Re: RFS: drpython (updated package)
Russ Allbery wrote: Kevin Coyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what is LP: #96014? LP numbers are usually Launchpad bugs (in Ubuntu's system). Yes, that's it. That issue has been initially reported in Ubuntu (see https://launchpad.net/bugs/96014 for the details). Since it affects Debian too, I think it is worth to notice it into changelog. Thanks, -- Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libj2ssh-java
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:40:25AM +0200, Michael Koch wrote: Your package is very good. Thanks for your work. Just one nit. Please put the javadocs and examples into an extra -doc package. I think the size of them warrents an extra package. And please make the normal package suggest the -doc package. We shall get down to this this evening. I have two questions: 1. Could you please consider adding kumanna-guest and varun-guest to pkg-java? I have already mailed there in this regard. 2. Could I mail you in off-list, when I upload the revised package? Thanks a lot! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: cvsps (updated package)
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:46:18PM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: Dear mentors, Hi Michael! - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cvsps/cvsps_2.1-4.dsc 09:45:27 ERROR 404: Not Found. So hmm, yes, please fix that or check it next time before you submit the mail. ;) Please also add this package to sponsors.d.n so that I can pick it up there again. Thanks and regards, -- .''`. Mario Iseli [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :Debian GNU/Linux developer `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libj2ssh-java
Hello, On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:40:25AM +0200, Michael Koch wrote: Your package is very good. Thanks for your work. Just one nit. Please put the javadocs and examples into an extra -doc package. I think the size of them warrents an extra package. And please make the normal package suggest the -doc package. We shall get down to this this evening. I have two questions: 1. Could you please consider adding kumanna-guest and varun-guest to pkg-java? I have already mailed there in this regard. Yes, see other mail. 2. Could I mail you in off-list, when I upload the revised package? Yes, thats the preferred way. Please include a link to the .dsc file in your mail. Then I can process it half-automatically from mutt. Cheers, Michael -- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cvsps (updated package)
On Thu, September 6, 2007 09:48, Mario Iseli wrote: - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cvsps/cvsps_2.1-4.dsc 09:45:27 ERROR 404: Not Found. Sorry, I already uploaded this after an IRC conversation on #debian-mentors, I didn't realise that there was also a mailinglist mail about it. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposed copyright format
Dear mentors, there has been some discussion going some time ago on about making the copyright file machine-interpretable. I really like the idea and read the proposal [1]. The new format looks clearer to me and I wonder whether it's reasonable to already use it. There don't seem to be any tools using it right now, and it's not policy. On the other hand, I really don't see any reason not to use it, knowing that some adjustments have to be made if the format changes. What are your thoughts on that? Is anyone using the new format already? Thanks in advance, Manuel Footnote: 1. http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Piklab - IDE for PIC-microcontroller development
El lun, 03-09-2007 a las 11:45 +0200, Miriam Ruiz escribió: Piklab is an integrated development environment for applications based on Microchip PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers similar to the MPLAB environment. Support for several compiler and assembler toolchains is integrated. The GPSim simulator, the ICD1 programmer, the ICD2 debugger, the PICkit1 and PICkit2 programmers, the PicStart+ programmer, and most direct programmers are supported. A command-line programmer and debugger is also available. Piklab is an application for the KDE desktop. Homepage: http://piklab.sourceforge.net/ Packages: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piklab/ DSC File: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piklab/piklab_0.14.5-1.dsc As usual, feedback is welcome :) Is this package uploaded yet? signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: RFS: Piklab - IDE for PIC-microcontroller development
2007/9/6, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez [EMAIL PROTECTED]: El lun, 03-09-2007 a las 11:45 +0200, Miriam Ruiz escribió: Piklab is an integrated development environment for applications based on Microchip PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers similar to the MPLAB environment. Support for several compiler and assembler toolchains is integrated. The GPSim simulator, the ICD1 programmer, the ICD2 debugger, the PICkit1 and PICkit2 programmers, the PicStart+ programmer, and most direct programmers are supported. A command-line programmer and debugger is also available. Piklab is an application for the KDE desktop. Homepage: http://piklab.sourceforge.net/ Packages: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piklab/ DSC File: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piklab/piklab_0.14.5-1.dsc As usual, feedback is welcome :) Is this package uploaded yet? Yes, it has been uploaded :) It is in NEW now, thanks!! Miry
Re: Proposed copyright format
On Thu, September 6, 2007 13:58, Manuel Prinz wrote: There don't seem to be any tools using it right now, and it's not policy. On the other hand, I really don't see any reason not to use it, knowing that some adjustments have to be made if the format changes. What are your thoughts on that? Is anyone using the new format already? debian/copyright is currently free form, there's only requirements on the content. So if you think that this is a good form for your debian/copyright, go right ahead. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed copyright format
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:58:31PM +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote: Dear mentors, there has been some discussion going some time ago on about making the copyright file machine-interpretable. I really like the idea and read the proposal [1]. The new format looks clearer to me and I wonder whether it's reasonable to already use it. There don't seem to be any tools using it right now, and it's not policy. On the other hand, I really don't see any reason not to use it, knowing that some adjustments have to be made if the format changes. What are your thoughts on that? Is anyone using the new format already? Seems like a best-practice to me. Using the proposed format too is perhaps the only good way of finding problems or potential improvements. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help with -dbg packages for a library
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:57:55AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:29:45AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: Dear Debian Mentors, I have a specific question with regard to -dbg packages for libraries. My understanding of generating -dbg libraries is like this: 1. We build the package with CFLAGS or CXXFLAGS = -g -O2 (for optimization). 2. We call dh_strip while exluding the dbg package, to ensure that debugging sumbols are present there. I think the suggestion is for all libraries to use dh_strip --dbg-package or -k. BTW this is in bug #420540. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with --purge and reinstalling
Le 5 sept. 07 à 22:22, Justin Pryzby a écrit : On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 09:58:32PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: [...] I also wonder how to fix this issue best: I guess /etc/yorick files should belong in the package yorick, not yorick-data, but can I simply switch the files from one package to the other? No. You have to remove the files in preinst if their md5sum matches the md5sum in dpkg's status database. Actually it's more complicated if you support dpkg rollbacks. You have to rename them in preinst (if they're unmodified), remove them in postinst (in the normal scenario when everything works), but rename them back to their original name in postrm abort-upgrade. All conditional on their existence, version checks, and md5sum checks. [0] OK, thanks, I'll do that (and read your reference further). Actually I tried simply moving the files to yorick and tested my install-purge-reinstall scenario: the result is the one I would have expected to begin with! dpkg says that the files have been deleted and asks whether to reinstall them... looks strange to me that this happens only if I move the files to another package. Regards, Thibaut.
Re: Problem with --purge and reinstalling
Le 5 sept. 07 à 23:54, Neil Williams a écrit : On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:58:32 +0200 Thibaut Paumard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I'm maintaining the yorick-* packages. The source package is split into yorick, yorick-data and yorick-dev. Is yorick-doc not useful in that list? It's currently orphaned (I did the QA upload on it). #35 Yorick-doc has currently its own source package and is mostly out-of- date. I'll fix it once it's integrated in yorick's source by upstream, which seems to be happening. (Since my uploads are sonsored, I avoid unnecessary uploads when I think a better solution will be possible soon). Regards, T.
Re: Problem with --purge and reinstalling
Le 5 sept. 07 à 23:54, Neil Williams a écrit : On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:58:32 +0200 Thibaut Paumard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I'm maintaining the yorick-* packages. The source package is split into yorick, yorick-data and yorick-dev. Is yorick-doc not useful in that list? It's currently orphaned (I did the QA upload on it). #35 Yorick-doc has currently its own source package and is mostly out-of- date. I'll fix it once it's integrated in yorick's source by upstream, which seems to be happening. (Since my uploads are sonsored, I avoid unnecessary uploads when I think a better solution will be possible soon). Regards, T.
Re: RFS: tesseract (updated package)
2007/9/1, Jeffrey Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract/tesseract_2.01-2.dsc 1. There is no second revision. Are you sure that you uploaded it? 2. Package tesseract-ocr depends on tesseract-ocr-eng but there is no section for this one in debian/control. -- wbr Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: tesseract (updated package)
2007/9/6, DS [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1. There is no second revision. Are you sure that you uploaded it? 2. Package tesseract-ocr depends on tesseract-ocr-eng but there is no section for this one in debian/control. Oh! Sorry! 2 is found. But what about 1? -- wbr Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: tesseract (updated package)
On 06/09/07, DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. There is no second revision. Are you sure that you uploaded it? It was requested that I put all changes from -2 in -1, as -1 was never released. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract/tesseract_2.01-1.dsc 2. Package tesseract-ocr depends on tesseract-ocr-eng but there is no section for this one in debian/control. Upstream releases the different language packs in separate tarballs. Therefore I have packaged them separately. For English: The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract-eng - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tesseract-eng/tesseract-eng_2.00-1.dsc Regards Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libj2ssh-java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Koch wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:47:43PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: (CC'ed to Debian Mentors). Dear Mentors, Myself and a friend have managed to package libj2ssh-java. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libj2ssh-java/libj2ssh-java_0.2.9-1.dsc snip Your package is very good. Thanks for your work. Just one nit. Please put the javadocs and examples into an extra -doc package. I think the size of them warrents an extra package. And please make the normal package suggest the -doc package. Michael, Can you provide any generic guidelines on how large the docs should be to warrant a separate -doc package? This comes up from time to time sponsoring, and for new packages I've seen packages rejected because the - -doc package was too small. Thank you, tony -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG4As4pdwBkPlyvgMRAsm/AJ9H+DoEdFWxFGPgc3wAS/JsA7DVmACeJZCT hFxg1jC4WgkAHvkFAnreBcY= =850o -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: museek+ (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.13+svn.20070906.r740-1 of my package museek+. It builds these binary packages: mucous - Python/curses client for museekd murmur - PyGTK2 client for Museekd, the P2P Soulseek Daemon museekd- Client for the SoulSeek peer-to-peer network (server daemon) museekd-tools - Tools to manage a museekd daemon museeq - Qt client for museekd museeq-locales - Translations for museeq musetup-gtk - Gtk based museekd configuration utility python-museek - Python bindings for museek+ The package appears to be lintian / pbuilder clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/museek+ - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/museek+/museek+_0.1.13+svn.20070906.r740-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Adam Cécile
RFS: piwva
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package piwva. * Package name: piwva Version : 1.0.1-6 Upstream Author : Thomas Karlsson * URL : http://space.eu.org/thka/piwva/ * License : GPL Section : mail It builds these binary packages: piwva - addon to pine/alpine to allow easy download/display of attachment The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piwva - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/piwva/piwva_1.0.1-6.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Henrik Andreasson PS. this is a second RFS because I fixed the comments on the last one ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: irrlicht
* -fPIC is only used when building the .so file but not when compiling the source files (is it ok this way?) No, it is not ok that way. Follow this link. It also answers your question regarding -fPIC and static linking (short answer, also not ok): http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html * whether to use the .pc file or not (personally I see no advantage, what do you think Brandon?) I think the .pc file is pretty important for development libraries. It is especially important for irrlicht for two reasons. 1) The linking procedure for compiling against irrlicht is different in Debian than what people who download from upstream are used to. You dynamically linked against libpng, libjpeg62, etc, whereas upstream included those with the package. 2) You are going to have to rewrite the Makefiles for the examples, becasue the current ones don't work in an installed irrlicht. This will be easier to maintain if, rather than writing the compiler lines by hand, you just had the .pc file, and in the Makefiles wrote lines like `pkg-config --libs irrlicht`. * Should the .chm file be shipped in the -doc package or only the HTML documentation? That's more of a personal choice than anything. If you do provide both, make sure you document somewhere, such as the readme, that both files contain the same information. * what to do with the media/ files in the -examples package (some files are not free like dx's logo, opengl logo; there's also the lucida font in a .png file so I'm not sure it is ok) You probably already know this, but your choices are: * Put irrlicht-examples in non-free (kind of a cop-out, but acceptable) * Replace the non-free items with free items * Rewrite the examples to not use anything non-free * Not include irrlicht-examples I'm not an expert in debian policy, but I think you can't include the non-free components in the source package if you want to put the source package in main. You want to keep the source package in main, otherwise the whole thing will have to go to non-free. If you put irrlicht-examples in non-free, you'll need two separate source packages. You might actually find it easier to replace the non-free content. Openarena has quake meshes. They are GPL. You'll have to make a note of that in the copyright file. I'm not sure how to actually handle replacing the files. Is it ok to put them into the orig.tar.gz? I'm sure the answer is in the policy manual somewhere. Perhaps it would be best to skip the examples for the initial version. * lintian complaining about missing soname I noticed that too. Not from lintian, but using executables compiled against your library require the symlink that is only included in the development library. I bet the fix is easy, but I don't really know what it is. I bet it is a gcc option. Good luck! -Brandon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: irrlicht
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:15:28AM -0700, Brandon wrote: I'm not sure how to actually handle replacing the files. Is it ok to put them into the orig.tar.gz? I'm sure the answer is in the policy manual somewhere. The orig.tar.gz can't have any files introduced relative to upstream. * lintian complaining about missing soname I noticed that too. Not from lintian, but using executables compiled against your library require the symlink that is only included in the development library. I bet the fix is easy, but I don't really know what it is. I bet it is a gcc option. -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so.1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cellwriter
Thanks for taking a look at my package. On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 13:03 +1000, Paul Wise wrote: Firstly, please make a non-native package (diff.gz and orig.tar.gz instead of just a tar.gz). Done. Please file an intent to package bug and close it in the changelog: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1 Accidentally filed two (#441087, #441088) but the changelog closes both of them. Looks like you forgot to build-depend on x11proto-xext-dev. I was missing a dependency on libxtst-dev, it should build now. As upstream, you should fix these gcc warnings: Done. I've reuploaded the package with these changes. -- Michael Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cellwriter
Michael Levin wrote: Accidentally filed two (#441087, #441088) but the changelog closes both of them. You know, that bugs can be merged? Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cellwriter
Hi Michael! On 9/6/07, Michael Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've reuploaded the package with these changes. You are using a different source code than the original one (md5sum of them): abfc4789241a09b14a99f27f7d5c5566 cellwriter-1.0.0.tar.gz d1dad3e165314efe605469e015548820 cellwriter_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz You just need to get your cellwriter-1.0.0.tar.gz and rename it as cellwriter_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz Generally nothing else is needed. Also, your debian/copyright is basically empty and (maybe) you need to review debian/rules. Best regards, Nelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: museek+ (updated package)
Hi! On 9/6/07, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.13+svn.20070906.r740-1 of my package museek+. Uploaded. Thank you! Best regards, Nelson
Re: RFS: museek+ (updated package)
Thanks Nelson, Nothing to say about this package? I'm sure there are some things that could be improved. Can I consider you as my sponsor for all packages now ? Nelson A. de Oliveira a écrit : Hi! On 9/6/07, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.13+svn.20070906.r740-1 of my package museek+. Uploaded. Thank you! Best regards, Nelson
Re: RFS: museek+ (updated package)
A small question about this package. As you may have noticed, it provides a binary package named 'murmur'. This binary package was build from another source package before, but it has been merged into museek+ distribution. I guess the old murmur source package will be removed once some nightly cleaning scripts will detect it doesn't provide any binary package anymore, right ? Nelson A. de Oliveira a écrit : Hi! On 9/6/07, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.13+svn.20070906.r740-1 of my package museek+. Uploaded. Thank you! Best regards, Nelson
Re: RFS: drpython (updated package)
Hello Kevin, thank you for your suggestions. I uploaded a new package which should cover them. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/drpython - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/drpython/drpython_165-4.dsc Regards, -- Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libj2ssh-java
Hello, On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 07:14:16AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: Can you provide any generic guidelines on how large the docs should be to warrant a separate -doc package? This comes up from time to time sponsoring, and for new packages I've seen packages rejected because the - -doc package was too small. Afaik there is no generic guideline. I looked at the files in the binary deb and counted there size together in mind. I came to several hundread kilobytes for the docs (and also for the jars). This led me to the conclusion that this warrents a split. I also had the following from the FTP Master Reject FAQ in mind: You split a package too much or in a broken way. Well, broken or too much is a wide definition, so this is a case-by-case thing, but you should really think about a split before you do it. For example it doesn't make any sense to split a 50k arch:all package from a 250k arch:any one. Or splitting a package for only one file, depending on the main package. Yes, big dependency chains can be a reason. Or big documentation splitted into one -doc package. The point there is big. Call it a stomach feeling. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: warsow (updated packages)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.32.dfsg-1 of my package warsow and also for the new version 0.32-1 of the warsow-data package. The warsow package builds these packages: warsow - A comic-style fast-paced 3D ego-shooter warsow-server - Server for the Warsow 3D ego-shooter game The warsow-data package builds this package: warsow-data - Game data for the ego-shooter Warsow The packages appear to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 440476 The warsow package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/w/warsow - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/w/warsow/warsow_0.32.dfsg-1.dsc The warsow-data package can also be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/w/warsow-data - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/w/warsow-data/warsow-data_0.32-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- Regards, Andres Mejia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITS: python-unac
Hi Lukáš I am looking for a sponsor for package python-unac (ITP - http://bugs.debian.org/440511). It's a simple CDBS-based Python package, I think the packaging is clean enough. this module wasn't updated in upstream's SVN since 21 months, is it still developed? Will you be able to play upstream role if it's not? You can easily check if upstream is a live by asking him to update FSF address in SVN. Please update copyright year in debian/copyright line 29, add debian/watch file and contact me off-list -- http://people.debian.org/~piotr/sponsor.txt pgpWIvAVo8lIH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: qstardict
* DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-05 19:50:52 +0600]: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package qstardict. * Package name: qstardict Version : 0.07-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://qstardict.ylsoftware.com * License : GPLv2 Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: qstardict - StarDict-compatible dictionary written with using Qt The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 437264 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qstardict - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qstardict/qstardict_0.07-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Denis Sirotkin Denis, I'm looking it over for an upload. However, I can't download any of the dictionaries linked from the upstream main page - sourceforge pops up error pages saying they are not available - do you have any dictionaries I could use for testing your package - russian or english ones would be great. Alex. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: qstardict
2007/9/7, Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm looking it over for an upload. However, I can't download any of the dictionaries linked from the upstream main page - sourceforge pops up error pages saying they are not available - do you have any dictionaries I could use for testing your package - russian or english ones would be great. You can find all of that dictionaries in XDXF project [1], on download page [2] exactly (see dicts-stardict-form-xdxf section). There is mistake with numeration - download page linked from upstream page directs to *_sdict05_*.tar.bz2 when right is *_sdict03_*.tar.bz2. I'll notice upstream about this. [1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/ [2] http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=95155 -- wbr Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cellwriter
Michael Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (06/09/2007): You know, that bugs can be merged? I got an email from BTS saying the two reports were merged by someone already. However, they both still show up in the bugs list and I'm not sure which bug number they were merged into so I'm leaving the ChangeLog as is. They are merged, fullstop. No “master” bug or “duplicates”, just close both in the changelog and you're done. The order matters when one uses the “forcemerge” command, though. -- Cyril Brulebois pgpJu3Fpipp2h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: cellwriter
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 20:29 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Michael Levin wrote: Accidentally filed two (#441087, #441088) but the changelog closes both of them. You know, that bugs can be merged? I got an email from BTS saying the two reports were merged by someone already. However, they both still show up in the bugs list and I'm not sure which bug number they were merged into so I'm leaving the ChangeLog as is. On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:56 -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: You are using a different source code than the original one (md5sum of them): abfc4789241a09b14a99f27f7d5c5566 cellwriter-1.0.0.tar.gz d1dad3e165314efe605469e015548820 cellwriter_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz Uploaded the updated source as 1.0.1 so now the original source and the tarball on the website match up. Also, your debian/copyright is basically empty and (maybe) you need to review debian/rules. Fixed the copyright. The rules file works fine as far as I can tell. -- Michael Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
