RFS: ttf-unikurdweb
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package ttf-unikurdweb. * Package name: ttf-unikurdweb Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Bardaqani [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://ferheng.org/en/?Fonts * License : GPL v2 with font exception Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: ttf-unikurdweb - Unikurd Web free Kurdish font The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-unikurdweb - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-unikurdweb/ttf-unikurdweb_1.0.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Erdal Ronahi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: winff
Thanks for the review. Comments below. Vincent Bernat wrote: Hi Paul! There are only very minor problems with your package: - You don't need to include README.Debian in debian/docs. This is included automatically. Removed from debian/docs. Done. - You don't need debian/postinst, debian/postrm, they are automatically generated by dh_installmenu and dh_installdocs. Removed. I assume the same goes for the debian/prerm. Done. You can also correct this lintian warning: I: winff: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key /usr/share/applications/winff.desktop:3 Encoding N: N: The Encoding key is now deprecated by the FreeDesktop standard and all N: strings are required to be encoded in UTF-8. This desktop entry N: explicitly specifies an Encoding of UTF-8, which is harmless but no N: longer necessary. N: N: Refer to N: http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/1.0/apc.html for N: details. Removed the appropriate line. I did not get the lintian warning thou, so what did I do wrong during my checking of this package? Because I did not need to create a linked file I also removed dh_link from the rules file. By the way, should I mention the changes for mentors also in the changelog? It looks to me that you don't want them in real Debian, so I left them out, but I am not sure. Uploaded again to mentors (bumped version to -2 for comparison): - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/winff_0.42-2.dsc With kind regards, Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: copher
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:33:44PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Makefile:
This file is useless, you don't need it, you should drop it.
Removed, all the logic is moved to debian/rules
debian/watch:
http://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/copher copher-(.*).tar.gz debian
Did you know that the first part can be written as http://sf.net/copher ?
I get a 404. I was under the impression that the URL I have used was
required to allow for SF's load-balancing redirections.
Also note that the unquoted dots after the closing parenthesis is actually
interpreted as part of the regex and could actually match anything?
Fixed.
debian/control:
Priority: extra
why?
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html states:
Extra: packages that either conflict with others with higher
priorities, are only likely to be useful if you already know what they
are [...]
Perhaps I'm being a newbie, but this sounds a good fit. One would
probably already know of copher if one was going to use it; should it
be in Optional instead?
Architecture: any
Depends: libwww-mechanize-perl, ${shlibs:Depends}
The perl script is architecture-dependent, isn't it?
Set architecture to 'all', removed shlibs placeholder.
Copher makes a SourceForge release automatically. It is useful as part
of a build and release system.
This doesn't really tell me much about Copher; I am the admin of a project
at sf.net and that description doesn't tell me it could be useful to me.
of a build and release system. Support for other GForge-based sites is
in development.
SF.net is not 'GForge-based', that sentence should be rephrased.
This originally came from the RFP; I have rewritten it into something
more useful.
debian/copher.1:
Same here, and removed the manpage boilerplate that I overlooked.
debian/rules:
debian/compat:
debian/control:
You build-depend on debhelper 7 but use none of its features? you
should/could use a lower compat level such as 5 instead.
Set to 5. Is there anywhere that details the feature in each
compatibility level for future reference?
debian/dirs:
file is useless, remove it
$ xlintian -I -E copher*changes
W: copher: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/copher/COPYING.gz
I: copher: package-contains-empty-directory usr/sbin/
Gone.
The updated package can be found at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/copher
Thanks for your time and feedbacki.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
RFS: sitebar (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.3.9-2 of my package sitebar. It builds these binary packages: sitebar- web based bookmark manager written in PHP The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 483011 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sitebar - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sitebar/sitebar_3.3.9-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Carlos Eduardo Sotelo Pinto ( KrLoS ) Free and OpenSource Software Developer GNULinux Registered User #379182 GNULinux Registered Machine #277661 GNULinux Arequipa Users Group||Debian Arequipa Users Group -- pgp.rediris.es 0xF8554F6B GPG FP:697E FAB8 8E83 1D60 BBFB 2264 9E3D 5761 F855 4F6B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help writing watch file for unusual, troublesome case.
Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 16:31 -0700 schrieb Brandon: Creating a separate script wouldn't really make much sense in my case. I was only fixing the watch file as a formality. Upstream is dead, so I wouldn't be using it, but it would satisfy projects like dehs, and my QA page warns me about my broken watch file. I think I will just use the watch file that I mentioned in my original post. This one: version=3 http://www.xevil.com/xevil/dev/download.html (.*)/download_stable.shtml This is a good starting point. Using filenamemangle and downloadurlmangle you can use the above for a working watch file. I attached it. As long as upstreams stays with this scheme (besides it is a dead project), this should work. Regards, Daniel watch Description: application/fluid
RFS: assogiate
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package assogiate. * Package name: assogiate Version : 0.2.1-1 Upstream Author : Kevin Daughtridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.kdau.com/projects/assogiate/ * License : GPL Section : utils It builds these binary packages: assogiate - editor of the MIME file types database The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 434794 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/assogiate - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/assogiate/assogiate_0.2.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Vincent Legout -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: copher
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:32:33 +0100 Jonathan Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: debian/watch: http://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/copher copher-(.*).tar.gz debian Did you know that the first part can be written as http://sf.net/copher ? I get a 404. I was under the impression that the URL I have used was required to allow for SF's load-balancing redirections. http://sf.net is expanded to the full SF URL by tools that use watch files and, I presume, will be updated if SF ever changes its URL schema. -- Daniel Watkins (Odd_Bloke) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: copher
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 06:08:14PM +0100, Daniel Watkins wrote: http://sf.net is expanded to the full SF URL by tools that use watch files and, I presume, will be updated if SF ever changes its URL schema. Ah, that makes more sense, thanks. -- Jonathan Wiltshire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
ITP dhcp_probe - Discover rogue DHCP-servers on your lan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Debian Bug report logs - #495959 * Package name: dhcp_probe Version : 1.2.1 Upstream Author : Irwin Tillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.net.princeton.edu/software/dhcp_probe/ * License : Main program has a custom BSD-like license, with parts covered by GPL2. Programming Lang: C Description : Discover rogue DHCP-servers on your lan dchp_probe attempts to discover DHCP and BootP servers on a directly-attached Ethernet network. A network administrator can use this tool to locate unauthorized DHCP and BootP servers. (I'm not aware of any existing Debian package with that functionality). I have already contact the upstream programmers and the maintainer of libnet0 package (dependency of dhcp_probe). To package dhcp_probe, i need to apply a patch t libnet0. So i am blocked in my ITP by the ITA of David Paleino on the libnet0 package. I'll read manuals about the BTS to make this situation up to date and I surely need more links about the BTS handling in order to suite all Debian rules. Tanks for reading. - -- Laurent Guignard, Registered as user #301590 with the Linux Counterbr Site : http://www.famille-guignard.orgbr Blog : http://blog.famille-guignard.orgbr Projet : http://sicontact.sourceforge.netbr GULL de Villefranche sur Saône : http://www.cagull.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIwYm2jcKpXFc/7oYRAikaAJ461f87W+RaeYFQJv0zn409faqDPACgwSbH KtS1ydJ9/2VT8dzLKQc0VOQ= =WlH5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: vbackup
OoO En ce début de soirée du jeudi 04 septembre 2008, vers 21:18, Stefanos Harhalakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait : I fixed them all in the debian package and added the man page fix to upstream too for the next release. I've also removed the Makefile.in modifications, config.sub, config.guess and the following lines from debian/rules: ifneq $(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.sub) cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.sub config.sub endif ifneq $(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.guess) cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.guess config.guess endif You can keep those lines. I also have a question. Should I change anything else in debian/rules to indicate that this is not an architecture dependend package? I don't like seeing the file: vbackup_0.1.6-2_i386.changes (why i386 and not all?). Everything is listed as binary-indep but should I also modify the configure line to remove --host, --build, CFLAGS and LDFLAGS? No, your package is currently arch independant because in debian/control, you have Architecture: all. The arch in .changes is the arch used to compile the packages. Your .deb is: vbackup_0.1.6.1-1_all.deb The latest version (-2) is available in mentors. I wait for you to add back lines about putting a more up-to-date config.sub and config.guess. They are not outdated right now but they could be in some distant future. -- printk(Illegal format on cdrom. Pester manufacturer.\n); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/fs/isofs/inode.c pgpKOVMsHu4X9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: CLAM, C++ library for audio and music
OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du jeudi 04 septembre 2008, vers 23:26, David García Garzón [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait : Please, file an ITP for this package. This will be useful to track any progress, especially if someone has handled the upload or not. I filled it before sending the RFS: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=493282 OK. Moreover, the .dsc file is not signed. Must the key be validated by any debian maintainer at all? This would be better but this is not mandatory. However, this should be your key. As they are different source packages i don't know whether I should fill a single ITP bug and RFS request or just one for each. It would be better. For example, clam could be uploaded soon while clam-XXX could have a lot of problems and its upload would be delayed for several months. This would be better to have its own ITP. At first glance, here are the problems with the current package: - debian/changelog has an incorrect distribution I think that dhc has an --distribution option that could do the work. Or you can just edit by hand. ;-) We are creating the dsc files from ubuntu and then generating all the packages for debian and ubuntu with pbuilder using that same dsc. The script we are using, at clam/CLAM/scripts/doDebianPackages.py, is very convenient for us to provide non-official debian and ubuntu packages. But maybe not the way to proceed when officializing the procedure. Any suggestions are wellcome in that sense. Everybody is free to generate packages as they want to. However, keep in mind that you need to write sensible changelog (the script will have some difficulties). As long as the script gives good results, this is fine to use it. - Vcs-* fields is for Debian packaging, not upstream VCS repository Debian packaging is currently maintained at the upstream VCS. That is also very convenient for us at the moment as we are doing fixes to the packaging as we do changes on the install. But we really need advice as this seems also to produce some inconveniences. Being debian maintained in the same repository, are those fields ok? Should we keep a separate repository? Could we just to store the diff of the debian a part and keep most of debian folders in upstream svn? Both questions are related. Even if now, upstream and Debian packager are closely related, this may not be the case in the future. Debian packaging should only be targeted to go into Debian, not to be downloaded from the website, not to be included into Ubuntu (even if it will eventually migrate to Ubuntu when present in Debian). For example, in the packages that you propose to download from the website, you could widen the dependencies by depending on software not available any more or by suggesting softwares not available into Debian. Therefore, you need a dedicated branch or repository. - some of the files are licensed under MIT/X11, some are GPLv2 only I guess they are included 3rd party files. Any suggestion on how to deal with that? You just have to mention the files licensed under different licenses in debian/copyright. As long as the licenses are compatible, there is no problem. - examples should be packaged with dh_examples Do you mean dh_installexamples? Yes. Well i saw that qt4 package just ships a tarball. Is it that done by dh_installexamples? Well i'll use dh_installexamples and see what i get. Dunno. I think this is a bad idea to install examples as tar.gz. The user need to unpack them somewhere while he has explicitely asked for their installation. Thanks for all the suggestions and fixes. We might need advice regarding how to adapt our current release process to something more debian friendly. Start with a fresh changelog, just for Debian. Try to apply the above suggestions and we will review the packages again. -- I NO LONGER WANT MY MTV I NO LONGER WANT MY MTV I NO LONGER WANT MY MTV -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 3G02 pgpl5eF4WdfjP.pgp Description: PGP signature
[TAF] po://ikiwiki/fr.po 51u
Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Le paquet Debian natif ikiwiki est incomplètement traduit en français. Jean-Luc semble indisponible. Cette traduction peut donc être reprise par quelqu'un d'autre. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
