Re: RFS: splint (updated package) -- ITA and fixes a bunch of bugs
On 07/12/17 00:43 +0900, Michal Čihař said ...
> Just quickly looked at the package, will look more deeply tomorrow and
> upload if noone else will be more interested/faster than me.
Thank you, nobody else has expressed interest yet.
> Are you sure that splint-data (>= 3.1.2) dependency is right? Are you
> sure that splint 4.0 data will work with splint 3.1.2? And anyway you
> should not hardcode version and use ${source:Version} or
> ${binary:Version} instead.
I got this right this time around. Thank you for pointing it out.
> Also the debian/*.dirs files seems not to be needed at all.
Fixed.
I also sneaked in a couple of other cosmetic changes. BTW, there is an
SVN repository [1] on alioth in collab-maint/ext-maint for splint.
[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/collab-maint/ext-maint/splint/unstable/?op=log
Please pass a -v3.1.1-6 option to dpkg-buildpackage because I bumped up
the debian revision number.
Further comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Giridhar
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
RFS: zynaddsubfx
Dear mentors, I am CC'ing Debian QA because this fixes an RC bug and the maintainer may be MIA. I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.1-4.1 of my package "zynaddsubfx". It builds these binary packages: zynaddsubfx - Realtime software synthesizer for Linux The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 415675, 445792 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zynaddsubfx - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zynaddsubfx/zynaddsubfx_2.2.1-4.1.dsc Thank you, Barry deFreese -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: postgresql-autodoc (minor fixes for orphaned package)
I am looking for a sponsor for a new version (1.30-2) of the orphaned package "postgresql-autodoc". This includes minor packaging fixes, updating it to follow recent Debian policy. It builds exactly one binary package: postgresql-autodoc - Utility to create a PostgreSQL database schema overview in HTML, XML and DOT The package is now lintian clean (although the version in Debian isn't). The tool itself is quite nice, if a little specialized - it creates a diagram or some documentation of the schema of a PostgreSQL database, in various formats. See http://www.rbt.ca/autodoc/ for some example output. The upload would fix these bugs: 439534, 447688 (One of these is the ITA, and one is a typo in the short description.) The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/postgresql-autodoc - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/postgresql-autodoc/postgresql-autodoc_1.30-2.dsc I am maintaining it in git on Alioth: - git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/postgresql-autodoc.git Thanks, -- Tim Retout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Trouble in uploading bzip2 upstream tarball
Hello,
On 16/12/2007, Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Debian Installer is refusing my upload by saying:
>
> ==
> Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: incompatible 'Format' version produced
> by a broken version of dpkg-dev 1.9.1{3,4}.
> Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: aspell6.pt_20071212.0.orig.tar.bz2 in
> Files field not recognised as source.
> Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: no .tar.gz or .orig.tar.gz in 'Files'
> field.
Since when are .bz2 uploads allowed?
AFAIK bzip2 is only allowed to be used to compress the data.tar inside the .deb
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Say NO to Microsoft Office broken standard.
See http://www.noooxml.org/petition
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mustang
Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 00:29:49 schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard: > Dear mentors, > The package appears to be lintian clean. Mh.. no.. not really. Please update to Standards-Version 3.7.3 (and recheck your package if there are any things which have to be changed according to Policy version 3.7.3. Your .diff.gz is not clean.. this means mostly that your clean target doesn't really clean the source. Here is the diffstat output: data/test/pdbs/1ard.pdb | 253 +++ data/test/pdbs/1bboN.pdb | 223 +++ data/test/pdbs/1paa.pdb | 241 + data/test/pdbs/1sp1.pdb | 247 ++ data/test/pdbs/1sp2.pdb | 270 data/test/pdbs/1zaa1.pdb | 261 +++ data/test/pdbs/1zaa2.pdb | 236 + data/test/pdbs/1zaa3.pdb | 221 +++ data/test/pdbs/1zfd.pdb | 267 data/test/pdbs/1znf.pdb | 209 ++ data/test/pdbs/1znm.pdb | 207 ++ data/test/pdbs/2drp1.pdb | 292 +++ data/test/pdbs/2drp2.pdb | 237 + data/test/pdbs/3znf.pdb | 250 ++ data/test/pdbs/5znf.pdb | 253 +++ data/test/pdbs/test1.pdb | 439 +++ data/test/pdbs/test2.pdb | 424 + debian/changelog | 14 + debian/compat|1 debian/control | 18 + debian/copyright | 41 debian/mustang.1 | 90 + debian/mustang.manpages |1 debian/rules | 72 +++ As you see there are some .pdb files which shouldn't be in the .diff.gz. And a last comment: Which ITP bug do you close? If there is none, please open one against wnpp. I'll have a further look on it after this things are fixed. Please ping me when you upload a updated version of mustang to mentors If everything is fine, I'll sponsor your package. Greetings Winnie -- .''`. Patrick Winnertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : GNU/Linux Debian Developer `. `'` http://www.der-winnie.de http://d.skolelinux.org/~winnie `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trouble in uploading bzip2 upstream tarball
The Debian Installer is refusing my upload by saying:
==
Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: incompatible 'Format' version produced
by a broken version of dpkg-dev 1.9.1{3,4}.
Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: aspell6.pt_20071212.0.orig.tar.bz2 in
Files field not recognised as source.
Rejected: aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc: no .tar.gz or .orig.tar.gz in 'Files'
field.
Rejected: 'dpkg-source -x' failed for aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc [return code:
512].
[dpkg-source output:] gpg: Signature made Sun 16 Dec 2007 08:27:15 PM UTC
using DSA key ID 4A5D72FE
[dpkg-source output:] gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
[dpkg-source output:] dpkg-source: failure: cannot read
./aspell6.pt_20071212.0.orig.tar.bz2: No such file or directory
==
What should I do to fix this? The .dsc file reads:
==
Format: 2.0
Source: aspell6.pt
Binary: aspell-pt-pt
Architecture: all
Version: 20071212.0-2
Maintainer: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Homepage: http://natura.di.uminho.pt/wiki/index.cgi?Aspell
Standards-Version: 3.7.3
Vcs-Browser: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/private/rafael/deb-pkg/aspell6.pt/
Vcs-Svn: svn://svn.debian.org/svn/private/rafael/deb-pkg/aspell6.pt/
Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 5)
Build-Depends-Indep: dictionaries-common-dev (>= 0.70)
Files:
0f76f5eead1f14e087c1224a7a18f732 92065 aspell6.pt_20071212.0.orig.tar.bz2
375c012f60078e5754966521e3569688 3252 aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.diff.gz
==
and the .changes file:
==
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:17:37 +0100
Source: aspell6.pt
Binary: aspell-pt-pt
Architecture: source all
Version: 20071212.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
aspell-pt-pt - European Portuguese dictionary for GNU Aspell
Changes:
aspell6.pt (20071212.0-2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* debian/control: Pre-depends on dpkg >= 1.10.24, otherwise the Debian
Installer will refuse to install the package in unstable
Files:
fd3721cc25c8080ebf0748b91880d643 855 text optional aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.dsc
0f76f5eead1f14e087c1224a7a18f732 92065 text optional
aspell6.pt_20071212.0.orig.tar.bz2
375c012f60078e5754966521e3569688 3252 text optional
aspell6.pt_20071212.0-2.diff.gz
1fad8458817c257c907adb010e825187 106668 text optional
aspell-pt-pt_20071212.0-2_all.deb
==
Thanks,
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Special GnuPG option needed to make *.commands file working (was: *.commands file)
Hi Bernhard, "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * Erik Schanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071215 20:09]: > > I created the cunit.commands and signed it by: > > $ gpg --clearsign cunit.commands > > $ mv cunit.commands.asc cunit.commands > > > > What's wrong? > > You forgot the magic "--list-options no-show-policy-urls" to gpg. > Although nowhere documented, no commands are executed in my > experience without this. > Thank you very much. The signature was accepted after creation with this option. Is this then a bug in gpg? Because the manpage says: " --list-options parameters This is a space or comma delimited string that gives options used when listing keys and signatures (that is, --list-keys, --list-sigs, --list-public-keys, --list-secret-keys, and the --edit-key func- tions). Options can be prepended with a no- (after the two dashes) to give the opposite meaning. The options are: show-policy-urls Show policy URLs in the --list-sigs or --check-sigs listings. Defaults to no. " If the default is really "no", I shouldn't have to use this option, should I? Perhaps GnuPG maintainer or ftp-master could explain it. Kindly regards, Erik -- www.ErikSchanze.de * Bitte keine HTML-E-Mails! No HTML mails, please! Limit: 100 kB * Info: http://www.linux-info-tag.de/* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: dblatex (updated package): 2nd try
Andreas Hoenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Leo \"costela\" Antunes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After you take a look at these issues (or just justify them) I can > > sponsor you, if no one with more expertise in this sort of package pops > > up until - let's say - monday. > If there doesn't arise negative feedback to my plans, I intend to fix > these issues tomorrow (sunday) and upload 0.2.8-2 to mentors.debian.net. Hello Leo, I have just uploaded dblatex 0.2.8-2 to mentors.debian.net [1]. Regarding the new lintian warning 'spelling-error-in-changelog' I have opened a bug report [2]. [1] dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dblatex/dblatex_0.2.8-2.dsc [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=456515 Thanks for your sponsoring, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpBr70taxdpy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: upstream package split
Hi, On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:09 -0430, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: > Well, is there any good reason why the upstream made this? Previously it was generated from tcl files, now the docs are static HTML files. As they were generated from tcl files, a tcl build dependency was needed, only for the docs. With the split and static docs the tcl build dependency does not needed; but still upstream split out the docs. > Are the manpages in the source tarball? Remember that each binary needs > a manpage. Yes, it does have the manpage. > The docs zip contains which kind of documentation? PDFs? HTMLs? Is > needed in the sqlite3 package? Only static HTMLs. I don't say it's needed, but a new source package would be stay in NEW for some time, yes? On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 19:40 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > If there's any chance that they release a new version of only one of the > files without the other, then I think it makes sense to split it into > two source packages as well. I think it's highly unlikely, but I got your point. Popcon shows 692 installations, I don't know if it's less or much for a documentation package. I remerge them for now. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upstream package split
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > Hi, > > I'm the maintainer of SQLite3 packages. Upstream used to ship the > sources and > documentation in one tarball. Now this is changed, source still ships in > a tarball, but > docs is separeted to a zip file. What would be the best, merge both to > a .orig.tar.gz or make > two source packages? I plan to remerge upstream, but don't know what > upstream name to > use, should it be sqlite3+docs or remain plain sqlite3? Should I accept > the seperation? > > Regards, > Laszlo/GCS > > Well, is there any good reason why the upstream made this? Are the manpages in the source tarball? Remember that each binary needs a manpage. The docs zip contains which kind of documentation? PDFs? HTMLs? Is needed in the sqlite3 package? If you want to merge them there's no need of the `+docs`, just sqlite3. Regards, Jose Luis. - -- ghostbar on debian linux 'sid' 2.6.22 x86_64-SMP - #382503 Weblog: http://ghostbar.ath.cx/ - http://linuxtachira.org http://debian.org.ve - irc.debian.org #debian-ve #debian-devel-es San Cristóbal, Venezuela. http://chaslug.org.ve GPG: 0xCACAB118 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHZXD/OKCtW8rKsRgRAm+yAKCkAfiGdF6k2Q6nBpTFGWr7irYkaACfYKZ4 IL0jRarIZkxPvM8f7+hB78Y= =wc2M -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upstream package split
Hello, On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > I'm the maintainer of SQLite3 packages. Upstream used to ship the > sources and documentation in one tarball. Now this is changed, source > still ships in a tarball, but docs is separeted to a zip file. What > would be the best, merge both to a .orig.tar.gz or make two source > packages? I plan to remerge upstream, but don't know what upstream > name to use, should it be sqlite3+docs or remain plain sqlite3? Should > I accept the seperation? If there's any chance that they release a new version of only one of the files without the other, then I think it makes sense to split it into two source packages as well. As for the name (in case you remerge), I wouldn't make any change. The previous name described the combination of program with docs, so it should still do that. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
upstream package split
Hi, I'm the maintainer of SQLite3 packages. Upstream used to ship the sources and documentation in one tarball. Now this is changed, source still ships in a tarball, but docs is separeted to a zip file. What would be the best, merge both to a .orig.tar.gz or make two source packages? I plan to remerge upstream, but don't know what upstream name to use, should it be sqlite3+docs or remain plain sqlite3? Should I accept the seperation? Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: splint (updated package) -- ITA and fixes a bunch of bugs
Hi
Just quickly looked at the package, will look more deeply tomorrow and
upload if noone else will be more interested/faster than me.
Dne Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:32:32 +0530
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napsal(a):
> The changelog has a few other things listed. In particular, I have
> removed manual.pdf from the upstream source (the source of manual.pdf is
> a Microsoft word document). I also download and include the FAQ/bugs
> and changelog files from upstream website because they are not in the
> upstream source tarball. The orig.tar.gz can be constructed from the
> get-orig-source target in debian/rules. I also split the package into
> three parts because the arch-indep part is fairly large compared to the
> arch-dep part.
Are you sure that splint-data (>= 3.1.2) dependency is right? Are you
sure that splint 4.0 data will work with splint 3.1.2? And anyway you
should not hardcode version and use ${source:Version} or
${binary:Version} instead.
Also the debian/*.dirs files seems not to be needed at all.
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: *.commands file
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:03:48AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Erik Schanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071215 20:09]: > > I created the cunit.commands and signed it by: > > $ gpg --clearsign cunit.commands > > $ mv cunit.commands.asc cunit.commands > > > > What's wrong? > > You forgot the magic "--list-options no-show-policy-urls" to gpg. > Although nowhere documented, no commands are executed in my experience > without this. It works fine without it for me, except that I never managed to upload them with dcut. But when ftp-ing manually everything works as expected. Is this a bug in dcut, or doesn't it work for you when uploading by hand either? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: splint (updated package) -- ITA and fixes a bunch of bugs
Hi, I am looking for a long-term sponsor for a new version 3.1.2.dfsg-1 of the package splint that I adopted. It builds these binary packages: splint - A tool for statically checking C programs for bugs splint-data - Data files for splint - A static checker for C programs splint-doc-html - Documentation for splint - A static checker for C programs The package is lintian and linda clean (I added overrides for the missing manpage warning because the manpage is installed by splint-data). Changes from previous version: #171437 - splint: K&R / standard C mismatch #298261 - splint: new upstream version - please package 3.1.2 #343564 - splint: small typo on manpage #352298 - splint: manpage problems, useless files, copyright file problems, requires environment variables #424719 - ITA: splint -- A tool for statically checking C programs for bugs #430328 - ldbl128 transition for alpha, powerpc, sparc, s390 #436744 - splint: update debian/copyright to 3.7.2 standards template The changelog has a few other things listed. In particular, I have removed manual.pdf from the upstream source (the source of manual.pdf is a Microsoft word document). I also download and include the FAQ/bugs and changelog files from upstream website because they are not in the upstream source tarball. The orig.tar.gz can be constructed from the get-orig-source target in debian/rules. I also split the package into three parts because the arch-indep part is fairly large compared to the arch-dep part. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/splint - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/splint/splint_3.1.2.dfsg-1.dsc Comments, suggestions etc. are welcome. Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: *.commands file
* Erik Schanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071215 20:09]: > I created the cunit.commands and signed it by: > $ gpg --clearsign cunit.commands > $ mv cunit.commands.asc cunit.commands > > What's wrong? You forgot the magic "--list-options no-show-policy-urls" to gpg. Although nowhere documented, no commands are executed in my experience without this. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
