonshine.dnsalias.org/debian unstable/ - dget http://moonshine.dnsalias.org/debian/unstable/frown_0.6.1-3_i386.changes Greetings Arjan Oosting signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Version 1 accidentally released as version 2...
Le Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:20:15PM -0300, Leo Antunes a écrit : If that's done then you're job's simple, repackage with the new version and that's it. Make it as fast as possible though, since your users are probably a bit confused by now... and if upstream takes a while to release officially (for any reason), you could just get the CVS version tagged as 2.0, name it 2.0+1-1 or something like that and upload fast. If, however, upstream decides to not release a new tarball you repackage it yourself and use the same naming convention as above. OK, thanks all for your answers. I will mention the problem in the README. How can I give a message only to the users who upgrade from the previous version? I do not want to annoy the ones who will install from Etch next year... Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where is urgency= documented?
Dear Mentors, As I am preparing the upload a package which fixes a versioning mistake (1.x uploaded as 2.0), I was wondering if it would make sense to set an urgency higher than low so that the package migrates faster to testing. The package is very simple (one binary), and provides a functional test which was passed successfuly. But I did not find a detailed explanation in the policy or the developper's reference. Do you know where the impact of changing the urgency is documented? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version 1 accidentally released as version 2...
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:33:46AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:20:15PM -0300, Leo Antunes a écrit : If that's done then you're job's simple, repackage with the new version and that's it. Make it as fast as possible though, since your users are probably a bit confused by now... and if upstream takes a while to release officially (for any reason), you could just get the CVS version tagged as 2.0, name it 2.0+1-1 or something like that and upload fast. If, however, upstream decides to not release a new tarball you repackage it yourself and use the same naming convention as above. OK, thanks all for your answers. I will mention the problem in the README. How can I give a message only to the users who upgrade from the previous version? I do not want to annoy the ones who will install from Etch next year... If you put in NEWS.Debian (it has the same format as debian/changelog, you can even use dch to edit it) then people who are using apt-listchanges and are upgrading from a version older than the version in which the news was logged against will see the message. - Matt
Re: Where is urgency= documented?
Op do, 28-09-2006 te 10:06 +0900, schreef Charles Plessy: Dear Mentors, As I am preparing the upload a package which fixes a versioning mistake (1.x uploaded as 2.0), I was wondering if it would make sense to set an urgency higher than low so that the package migrates faster to testing. The package is very simple (one binary), and provides a functional test which was passed successfuly. But I did not find a detailed explanation in the policy or the developper's reference. Do you know where the impact of changing the urgency is documented? From policy: The package must have been available in unstable for several days; the precise number depends on the upload's urgency field. It is 10 days for low urgency, 5 days for medium urgency and 2 days for high urgency. Those delays may be doubled during a freeze; And also see a mail on devel-announce: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/07/msg8.html Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Where is urgency= documented?
Le Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:20:43AM +0200, Arjan Oosting a écrit : And also see a mail on devel-announce: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/07/msg8.html Thank you, this is what I was looking for. So If I understand correctly, although one could maybe consider that being wrong on the major version of the packaged software could be RC, the upload has to be urgency=low anyway as for fixing it, one has to upgrade to a new version. I will use urgency=low, then. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gtksee (updated package)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:57:58 +0100, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On (25/09/06 19:01), holoturoide wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.5.6-3 of my package gtksee. Hi, I cannot sponsor but I have some comments, * Your debian/copyright does not reflect current best practices, please see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html It's updated * I doubt you need to have include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make if you have include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/dpatch.mk removed * Please add a watch file. added James thanks for your attention :D Eder Ruiz Maria - holoturoide -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFGzin1R4LLG0+grcRAsc+AKCgxrLphCjfWkn+b4Mtsj+Rha/hywCgnc5U 6dOkDChqT8+F05rm16iOvkU= =roSd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gnome-app-install (super-easy package manager) prototype
Hi all, My question is in the last paragraph of this email. Progress note: I am working on a port of gnome-app-install to Debian. This utility, made by the folks at Canonical Inc. and Ubuntu, is like Synaptic, but ten times easier to use. It currently does the job but does not always quit after an install operation is finished. Known issues include internationalization, missing icons, the OK button and it currently fails if you try to install anything in non-free. (If you try it, it'd be great if you could let me know, either here or by email, whether the icons in the Popularity column look like little stars or little X-squares. You can install it using the following sources.list lines:) deb http://www.jspiro.com/files/debian experimental/ deb-src http://www.jspiro.com/files/debian experimental/ I am frustrated at the various bugs I'm seeing but I don't want to give up, as I want gnome-app-install to be in Debian. If you would like to finish packaging the app and take over maintainership, I'd be very glad to stop here and explain to you the changes I've made already. Now for my question: I am working from an upstream .tar.gz file from Ubuntu. The upstream tarball includes .pyc files too, not just .py files. My .diff.gz does not touch the .pyc files when applied to the upstream source. Will this be a problem when people try to apply the .diff? Thanks for being here to listen. Jason Spiro -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- Russian Proverb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
