Re: BSD licenses
Hello Gudjon, On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 07:25, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I am trying to package software that contains code with different BSD licenses. However, none of the licenses are similar to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD So simply include those licenses in debian/copyright along with the files they're appling to. Is there any homepage with versioned BSD licenses that I can refer to? If your intent is to add those links into debian/copyright, please don't: web pages can change, and even become unavailable with time, so the license text would be unavailable too; and we would give chance to read legal stuff to people with no network connection. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: webcpp (adoption, bugfix and standards/dh7)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:32, Jonathan Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am seeking a sponsor for my package webcpp Here a review: debian/compat - has 5 while you declare versioned build-dep on debhelper =7 debian/rules - don't export DH_VERBOSE - you can remove the commented header - no need to [ ! -f configure-stamp ] || ... since -stamp targets are only executed is -stamp file is missing - -stamp file are sually touched with touch $@ (less spelling problem and chars to digit ;) ) - instead of ln -s you can use dh_link and its file to create symlinks - you may play a bit with Makefile (patching it) instead of install doc.html in a dir and then move it into Debian right place debian/README.source - it's missing, but it's needed by 3.8.0, to explain that you're using a patch system. All the rest if fine, so I kindly ask you this additional effort for the package, and then I can upload your package. Once you'll have prepared the package, please upload again to mentors and reply. Kindly, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: dhcp-probe, another try to request with a lot of update
Hi Dne Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:43:58 -0800 Michael Tautschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): [...] - debian/README.source content should be rather in debian/README.Debian I think this is not entirely true: - First paragraph in there is ok (dhcp-probe for Debian) But it IMHO does not bring any useful information - you could write about every package that it follows upstream development and follow all principles of the Debian distribution. - Second paragraph should mostly be moved (Special usecase, but not the last sentence, which is not relevant for our users) Further, the current contents of README.Debian is a general info and nothing Debian specific, it should rather be dropped. Right, maybe both files should be simply dropped, because there is no Debian specific information... -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: BSD licenses
Hi Sandro And thanks for the answer I am trying to package software that contains code with different BSD licenses. However, none of the licenses are similar to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD So simply include those licenses in debian/copyright along with the files they're appling to. Is there any homepage with versioned BSD licenses that I can refer to? If your intent is to add those links into debian/copyright, please don't: web pages can change, and even become unavailable with time, so the license text would be unavailable too; and we would give chance to read legal stuff to people with no network connection. The problem is not to copy the licenses to the copyright file but the question is rather if the BSD license has some official homepage and if the different BSD licenses are version numbered so I can check if the licenses in the program I am packaging are similar to one of them. What I know is that there is an old BSD license which is not GPL compatible but a new one is. How many BSD licenses exist? Which are GPL compatible? Thanks Gudjon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: exact-image
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 13:23:36 Michal Čihař wrote: Hi Thx for your response Dne Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:13:22 +0100 Sven Eckelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): It builds these binary packages: bardecode - command-line barcode decoder e2mtiff- any to multi-page TIFF converter econvert - Fast Imagemagick convert clone edentify - Fast Imagemagick identify clone empty-page - Threshold based command line decision tool hocr2pdf - hOCR to searchable image pdf converter optimize2bw - Optimzed color/gray image to bw conversation utility Isn't this just too much packages? How about putting all these binaries into single binary package? Ok, I will create a single exactimage package with all binaries. On the other side, I would expect shared library package to exist, but there is none. There is currently no shared library so I cannot provide a binary package with it. Best regards, Sven Eckelmann signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: exact-image
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 13:23:36 Michal Čihař wrote: On the other side, I would expect shared library package to exist, but there is none. Ok, I decided to stop to try to create a debian packages of exactimage for now because it does not fulfil his function as library and only provides binaries and script binding when it got packaged. The other changes will be added to my repository but I will not upload them to mentors anymore. Best regards, Sven Eckelmann signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: exact-image
Hi Dne Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:13:22 +0100 Sven Eckelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): It builds these binary packages: bardecode - command-line barcode decoder e2mtiff- any to multi-page TIFF converter econvert - Fast Imagemagick convert clone edentify - Fast Imagemagick identify clone empty-page - Threshold based command line decision tool hocr2pdf - hOCR to searchable image pdf converter optimize2bw - Optimzed color/gray image to bw conversation utility Isn't this just too much packages? How about putting all these binaries into single binary package? On the other side, I would expect shared library package to exist, but there is none. perl-exactimage - ExactImage Perl API php5-exactimage - ExactImage PHP API python-exactimage - ExactImage Python API The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 502183 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/exact-image - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/exact-image/exact-image_0.6.7-1.dsc Also debian/rules is wrong as configured does not seem to generate config.status. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: ttf-sil-gentium (release-goal bug fix)
[..] I will include your changes in the current pkg-fonts team-maintained packaging tomorrow. Theppitak's work is integrated in a updated package available on: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/ttf-sil-gentium_1.02-7.dsc (The work is also in our team svn). I'm looking for a sponsor for this update. Thanks. -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: webcpp (adoption, bugfix and standards/dh7)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:00:52AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: debian/compat - has 5 while you declare versioned build-dep on debhelper =7 debian/rules - don't export DH_VERBOSE - you can remove the commented header Fixed - no need to [ ! -f configure-stamp ] || ... since -stamp targets are only executed is -stamp file is missing - -stamp file are sually touched with touch $@ (less spelling problem and chars to digit ;) ) Aha, still learning about dh7! - instead of ln -s you can use dh_link and its file to create symlinks - you may play a bit with Makefile (patching it) instead of install doc.html in a dir and then move it into Debian right place I've patched it in 05_makefile_docdir debian/README.source - it's missing, but it's needed by 3.8.0, to explain that you're using a patch system. Ok, written and included. The dsc is at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/webcpp/webcpp_0.8.4-7.dsc Thanks for your comments. -- Jonathan Wiltshire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Preferred version format for svn revisions?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 19:12, Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/11/2008): yes it it: you have to provide a programmatical way to retrive/generate the orig.tar.gz […] FSVO have to. It is clearly tagged as optional in Policy §4.9. Thanks KiBi for pointing it out, let's rephrase as for you to have me sponsor your package, please add a get-orig-source target to retrieve/generate the orig.tar.gz Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: wallpaper-tray (updated package)
Hey Sandro, I'm a little confused about your suggestion with regards to README.source. Sandro Tosi schreef: ... and we expect to find in this file the information to use the source package that *differs* from the normal way; so, no need to say use dpkg-source -x .dsc to obtain the debian package, we know how to do it since it's the normal way to do it. What I expect is something like we manage to patch the upstream source code with dpatch, take a look at dpatch docs in /usr/share/doc/dpatch However the policy manual says that it should include specific commands[1] and that it should not assume familiarity with any specific Debian packaging system or patch management tools.[1] 1: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource Regards, Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: ttf-sil-gentium (release-goal bug fix)
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [..] I will include your changes in the current pkg-fonts team-maintained packaging tomorrow. Theppitak's work is integrated in a updated package available on: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/ttf-sil-gentium_1.02-7.dsc (The work is also in our team svn). H: ttf-sil-gentium (20081126:1.02-7) unstable; urgency=low * preinst: Clear obsolete conffile. (Closes: #455109). (Thanks to Theppitak Karoonboonyanan) Missing blank line somewhere... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: ttf-sil-gentium (release-goal bug fix)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..] I will include your changes in the current pkg-fonts team-maintained packaging tomorrow. Theppitak's work is integrated in a updated package available on: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/ttf-sil-gentium_1.02-7.dsc (The work is also in our team svn). I think you still have to add the transitional package ttf-gentium back, and do the preinst for it there. Otherwise, ttf-gentium in etch will never be upgraded to this new version, unless the user explicitly installs the renamed package. That's why I decided to upload to t-p-u in the first place, as it would be too intrusive for NMU if done in unstable. -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: ttf-sil-gentium (release-goal bug fix)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..] I will include your changes in the current pkg-fonts team-maintained packaging tomorrow. Theppitak's work is integrated in a updated package available on: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-sil-gentium/ttf-sil-gentium_1.02-7.dsc (The work is also in our team svn). I think you still have to add the transitional package ttf-gentium back, and do the preinst for it there. Otherwise, ttf-gentium in etch will never be upgraded to this new version, unless the user explicitly installs the renamed package. That's why I decided to upload to t-p-u in the first place, as it would be too intrusive for NMU if done in unstable. Besides, please also update the version in this line in the preinst: if dpkg --compare-versions $2 le 1.02+dfsg1-5; then from 1.02+dfsg1-5 to 20080813:1.02-6. -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: webcpp (adoption, bugfix and standards/dh7)
Hello Jonathan, thanks a lot for the fast reply. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 15:21, Jonathan Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:00:52AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: - no need to [ ! -f configure-stamp ] || ... since -stamp targets are only executed is -stamp file is missing - -stamp file are sually touched with touch $@ (less spelling problem and chars to digit ;) ) Aha, still learning about dh7! well, that's notions about makefiles and not strictly about dh7 :) debian/README.source - it's missing, but it's needed by 3.8.0, to explain that you're using a patch system. Ok, written and included. Even a simpler one where enough :) for example, simply saying you're using dpatch and the info about dpatch are in /usr/share/doc/dpatch (similar to what I usually write) would be enough. The dsc is at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/webcpp/webcpp_0.8.4-7.dsc ehm, I personally like to have all the changes in the revision = current revision in debian+1, so -6, and you have the opportunity to fix this since your package FTBFS if build twice in a row. what does this mean? take your source pacakge and uncompress it, then exec debuild -us -uc debuild -us -uc, the second execution will fail with dpatch deapply-all reverting patch 05_makefile_docdir from ./ ... ok. reverting patch 04_offbyone from ./ ... ok. reverting patch 03_bashism_fix from ./ ... ok. reverting patch 02_gcc43_patch from ./ ... ok. reverting patch 01_gcc41_patch from ./ ... ok. rm -rf patch-stamp patch-stampT debian/patched rm -f config.sub config.guess [ ! -f Makefile ] || /usr/bin/make distclean make[1]: Entering directory `/home/morph/deb/sponsorship/webcpp-0.8.4' cd . /bin/sh ./config.status Makefile config.status: error: invalid argument: Makefile make[1]: *** [Makefile] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/morph/deb/sponsorship/webcpp-0.8.4' make: *** [clean] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules clean gave error exit status 2 debuild: fatal error at line 1319: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed could you please give it a look and fix it? Once ok, please merge all the changes in the -6 entry, and upload again; don't hesitate to ask in case of any question. Thanks, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: wallpaper-tray (updated package)
Hello Gudo, On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:23, Guido Loupias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Sandro, I'm a little confused about your suggestion with regards to README.source. sorry about that, I'm attaching a sample file I use in some of my packages, HTH. Sandro Tosi schreef: ... and we expect to find in this file the information to use the source package that *differs* from the normal way; so, no need to say use dpkg-source -x .dsc to obtain the debian package, we know how to do it since it's the normal way to do it. What I expect is something like we manage to patch the upstream source code with dpatch, take a look at dpatch docs in /usr/share/doc/dpatch However the policy manual says that it should include specific commands[1] and that it should not assume familiarity with any specific Debian packaging system or patch management tools.[1] 1: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource Yes, but the information about using dpatch are kept into its doc directory, so why not refer to the package doc instead of rewrite another short HOWTO use dpatch? If you were using your one custom patch system (like patches in my_patches/ dir, with name like name.debpatch applied running a script apply_patch.sh and so on) then yes, you would have to write carefully what's the way to apply, unapply, modify, add and remove patches, but given dpatch is documented in the package doc dir, let's link to it. And that file is not meant to be a guide to packaging, so dpkg-source -x and other info are not strictly needed to be there. I hope this time I was a little bit clearer :) Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi README.source Description: Binary data
Re: BSD licenses
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: Hi Sandro And thanks for the answer I am trying to package software that contains code with different BSD licenses. However, none of the licenses are similar to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD So simply include those licenses in debian/copyright along with the files they're appling to. Is there any homepage with versioned BSD licenses that I can refer to? If your intent is to add those links into debian/copyright, please don't: web pages can change, and even become unavailable with time, so the license text would be unavailable too; and we would give chance to read legal stuff to people with no network connection. The problem is not to copy the licenses to the copyright file but the question is rather if the BSD license has some official homepage and if the different BSD licenses are version numbered so I can check if the licenses in the program I am packaging are similar to one of them. What I know is that there is an old BSD license which is not GPL compatible but a new one is. How many BSD licenses exist? Which are GPL compatible? 3-clausule BSD is DFSG-compatible [0], there may be infinite BSD-licenses versions, just check they're DFSG-compatible by checking each of these points with the license. What you see different are just clausules the author adds and they may be restrictive at times... So if you're unsure email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-85700b45e3e6dfe08d94e89b596be0e2a297c0c5 Regards. - -- Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. GPG 0xCACAB118 http://ghostbar.ath.cx/about - http://debian.org.ve -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkktlIwACgkQOKCtW8rKsRjUtwCcDWvkE/t1x3+LGeIkLRwX1Yua PowAoL3zXkz3zOZCeFzEplcVuqbcAzl1 =pvNj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: python-uniconvertor breaks help(modules) in python
FYI: python-uniconvertor 1.1.2-2 uploaded to testing-proposed-updates pgpVX3N02iglF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: webcpp (adoption, bugfix and standards/dh7)
Hi Sandro On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:33:57PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: ehm, I personally like to have all the changes in the revision = current revision in debian+1, so -6, and you have the opportunity to fix this since your package FTBFS if build twice in a row. what does this mean? take your source pacakge and uncompress it, then exec debuild -us -uc debuild -us -uc, the second execution will fail with (snip) Hmm, I was encouraged before to ensure each upload is unique, but I guess it's preference. (A direct upload to ftp-master requires uniqueness, doesn't it?) I think it failed to build twice in a row because the paches were removed before distclean was called, but correct me if I'm wrong. I've changed it in debian/rules and it seems to be ok now. Diff attached. Combined changelog entries and updated the timestamp. Uploaded to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/webcpp/webcpp_0.8.4-6.dsc, if you have chance to take a look. Cheers -- Jonathan Wiltshire --- rules~ 2008-11-26 20:21:13.0 + +++ rules 2008-11-26 19:40:18.0 + @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ dh build touch $@ -clean: unpatch +distclean: unpatch +clean: -rm -f config.sub config.guess [ ! -f Makefile ] || $(MAKE) distclean dh $@ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: RFS: xinha
Hi, 2008/11/23 Mathieu Parent [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Thanks for all your help 2008/11/23 Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] Build-Depends: debhelper (= 6.0.7~) what is that tilde doing there? (lintian should probably warn about it) the tilde is for eventual backports of debhelper (see http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debhelper-script-needs-versioned-build-depends.html). Cite: Giving the version followed by ~ is recommended so that backports will satisfy the dependency. Yeah, Russ Allbery pointed that out in -mentors right after I sent the email. [...] debian/uupdate-wrapper: | gzip xinha_$version.orig.tar.gz use max compression (a.k.a -9) Done But looks like you didn't re-compress the tarball using -9, please do. * better use the same file name as in $file (there should be no worries about replacing the file while reading from it because tar requires the whole tarball to be available/read). Original tarbal is bzip2. that's why I rename it. I missed that part, sorry. [...] Regards Mathieu Parent There are a couple of issues in xinha itself that I will be reporting later (security issues). Do you happen to have an email address of upstream? I couldn't find it anywhere on the website. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net Yogi Berra - I never said most of the things I said. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSD licenses
Thanks Jose 3-clausule BSD is DFSG-compatible [0], there may be infinite BSD-licenses versions, just check they're DFSG-compatible by checking each of these points with the license. What you see different are just clausules the author adds and they may be restrictive at times... So if you're unsure email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-85700b45e3e6dfe08d94e89b596be0e2a2 97c0c5 I had forgotten this clause. Anyway, even if the licenses aren't long it would be easier if they were standardised with well documented relations to the other licenses. A single word may change the meaning of the license and it is difficult to know the consequenses. Perhaps the Debian mentor list is not the correct place to discuss it. Excuse me if I'm off topic and thanks for the help. Regards Gudjon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
