RFS: scmbug
Dear mentors, (Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to this mailing list) I am looking for a sponsor for my package scmbug. * Package name: scmbug Version : 0.26.13 Upstream Author : Kristis Makris kristis.mak...@asu.edu * URL : http://www.mkgnu.net/?q=scmbug * License : GPL Section : devel It builds these binary packages: scmbug-common - Scmbug common libraries. scmbug-doc - Scmbug documentation. scmbug-server - Scmbug integration server. scmbug-tools - Scmbug integration tools. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scmbug - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scmbug/scmbug_0.26.13.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Kristis Makris signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: scmbug
Some simple hints just reading the mentors template filled below: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 19:00, Kristis Makris kristis.mak...@asu.edu wrote: Version : 0.26.13 is this package native for real? check debian policy and developers reference about native and not-native package (and I bet it's not-native one...) * URL : http://www.mkgnu.net/?q=scmbug (...and I win :) ) scmbug-common - Scmbug common libraries. scmbug-doc - Scmbug documentation. scmbug-server - Scmbug integration server. scmbug-tools - Scmbug integration tools. Ok, I know nothing about this tool, and the short description should give me a hint about what the package is: those 4 don't really say anything The package is new, but no ITP bugs is closed: check the above 2 docs about why an ITP is needed, and how to file one. 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 debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: scmbug
Hi Dne Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:00:52 -0700 Kristis Makris kristis.mak...@asu.edu napsal(a): I am looking for a sponsor for my package scmbug. * Package name: scmbug Version : 0.26.13 Upstream Author : Kristis Makris kristis.mak...@asu.edu * URL : http://www.mkgnu.net/?q=scmbug * License : GPL Section : devel It builds these binary packages: scmbug-common - Scmbug common libraries. scmbug-doc - Scmbug documentation. scmbug-server - Scmbug integration server. scmbug-tools - Scmbug integration tools. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scmbug - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scmbug/scmbug_0.26.13.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Very quick look at the package: 1. Do not make package native. 2. Please create proper debian directory and not by symlink to some directory with templates and other crap in it. 3. Please file an ITP bug and close it in first changelog entry. 4. Build fails as there are some hardcoded paths: make: Entering an unknown directory make: *** /home/mkgnu/devel/scmbug.0.26.13/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-13/src/tests: No such file or directory. Stop. make: Leaving an unknown directory make[1]: *** [clean] Error 2 Full log is at http://tmp.cihar.com/scmbug_0.26.13_amd64.build 5. Please be more verbose in description of package. 6. Please use litian: $ lintian -IE --pedantic scmbug_0.26.13.dsc W: scmbug source: ancient-standards-version 3.5.2 (current is 3.8.0) I: scmbug source: build-depends-without-arch-dep docbook-dsssl I: scmbug source: build-depends-without-arch-dep docbook-utils I: scmbug source: build-depends-without-arch-dep transfig I: scmbug source: build-depends-without-arch-dep imagemagick W: scmbug source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log W: scmbug source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status 7. Source should match the one available on upstream website: $ md5sum SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-13.tar.gz scmbug_0.26.13.tar.gz a5c92c23e8c2fa5f67a389e12c04aacd SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-13.tar.gz d5645be5bc4a620f8f9db67a11662f0b scmbug_0.26.13.tar.gz -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: scmbug
Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 19:12 +0100, Sandro Tosi a écrit : scmbug-common - Scmbug common libraries. scmbug-doc - Scmbug documentation. scmbug-server - Scmbug integration server. scmbug-tools - Scmbug integration tools. Ok, I know nothing about this tool, and the short description should give me a hint about what the package is: those 4 don't really say anything The package is new, but no ITP bugs is closed: check the above 2 docs about why an ITP is needed, and how to file one. Regards, In any case, it would be great to have it in Debian, in order to allow better integration of bugtrackers with scm tools on Debian-based forges. No need to file a RFP from my place, if an ITP is coming in anyway ;) Regards, -- Olivier BERGER olivier.ber...@it-sudparis.eu http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-2.dsc Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone installing the package? Also, some typos in README.Debian: Intrebid wih upsream Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: tkgate (updated package)
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tkgate/tkgate_2.0~b4-1.dsc $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides tkgate*dsc I: tkgate source: duplicate-short-description tkgate tkgate-data tkgate-doc I: tkgate source: quilt-patch-missing-description 01_paths.diff I: tkgate source: quilt-patch-missing-description 02_manpages.diff Please improve the packages descriptions. Typos in debian/control: langauge Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 02_dial_string_size.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 03_Makefile_2.6.12.4.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 04_sregs_init.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 05_st7554_license.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 06_slmodem-class-simple-to-class-meins.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 08_ungrab_winmodem.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 10_drop_privileges.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description 11_logfile.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description kernel-ver.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description README.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description debug_level.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description fortify_source.diff I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description class_device.diff Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: tkgate (updated package)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 01:00:40PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tkgate/tkgate_2.0~b4-1.dsc $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides tkgate*dsc I: tkgate source: duplicate-short-description tkgate tkgate-data tkgate-doc I: tkgate source: quilt-patch-missing-description 01_paths.diff I: tkgate source: quilt-patch-missing-description 02_manpages.diff Please improve the packages descriptions. Typos in debian/control: langauge ---end quoted text--- Thanks for the review. I fixed those issues and re-uploaded. -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0x9DCA0B27 (@ subkeys.pgp.net) GPG Fingerprint: 087D 3767 8CAC 65B1 8F6C 156E D325 C3C8 9DCA 0B27 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:08:53 -0600 Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source That one is fine, but I'm concerned with your use of --pedantic. I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff Is that the result of --pedantic or just normal lintian? Raphael - are you saying that full compliance with the very new --pedantic option to lintian is now part of your sponsoring requirements? I'm not looking at this package in particular, but IMHO --pedantic needs quite a lot of care in handling - Russ admits that pedantic has less certainty than ordinary lintian checks with more room for false positives and false negatives. http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2009-01/019.html People should only use --pendantic if they're willing to see tags that are inaccurate or don't fit their personal style and take them with a grain of salt. It might be worth qualifying your use of --pedantic as your own preference. Do you filter some of the messages from --pedantic? I know you wanted --pedantic and worked on the implementation, but --pedantic does have problems and the results of using --pedantic are, IMHO, highly unreliable and in need of filtering one a package-by-package basis. FTR, I won't be using --pedantic *unless* it reveals a particular issue that I would like to have fixed anyway, i.e. where lintian provides some help on how to fix the issue. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpIyIJjTBQLC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:41:08PM +, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:08:53 -0600 Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source That one is fine, but I'm concerned with your use of --pedantic. Sorry that I said that the package is lintian clean, I used the template that was in mentors.debian.net (seems that there is an old version of lintian there), and I totally forgot about this warning. I think that it is fine too, because that package actually builds another package (if module-assistant is used), or just builds some module files (if DKMS is used). I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff Is that the result of --pedantic or just normal lintian? Pedantic messages are prefixed with P: I fixed uploaded, except for one patch (04_sregs_init.diff). That was introduced by previous maintainer. And I don't know what it does. Again, please advise me about the use of usermod in the postinst. -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0x9DCA0B27 (@ subkeys.pgp.net) GPG Fingerprint: 087D 3767 8CAC 65B1 8F6C 156E D325 C3C8 9DCA 0B27 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Monday 26 January 2009 20:55:09 Raphael Geissert wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-2.dsc Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone installing the package? Also, some typos in README.Debian: Intrebid wih upsream Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package) and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also. I also had a look at 10-debian-versions-511364.dpatch and 15-honour-proxy-512902.dpatch which are fine. Thanks. Uploaded. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
Hi Dne Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:41:08 + Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org napsal(a): On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:08:53 -0600 Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source That one is fine, but I'm concerned with your use of --pedantic. I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff Is that the result of --pedantic or just normal lintian? That's result of -I and it exists for quite a long time. Pedantic tags start with P:. Raphael - are you saying that full compliance with the very new --pedantic option to lintian is now part of your sponsoring requirements? I can not speak for Raphael, but I also use --pedantic when checking packages to sponsor, but more like a pointers what to check than like real errors. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04:58PM +0200, George Danchev wrote: Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone installing the package? Also, some typos in README.Debian: Intrebid wih upsream Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package) and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also. I lobbied hard for keeping README.Debian in last time but I can see my inexperience showing again :-) On review you are right, it duplicates the patch headers - my aim was to keep the user informed, who will never see them, but there isn't any real need. Taking it out will also fix the typos elegantly ;-) but no, it's not worth another upload, so it can wait until next time. I also had a look at 10-debian-versions-511364.dpatch and 15-honour-proxy-512902.dpatch which are fine. Thanks. Uploaded. Great, thanks! -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Monday 26 January 2009 22:24:12 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: --cut-- Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered To correct my errors first: `Debian.source' to be read as `debian/README.source' for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package) and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also. I lobbied hard for keeping README.Debian in last time but I can see my inexperience showing again :-) Nothing spectacular: /usr/share/doc/developers-reference/developers-reference.txt.gz On review you are right, it duplicates the patch headers - my aim was to keep the user informed, who will never see them, but there isn't any real need. Having dups could be tiresome for anyone, discrepancies happen... OTOH dropping a patch would take its description out as well. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: scmbug
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 19:00, Kristis Makris kristis.mak...@asu.edu wrote: scmbug-common - Scmbug common libraries. scmbug-doc - Scmbug documentation. scmbug-server - Scmbug integration server. scmbug-tools - Scmbug integration tools. Ok, I know nothing about this tool, and the short description should give me a hint about what the package is: those 4 don't really say anything Agreed. A good practice to follow, when a group of packages are clearly pieces of a larger conceptual package, is to have a single synopsis for the whole, and a brief addendum on each actual package synopsis. For example, assuming that ‘scmbug’ can be described as a “frobnicator with spangulation”: frobnicator with spangulation (common libraries) frobnicator with spangulation (documentation) frobnicator with spangulation (integration server) frobnicator with spangulation (integration tools) -- \ “Simplicity and elegance are unpopular because they require | `\ hard work and discipline to achieve and education to be | _o__)appreciated.” —Edsger W. Dijkstra | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: blimp
Please notify the security team of the code duplication in your package. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
Hi Neil, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:08:53 -0600 Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source That one is fine, but I'm concerned with your use of --pedantic. I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff Is that the result of --pedantic or just normal lintian? Michal already explained that pedantic tags are P, not I. In this case just demonstrates that the package is --pedantic clean as of lintian 2.0.0, nothing else. Raphael - are you saying that full compliance with the very new --pedantic option to lintian is now part of your sponsoring requirements? I'm not, yet, a DD so I still can't sponsor. But compliance with pedantic will be, at some extent, a requirement, yes. But please keep on reading before you comment on this. I'm not looking at this package in particular, but IMHO --pedantic needs quite a lot of care in handling - Russ admits that pedantic has less certainty than ordinary lintian checks with more room for false positives and false negatives. Those statements are true but also false, depends on the interpretations of each word. They are less certain or more likely to be false positives in the sense that for example no-upstream-changelog may be emitted even for multi bin packages, or even when upstream doesn't provide a changelog at all. http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2009-01/019.html People should only use --pendantic if they're willing to see tags that are inaccurate or don't fit their personal style and take them with a grain of salt. Sure. It might be worth qualifying your use of --pedantic as your own preference. Do you filter some of the messages from --pedantic? Keep reading. I know you wanted --pedantic and worked on the implementation, but --pedantic does have problems and the results of using --pedantic are, IMHO, highly unreliable and in need of filtering one a package-by-package basis. FTR, I won't be using --pedantic *unless* it reveals a particular issue that I would like to have fixed anyway, i.e. where lintian provides some help on how to fix the issue. I plan to require an explanation to why the cause of the tag being emitted is not fixed/changed as suggested. There are currently only three tags: no-upstream-changelog no-homepage-field direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system As you can see the first two fit in the maintainer missed it or its upstream's problem case, while the last one is up to the maintainer, and would be happy if a good and strong explanation is provided as to not use a patch system nowadays. The following check requests have been considered to be implemented as pedantic: 497344, 497346, 474590, 409124, 127494, 236232, 339829, 119045, 483845, 42936. Note that some are indeed questionable but are a good start point for discussing the results with the maintainer, they are no necessarily meant to be just fix it because it's The Right Thing tags. At least that's my POV, others may of course differ. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: sl-modem (updated package)
أحمد المحمودي wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:41:08PM +, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:08:53 -0600 Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: $ lintian --pedantic -IE --show-overrides sl-modem*dsc W: sl-modem source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends sl-modem-source That one is fine, but I'm concerned with your use of --pedantic. Sorry that I said that the package is lintian clean, I used the template that was in mentors.debian.net (seems that there is an old version of lintian there), and I totally forgot about this warning. mentors.d.n is not perfect, and you should get used to running lintian on your own :). I think that it is fine too, because that package actually builds another package (if module-assistant is used), or just builds some module files (if DKMS is used). Have you read the tag's description? it is not as to what the package does. I: sl-modem source: quilt-patch-missing-description modem_group.diff Is that the result of --pedantic or just normal lintian? Pedantic messages are prefixed with P: I fixed uploaded, except for one patch (04_sregs_init.diff). That was introduced by previous maintainer. And I don't know what it does. Then that's your homework :) Again, please advise me about the use of usermod in the postinst. Looks fine, but I have one question: why did you disable the version check? Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: blimp
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:14:05AM +0100, Knut Arild Erstad wrote: I found an ITP for it it (java-imaging-utilities, #431907). If a JIU package becomes available in the future, I will update blimp to depend on it. Better: get in touch with the owner of the ITP and work with him/her to get JIU into the archive, and save yourself the effort changing blimp later. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
