Re: Packaging with CMake
Hi Dne Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:04:38 +0100 Robin Cornelius [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): It didn't seem right probably because of being used to the way autotools work and this is different. You can usually do out of source build with autotools too. What seemed dirty was having to mkdir build and rm -d etc within debian/rules. I can see advantages having the build area completely separate from the source as it ensures that source will not be touched during build and makes cleaning a trivial directory delete. Any examples of an invocation of cmake from debian/rules for build and clean? as i would be quite interested to see if I am doing it correctly or not. For another example, you can look at gammu package... -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: kio-ftps-kde4
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package kio-ftps-kde4. * Package name: kio-ftps-kde4 Version : 0.2-1 Upstream Author : Magnus Kulke [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://kasablanca.berlios.de/kio-ftps/ * License : GPL Section : kde It builds these binary packages: kio-ftps-kde4 - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4 The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 501342 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps-kde4 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps-kde4/kio-ftps-kde4_0.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Laurent Léonard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
evolution-remove-attachments package review
Hi Rex, Just now I was looking for a way to remove attachments in evolution. While searching I found your plugin on mentors.debian.net. Since I'd like to use it (and therefore upload it to Debian), here is a review: Firstly it didn't actually work as expected. I attached your .dsc file to this message in my drafts folder, clicked the menu item, the message was deleted and a new message created, with the attachment still attached, but changed into a text file saying that the attachment has been removed. I expected that the attachment would actually be removed instead of made smaller and changed to text. A wishlist item: I'd like to be able to delete specific attachments, some messages can have more than one attachment but I don't want to delete all of them. I think it would be great if your plugin could be merged into upstream evolution for evolution 2.26 so everyone has it. I'll be happy to upload it to Debian in the meantime though. The packaging seems specific to evolution 2.22 (version numbers in paths, conflicts against other versions), I think it would be good to future-proof it since evolution 2.24 has been released and hopefully will be in experimental soon (#). If that isn't possible, your build-dependencies will need to be tightened to require evo 2.22. You don't specify which version of the GPL that the Debian packaging is licensed under. You should use the full This program is free software; you can redistribute it blurb in the upstream source code, not just in debian/copyright. There is no homepage in debian/control and there is a related valid lintian -I warning: I: evolution-remove-attachments source: debian-watch-file-is-missing -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: kio-ftps-kde4
On 2008-10-07, Laurent Léonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --nextPart1512095.XNzvprD9R2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package kio-ftps-kde4. * Package name: kio-ftps-kde4 Version : 0.2-1 Upstream Author : Magnus Kulke [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://kasablanca.berlios.de/kio-ftps/ * License : GPL Section : kde It builds these binary packages: kio-ftps-kde4 - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4 I don't have any ftps services to test it with, but kde packaging is not new to me, so I can review the packaging at least, but don't expect a upload. What's with all those commented dh_ foo lines in the rules file ? You asked about how to use cmake. Why did you completely ignore the replies? The cmake usage is wrong. The copyright file is a joke, right ? How it the rfc file licensed? usually they are non-free. Upstream should add himself to the files. David is not upstream. But that's not something you should fix, but just forward. Why do you call your package kio-ftps-kde4 and not just kio-ftps? It won't be around for lenny release and squeeze will be kde4 only. The package appears to be lintian clean. No it doesn't. Lintian warns about rpath. Please don't build with rpath. That's what I noticed for now. but i guess it needs at least one more iteration. And I haven't yet tried building it in a clean chroot. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: fex
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fex. * Package name: fex Version : 20081006-1 Upstream Author : Ulli Horlacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/ * License : GPL Section : web It builds these binary packages: fex- web based service to send very big files fex-utils - web based service to send very big files (utils) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 495973 F*EX (Frams' Fast File EXchange) is a service to send big (large, huge, giant, ...) files from a user A to a user B, anywhere on the internet. The sender uploads the file to the F*EX-server and the recipient automatically gets a notification e-mail with a download-URL. Main features of F*EX * file transfer of virtually unlimited file size * recepient and sender only need an e-mail program and a web browser - of any kind, they do not have to install any software * RESEND and REGET for resuming after link failures at last sent byte * auto-notification of recipient * auto-deletion after download * auto-deletion after expiration date (default: 5 days) * full-users can create sub-users, who can send only to this full-user * maintenance-free: no admin interaction necessary besides creating new F*EX accounts * Sending to multiple recipients needs storage on the server only once * F*EX is a HTTP web-service and needs no firewall-tunnels * support for streams, too (SEX : Stream EXchange) * for real UNIX users, there are the shell programs fexsend and fexget to avoid annoying web browser usage * protocol and source-code free available (GPL) The end user normally uses F*EX with his web browser and the URLs http://YOURFEXSERVER/fup (file upload) and http://YOURFEXSERVER/fop (file download). F*EX is not an anonymous service, the admin must register the user with his e-mail address and auth-ID string. This task must be done with the CLI program fac (F*EX admin control). You can imagine the auth-ID as some kind of low security password. Alternatively the users can register theirselves with http://YOURFEXSERVER/fur (F*EX user registration), if the admin allows them to do so. This is done by setting the variable @local_hosts in /etc/fex/fex.ph, for example: @local_hosts = qw(127.0.0.1 10.10.100.0-10.10.255.255); F*EX full users can theirselves register sub-users with http://YOURFEXSERVER/fuc sub-users can only fex to their full-user, not to any others. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fex - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fex/fex_20081006-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Giuseppe Iuculano signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: kio-ftps-kde4
Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 21:00, Sune Vuorela a écrit : I don't have any ftps services to test it with, but kde packaging is not new to me, so I can review the packaging at least, but don't expect a upload. I'm new in Debian packaging, any advice are welcome. I use this KIO slave with a ProFTPd on a Debian Etch server without any problem. If you want to test it I can create a test account on my server. What's with all those commented dh_ foo lines in the rules file ? Mmm it's default dh_ commands, I suppose I have to delete what I don't need ? You asked about how to use cmake. Why did you completely ignore the replies? The cmake usage is wrong. I read the advice to build the binaries in a different subdirectory and you seemed to agree that. You also recommended automoc but I didn't found documentation about how to use it. What's wrong with the cmake usage ? I saw your patch on dh-make but it concerns the 0.46 version, I used the 0.42 from Lenny. I will use a Debian Sid virtual machine to build the package. The copyright file is a joke, right ? How it the rfc file licensed? usually they are non-free. I will add: Others Copyrights : - rfc4217.txt : 2005, The Internet Society Do I have to include the full license applied to the document in the copyright file ? Upstream should add himself to the files. David is not upstream. But that's not something you should fix, but just forward. The David Faure copyright is mensionned in the source code but the Markus Kulke copyright is mensionned in the readme file. David Faure seems to be the original author of kio-ftp which is the base of kio-ftps written by Magnus Kulke. So I have to put both in the copyright file ? What's wrong more with the copyright file ? Why do you call your package kio-ftps-kde4 and not just kio-ftps? It won't be around for lenny release and squeeze will be kde4 only. I will change the package name to kio-ftps. Do I have to post a new ITP with the new package name ? The package appears to be lintian clean. No it doesn't. Lintian warns about rpath. Please don't build with rpath. According to lintian 1.24.2.1 from Lenny (and I suppose the same version is used on the mentors.debian.net system ?) it seems to be clean. I suppose you are using lintian 2.0.0 from Sid, I just installed it. Adding -D CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH:boolean=true when calling cmake seems to fix the problem, is it the correct way to do that ? I just saw this option in your dh-make patch so I suppose yes, I will use dh-make 0.46 it will be better. That's what I noticed for now. but i guess it needs at least one more iteration. Thank you for your answer, I know you have experience in Debian packaging and you can teach me important informations to make better packages. I'm ready to learn new things to help the Debian project but I'm not sure using sarcasms will help. -- Laurent Léonard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: kio-ftps-kde4
Laurent Léonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mmm it's default dh_ commands, I suppose I have to delete what I don't need ? Yes, your ‘debian/rules’ should contain only those commands that are specific to your package, and not leave any unused examples. The same goes for the entire contents of ‘debian/’, too. I will add: Others Copyrights : - rfc4217.txt : 2005, The Internet Society Do I have to include the full license applied to the document in the copyright file ? The ‘debian/copyright’ must contain the full license terms for all works that make up your package (and, if applicable, the license terms for the work as a whole). Exception: In the case where the license terms are already in Debian in the ‘/usr/share/common-licenses/’ directory, you can refer the reader to a specific file in there. You would do well to write your ‘debian/copyright’ file to conform with URL:http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat, which will also have the benefit of reducing ambiguity in what's required. I will change the package name to kio-ftps. Do I have to post a new ITP with the new package name ? I would recommend simply retitling the existing ITP bug report, but others may have a reference to contradict this. The package appears to be lintian clean. No it doesn't. Lintian warns about rpath. Please don't build with rpath. According to lintian 1.24.2.1 from Lenny (and I suppose the same version is used on the mentors.debian.net system ?) it seems to be clean. I suppose you are using lintian 2.0.0 from Sid, I just installed it. Yes, packages you submit should be built and tested against the ‘unstable’ suite (‘sid’). You might like to investigate the ‘pbuilder’ package, and schedule a job to update a ‘sid’ image once per day. I use it to build and test my packages against ‘sid’ while keeping my active operating system at ‘lenny’. -- \“Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas | `\ are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.” | _o__)—Howard Aiken | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.2-1 of my package recoverjpeg. It builds these binary packages: recoverjpeg - Recover jpeg pictures from a filesystem image The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 500355 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/recoverjpeg - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/recoverjpeg/recoverjpeg_1.1.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards William Vera -- William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4 Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Le Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:08:42PM -0500, William Vera a écrit : Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.2-1 of my package recoverjpeg. It builds these binary packages: recoverjpeg - Recover jpeg pictures from a filesystem image Hello William, just for curiosity, how does recoverjpeg compare to photorec? http://packages.debian.org/sid/testdisk Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: lunar (NMU)
Hi! LI Daobing (???) schrieb: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2-3.1 of package lunar. Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution! Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Hi Charles 2008/10/7 Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:08:42PM -0500, William Vera a écrit : Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.2-1 of my package recoverjpeg. It builds these binary packages: recoverjpeg - Recover jpeg pictures from a filesystem image Hello William, just for curiosity, how does recoverjpeg compare to photorec? recoverjpeg just looks for a jpeg structure into the file system and photorec appears be a more complete suite for recover files, both to differents usages. Regards http://packages.debian.org/sid/testdisk Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4 Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It builds these binary packages: recoverjpeg - Recover jpeg pictures from a filesystem image Please make the package synopsis conform to Best Packaging Practices URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis. In particular, the synopsis should make sense when inserted in a sentence of the form “The package packagename is a synopsis.” So the synopsis should be a noun phrase, and should not be capitalised like the start of a sentence. Also, JPEG is an initialism and should be capitalised. A suggested improved synopsis: tool to recover JPEG images from a filesystem image It's usually best to also give the long description of packages when you submit an RFS message; this is easy to do by simply giving your full ‘Description’ field for the package (including synopsis and long description). -- \“I bought a dog the other day. I named him Stay. It's fun to | `\ call him. ‘Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!’ He went insane. | _o__) Now he just ignores me and keeps typing.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITA: ldapscripts
Hello, On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Ansgar Burchardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hi, Do you still intend to adopt the ldapscript package? I saw your message in the Debian BTS and that you uploaded a new release to mentors, but apparently it hasn't been uploaded the last 1 1/2 months. I am not a Debian developer myself, so I cannot help you there. Yes I would still like to adopt the ldapscripts package. It would be nice if #375794 could be fixed in Lenny, tough I don't know if the release managers would accept an upload since it is just a wishlist item... If you are still interested in adopting ldapscripts, would you mind asking on debian-release@ if a fix for this is still ok and prepare an updated package? I have uploaded a new ldapscripts package to mentors, any help in getting the package uploaded is greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. -- Party On, Adam
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just for curiosity, how does recoverjpeg compare to photorec? A year ago I tried to get recoverjpeg, recoverPhotos and PhotoRec to merge into PhotoRec, at the time it appeared there was no difference between recoverjpeg and PhotoRec. Of course there was no action on the part of any of the upstreams. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Le Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:32:22PM -0500, William Vera a écrit : recoverjpeg just looks for a jpeg structure into the file system and photorec appears be a more complete suite for recover files, both to differents usages. Le Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:51:41AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : A year ago I tried to get recoverjpeg, recoverPhotos and PhotoRec to merge into PhotoRec, at the time it appeared there was no difference between recoverjpeg and PhotoRec. Of course there was no action on the part of any of the upstreams. Hi William, if you like and use recoverjpeg, and think it is worth being packaged, go ahead. But if your concern is to get the package into better shape for the sake of Debian's quality and excellence, please consider investigating if the package can be removed instead. This would also be a very valuable contribution to Debian. PS: you may be interested in the pkg-phototools project: http://pkg-phototools.alioth.debian.org/ Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Hello Charles In particular, I use the package, not very consistently (fortunately not always make mistakes to erase my pictures). But many of my friends and colleagues use it regularly, IMHO should be into Debian a little longer. Thanks 2008/10/7 Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:32:22PM -0500, William Vera a écrit : recoverjpeg just looks for a jpeg structure into the file system and photorec appears be a more complete suite for recover files, both to differents usages. Le Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:51:41AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : A year ago I tried to get recoverjpeg, recoverPhotos and PhotoRec to merge into PhotoRec, at the time it appeared there was no difference between recoverjpeg and PhotoRec. Of course there was no action on the part of any of the upstreams. Hi William, if you like and use recoverjpeg, and think it is worth being packaged, go ahead. But if your concern is to get the package into better shape for the sake of Debian's quality and excellence, please consider investigating if the package can be removed instead. This would also be a very valuable contribution to Debian. PS: you may be interested in the pkg-phototools project: http://pkg-phototools.alioth.debian.org/ Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- William Vera [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4 Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
