Re: ITR: febootstrap
On 09/05/27 13:41 -0700, Russ Allbery said ... Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org writes: I read that part of policy (only likely to be useful if you already know what they are) as there is an optional package that has been built out of the same source package, but this one is built for special needs of that package. My understanding was that this was largely for packages that conflict with those in = optional. OK, I looked at debootstrap and cdebootstrap, while the former is extra the latter is optional. As a maintainer of policy, what do you think? I use extra for anything that I consider to be for special use, obscure, or otherwise probably not worth listing with all the other packages in its section for the casual browser looking for interesting packages. This seems to be a very subjective criteria. So is the text in policy: optional (In a sense everything that isn't required is optional, but that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was and don't have specialized requirements. This is a much larger system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX distribution, and many applications. Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other. The tricky part is reasonably. So, for instance, funky old Kerberos v4 compatibility packages I consider extra, or a new but currently mostly unused SASL implementation, or Shishi (an interesting Kerberos implementation, but 99% of users will want either MIT or Heimdal instead). I agree with this particular example. But I could argue if would reasonbly want to install Kerberos if I Didn't know what it was. I've not seen ftp-master enforce the distinction between optional and extra, not even in the cases where it is very clearly defined in policy i.e. extra contains all packages that conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional priorities. And in case of Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies).. Look at the Debcheck pages. I am not sure if enforcing extra in cases other than conflicts, Depends: on lower priority and very clear specialised requirements (elinks-lite, debug symbols etc.) gains us much. Regards, Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://people.debian.org/~appaji/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFInspection: libfake437
Dear mentors, This is a repost, since my RFS of a week ago may have slipped through the cracks. I am looking for an inspection (and eventual sponsorship) for my package libfake437. * Package name: libfake437 Version : 0.4-3 Upstream Author : Jack Kelly endgame@gmail.com * URL : libfake437.googlecode.com * License : LGPL v3+ / CC-BY-SA-3.0 for documentation Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libfake437++-dev - A simple cross-platform ANSI-art library (C++ development files) libfake437++1 - A simple cross-platform ANSI-art library (C++ binding) libfake437-5 - A simple cross-platform ANSI-art library libfake437-dev - A simple cross-platform ANSI-art library (development files) libfake437-doc - A simple cross-platform ANSI-art library (documentation) The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libfake437 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libfake437/libfake437_0.4-3.dsc I would be glad if someone inspected this package for me. I'm my own upstream, so suggestions on how to be a better upstream from Debian's perspective are welcome. I'm keeping the packaging in SVN at http://libfake437.googlecode.com/svn/debian , so if you have suggestions there I'd also appreciate comments. Eventually, I'd like to get this sponsored and into the respositories. Kind regards Jack Kelly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Libary Packing
Hello, i'm trying to build an libary package from my sourcecode. At first i build an regular package with dh_make and single binary included the libary. Everything is fine and works. Now i want to build an libary and an binary package, but as i read the manual i can build only an libary lib-dev and lib where lib is the documentation. When i call debuild everything runs without errors, but i can't find the libary in de *.deb package. Can somebody point me to a step by step documentation for libraries. I can only find doc for normal binary packaging. Is it possible to build lib and program with one command (build)? One more question: When i want to provide an new package for debian testing/unstable/stable do i need an mentor tu upload the package? I checked the packaging working list (don't remember where it is) and nobody works on it. Or can i upload the package with upload-command to the ftp-server? Thanks for help, yonah -- Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Libary Packing
Hello, i'm trying to build an libary package from my sourcecode. At first i build an regular package with dh_make and single binary included the libary. Everything is fine and works. Now i want to build an libary and an binary package, but as i read the manual i can build only an libary lib-dev and lib where lib is the documentation. When i call debuild everything runs without errors, but i can't find the libary in de *.deb package. Can somebody point me to a step by step documentation for libraries. I can only find doc for normal binary packaging. Is it possible to build lib and program with one command (build)? One more question: When i want to provide an new package for debian testing/unstable/stable do i need an mentor tu upload the package? I checked the packaging working list (don't remember where it is) and nobody works on it. Or can i upload the package with upload-command to the ftp-server? Thanks for help, yonah -- Der Langsamste, der sein Ziel nicht aus den Augen verliert, geht noch immer geschwinder, als jener, der ohne Ziel umerhirrt. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Homepage: http://home.pages.at/yonah Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Libary Packing
Hi, On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:59:35PM +0200, yo...@gmx.net wrote: Can somebody point me to a step by step documentation for libraries. I can only find doc for normal binary packaging. Is it possible to build lib and program with one command (build)? The Debian Library Packaging Guide is best: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html One more question: When i want to provide an new package for debian testing/unstable/stable do i need an mentor tu upload the package? I checked the packaging working list (don't remember where it is) and nobody works on it. Or can i upload the package with upload-command to the ftp-server? You will be working through a mentor until you're accepted into the Debian Maintainers [1] or Debian Developers [2] keyrings. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Maintainers [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Libary Packing
Hi Jonathan, The Debian Library Packaging Guide is best: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html I founded this guide, but there are no commands with debuild etc. Do I don't need that? yonah -- Der Langsamste, der sein Ziel nicht aus den Augen verliert, geht noch immer geschwinder, als jener, der ohne Ziel umerhirrt. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Homepage: http://home.pages.at/yonah Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Libary Packing
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:10:52PM +0200, Yonah Brendon Franklin wrote: I founded this guide, but there are no commands with debuild etc. Do I don't need that? Your package is still built in the normal way (see [1]) but there are specific details you need to pay attention to when packaging libraries, which the library guide will help you with. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Libary Packing
On 2009-05-28 14:06 +0200, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:59:35PM +0200, yo...@gmx.net wrote: Can somebody point me to a step by step documentation for libraries. I can only find doc for normal binary packaging. Is it possible to build lib and program with one command (build)? The Debian Library Packaging Guide is best: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html I cannot claim to have much expertise in library packaging, but would like to warn that this document gives bad advice regarding the name of -dev packages. See http://bugs.debian.org/493951. In general, -dev packages should not include the soname of the library because that makes transitions much more complicated. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Libary Packing
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:24:33PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: I cannot claim to have much expertise in library packaging, but would like to warn that this document gives bad advice regarding the name of -dev packages. See http://bugs.debian.org/493951. In general, -dev packages should not include the soname of the library because that makes transitions much more complicated. Does dancer know this? -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Libary Packing
On 2009-05-28 14:38 +0200, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:24:33PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: I cannot claim to have much expertise in library packaging, but would like to warn that this document gives bad advice regarding the name of -dev packages. See http://bugs.debian.org/493951. In general, -dev packages should not include the soname of the library because that makes transitions much more complicated. Does dancer know this? Probably, since he participated in the discussion around #493951. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: libdebug (adopted, updated, fixed bugs)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.4.3-1 of my package libdebug. This is an attempt to adopt the package, turn it into a non-native one, become upstream, bring the Debian packaging up to the current standards and best practices, and fix the single outstanding bug. It's a simple library written in C which provides logging and memory debugging routines, it has been in Debian since 2002, and it could use a little TLC :) It builds these binary packages: libdebug0 - Memory leak detection system and logging library libdebug0-dev - Development files for the debug library I'm aware that it would be better for the -dev package to be named just libdebug-dev, but I've decided not to change that in my first adoption upload. Of course, if an interested mentor thinks that it would be preferable to change it right away, I could do that, too. The package has been tested with lintian and pbuilder. The upload would fix these bugs: 437346 (nostrip), 499260 (ITA) The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libdebug/libdebug_0.4.3-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. JFYI, here's my adoption changelog entry: libdebug (0.4.3-1) unstable; urgency=low * New maintainer. Closes: #499260 * Override a shlib calls exit lintian warning - this is a debugging library, it is supposed to exit on grave errors. * Add a symbols file starting at libdebug0-0.4.2 obtained from mole. * Make this a non-native package. * Add a watch file. * Convert the copyright file to the machine-readable format and add my copyright notice. * Add the Vcs-Svn and Vcs-Browser control fields. * Bump the debhelper compatibility version to 7: - add misc:Depends to the binary package * Bump Standards-Version to 3.8.1: - use binary:Version instead of hardcoding the dependencies between the binary packages - support nostrip in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Closes: #437346 - add the Homepage control field * Build with lots of compiler warning flags. * Build with -Werror if werror is in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. * Enable build hardening unless nohardening is in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. * Remove the unused debian/Makefile. * Remove debian/libdebug0.postinst - dh_makeshlibs takes care of this. * Do not try to clean the source in the build target, it's upstream's job now. * Use dh_install instead of dh_movefiles. * Minimize the rules file using debhelper override targets. * Pass prefix correctly during the install phase now that upstream supports DESTDIR in the canonical way. -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net Thu, 28 May 2009 16:02:51 +0300 G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence is false. pgpNiuJ6UGBY4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: agedu
Hi, Alexander.
On May 27 2009, Alexander Prinsier wrote:
* Package name: agedu
Version : 8442-2
Upstream Author : Simon Tatham ana...@pobox.com
* URL : http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/agedu/
* License : MIT
Section : utils
(...)
agedu - a Unix utility for tracking down wasted disk space
(...)
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/agedu/agedu_8442-2.dsc
IANADD, and have not reviewed your package, but IMVHO, this one gets my
vote for potential sponsors.
The combo filelight/baboab + fslint/fdupes + agedu + simhash is simply
amazing to remove cruft from one's archives.
I have compiled agedu from the upstream sources just to see what it was
all about and I am very happy that it lets us see the things which other
packages doesn't.
Recommended.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: masqmail (updated package)
[2009-05-24 23:11] markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.21-6 of my package masqmail. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Now, someone did ... but how can I find out, who? The mail from mentors does not contain a name and I found no upload logs or a similar source. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: masqmail (updated package)
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:21:12PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote: Now, someone did ... but how can I find out, who? The mail from mentors does not contain a name and I found no upload logs or a similar source. The signature on the uploaded .dsc says it was bubulle: gpg: Signature made Tue 26 May 2009 19:19:41 BST using DSA key ID C0143D2D gpg: Good signature from Christian Perrier christian.perr...@onera.fr gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with sufficiently trusted signatures! gpg: It is not certain that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: F972 A168 A270 3B34 CC23 E09F D4E5 EDAC C014 3D2D -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: masqmail (updated package)
markus schnalke wrote: [2009-05-24 23:11] markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.21-6 of my package masqmail. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Now, someone did ... but how can I find out, who? The mail from mentors does not contain a name and I found no upload logs or a similar source. Look at your qa.debian.org maintainer page, put the mouse cursor to last source uploaded and see the Debian login of the uploader in the hint. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: masqmail (updated package)
On 09/05/28 17:21 +0200, markus schnalke said ... [2009-05-24 23:11] markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.21-6 of my package masqmail. Now, someone did ... but how can I find out, who? The mail from mentors does not contain a name and I found no upload logs or a similar source. Use the who-uploads script from the devscripts package. Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://appaji.net/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
Hello, I recently got an RC bug (#530653) which turned out to be a change in dpkg's update-alternative (the string and output channel of an error message was changed which is used in the preinst). So I prepared a new package, but this of course will only work with the dpkg in unstable (not the one currently in testing nor (old)stable). To allow (partial) updates I think the proper way would be to depend on dpkg (= 1.15.0) until Squeeze is released. I read debian-policy and I think I'm right. But given this is in the preinst I would like to confirm that in this case not one of the other options (Pre-Depends, Conflicts, Breaks) is more suitable. Thanks! Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software libre: http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de wrote: I recently got an RC bug (#530653) which turned out to be a change in dpkg's update-alternative (the string and output channel of an error message was changed which is used in the preinst). So I prepared a new package, but this of course will only work with the dpkg in unstable (not the one currently in testing nor (old)stable). Why do you need to rely on the output from update-alternatives? Isn't the exit status enough? Also, why isn't it possible to make it work with both output methods? To allow (partial) updates I think the proper way would be to depend on dpkg (= 1.15.0) until Squeeze is released. Depends are not nessecarily satisfied in the preinst. I read debian-policy and I think I'm right. But given this is in the preinst I would like to confirm that in this case not one of the other options (Pre-Depends, Conflicts, Breaks) is more suitable. Pre-Depends would be what is needed to satisfy dependencies in preinst (I think). -- 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: Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
Am 28.05.2009 um 19:34 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: I recently got an RC bug (#530653) which turned out to be a change in dpkg's update-alternative (the string and output channel of an error message was changed which is used in the preinst). So I prepared a new package, but this of course will only work with the dpkg in unstable (not the one currently in testing nor (old)stable). To allow (partial) updates I think the proper way would be to depend on dpkg (= 1.15.0) until Squeeze is released. I read debian-policy and I think I'm right. But given this is in the preinst I would like to confirm that in this case not one of the other options (Pre-Depends, Conflicts, Breaks) is more suitable. I don't know why this preinst script is necessary, but if you need to insure that the new update-alternatives script is run in it, you have to use Pre-Depends rather than Depends. See Policy § 7.2. AFAIK on the buildds packages are unpacked by the host system's dpkg which will be the stable version, so a Pre-Dependency on an unstable dpkg is frowned upon. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
Hello Sven, On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 07:53:36PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: I don't know why this preinst script is necessary, but if you need to insure that the new update-alternatives script is run in it, you have to use Pre-Depends rather than Depends. See Policy § 7.2. Thanks, I missed the last paragraph previously. The reason is the following in the preinst (which I inherited, so if it is wrong, I gladly rewrite/improve): case $1 in upgrade|install) if ! LC_ALL=C update-alternatives --display asclock 21 | grep 'error: no alternatives' /dev/null ; then update-alternatives --auto asclock update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-4bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-8bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-24bpp fi ;; abort-upgrade) ;; *) echo asclock preinst called with an unkown argument: $1 2 exit 1 ;; esac AFAIK on the buildds packages are unpacked by the host system's dpkg which will be the stable version, so a Pre-Dependency on an unstable dpkg is frowned upon. IMHO this should only be a problem if asclock becomes a build dependency for other packages which I currently don't see to be. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software libre: http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
Am 28.05.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 07:53:36PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: I don't know why this preinst script is necessary, but if you need to insure that the new update-alternatives script is run in it, you have to use Pre-Depends rather than Depends. See Policy § 7.2. Thanks, I missed the last paragraph previously. The reason is the following in the preinst (which I inherited, so if it is wrong, I gladly rewrite/improve): case $1 in upgrade|install) if ! LC_ALL=C update-alternatives --display asclock 21 | grep 'error: no alternatives' /dev/null ; then update-alternatives --auto asclock update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-4bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-8bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-24bpp fi ;; abort-upgrade) ;; *) echo asclock preinst called with an unkown argument: $1 2 exit 1 ;; esac Looking at old asclock versions on archive.debian.net, these lines have been around at least since potato. So I think you can safely assume that the asclock alternatives do not exist anymore and simply ditch the preinst script altogether. While we're at it: the prerm script is also cruft. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: skanlite
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package skanlite. * Package name: skanlite Version : 0.3-1 Upstream Author : Kåre Särs kare.s...@iki.fi Arseniy Lartsev receive-s...@yandex.ru * URL : ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.2.3/src/extragear/ * License : GPL2+ Section : kde It builds these binary packages: skanlite - KDE4 image scanner based on the KSane backend The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 530915 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/skanlite - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/skanlite/skanlite_0.3-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Kai Wasserbäch -- Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech) E-Mail: deb...@carbon-project.org Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2 (http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2fingerprint=onhash=onop=vindex) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: masqmail (updated package)
[2009-05-28 22:25] Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org On 09/05/28 17:21 +0200, markus schnalke said ... [2009-05-24 23:11] markus schnalke mei...@marmaro.de I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.21-6 of my package masqmail. Now, someone did ... but how can I find out, who? The mail from mentors does not contain a name and I found no upload logs or a similar source. Use the who-uploads script from the devscripts package. Great, this was exactly what I was looking for. Anyway, thanks for the other solutions too. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proper dependency on essential package (dpkg) for preinst
Hello Sven, On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:01:32PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: Am 28.05.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 07:53:36PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: The reason is the following in the preinst (which I inherited, so if it is wrong, I gladly rewrite/improve): case $1 in upgrade|install) if ! LC_ALL=C update-alternatives --display asclock 21 | grep 'error: no alternatives' /dev/null ; then update-alternatives --auto asclock update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-4bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-8bpp update-alternatives --remove asclock $asclock-24bpp fi ;; abort-upgrade) ;; *) echo asclock preinst called with an unkown argument: $1 2 exit 1 ;; esac Looking at old asclock versions on archive.debian.net, these lines have been around at least since potato. So I think you can safely assume that the asclock alternatives do not exist anymore and simply ditch the preinst script altogether. Well, so far I've never investigated what exactly those lines intended to achive. Looking more closely and realising that there is only one asclock in the archive (even for Oldstable) I agree that the best path forward is to remove the preinst While we're at it: the prerm script is also cruft. .. and the prerm. Thanks for your swift response and help. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software libre: http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gddrescue-1.10
[Rince, 2009-05-28] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gddrescue/gddrescue_1.10+nmu2.dsc * shold not be a native package * wrong distribution * wrong version * Update standards and compat settings to latest sid. doesn't tell me much about what and why changed [stopped checking here] -- http://people.debian.org/~piotr/sponsor signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
On torsdagen den 16 april 2009, Paul Wise wrote: 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard laur...@open-minds.org: So .dfsg is a bad suffix ? And +dfsg should be used in priority ? If 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy... Yes (but not very), yes (or the others), the versions are chosen by people and people don't think alike. I think I prefer the plus variant but I'm not fully sure why. Perhaps the -dfsg-1 might get confused with a Debian version somewhere and perhaps the plus makes it more clear that the version is modified. The hyphen, just like the hyphen that separates the Debian revision from the upstream version, nicely indicates that dfsg is not part of the upstream-designated version number, although it's technically part of the upstream version. The drawback is that - is, somewhat counter- intuitively, greater than +. -- Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org Debian Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: agedu
Hello, On Wed, 27 May 2009, Alexander Prinsier wrote: * Package name: agedu Version : 8442-2 Upstream Author : Simon Tatham ana...@pobox.com * URL : http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/agedu/ * License : MIT Section : utils It builds these binary packages: agedu - a Unix utility for tracking down wasted disk space The package appears to be lintian clean. Appearances are deceptive. :-) Run a recent version of lintian with the -iIv options to see more! - the manpage uses a hyphen instead of a minus sign - there is no debian/watch file - the standards version is 3.8.0 whereas it should be 3.8.1 - The word Copyright or the unicode copyright symbol should appear in the copyright file I used: - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/agedu/agedu_8442-4.dsc Regards, Kapil. P.S. It would be nice if the key with which you sign the dsc file was in some public place like the keyrings at keys.gnupg.net or pgp.mit.edu -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: agedu
Thanks for taking a look at the package! I believe I addressed all the issues correctly in the version I just uploaded now. See below for details :) Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: The package appears to be lintian clean. Appearances are deceptive. :-) Run a recent version of lintian with the -iIv options to see more! Oh I only used -i :) I fixed the additional warnings, see below. - the manpage uses a hyphen instead of a minus sign Indeed, I corrected those. - there is no debian/watch file Yes, this also bothered me ;) The website of the program only puts a direct link to a file. There is no directory index containing all versions that uscan would be able to parse. So I believe I cannot build a correct watch file. As lintian suggested I created an empty watch file with a comment inside to explain this situation. I hope this is ok? - the standards version is 3.8.0 whereas it should be 3.8.1 There don't see to be changes that apply to my packaging, so I just incremented the Standards-Version to 3.8.1 now. - The word Copyright or the unicode copyright symbol should appear in the copyright file Fixed that now. P.S. It would be nice if the key with which you sign the dsc file was in some public place like the keyrings at keys.gnupg.net or pgp.mit.edu Oops, I wasn't aware it didn't spread yet... I uploaded it to some keyserver in the past but that wasn't enouph apparently :) Now it's available at pgp.mit.edu and keys.gnupg.net too. Anything else that keeps my package from getting sponsored?;) Regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ITR: febootstrap
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag app...@debian.org writes: I agree with this particular example. But I could argue if would reasonbly want to install Kerberos if I Didn't know what it was. I've not seen ftp-master enforce the distinction between optional and extra, not even in the cases where it is very clearly defined in policy i.e. extra contains all packages that conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional priorities. And in case of Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies).. Look at the Debcheck pages. I am not sure if enforcing extra in cases other than conflicts, Depends: on lower priority and very clear specialised requirements (elinks-lite, debug symbols etc.) gains us much. Oh, yes, I agree. I wouldn't go to people in general and ask them to make their packages priority: extra. I was only questioning because you'd said to raise the priority from extra to optional, and this didn't seem like a package where we'd want to make a special effort to move it into optional. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: NEW: dico 2.0-1
Hello, On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 19:50, أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package dico. This package is NEW to Debian. The ITP number is: 522368 * Package name : dico Version : 2.0 Debian Revision : 1 Upstream Author : Sergey Poznyakoff g...@gnu.org.ua * URL : http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/software/dico/ * License : GPL-3+ Languages : C (mainly), Python Section : text Long description: Dico is an implementation of DICT server (RFC 2229). It is fully modular: the daemon itself (dicod) provides only the server functionality, but it knows nothing about database formats. Actual searches are performed by functions supplied in loadable modules. A single module can serve one or more databases. It builds these binary packages: dico - RFC 2229 compliant dictionary client dico-dev - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (development files) dico-doc - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (documentation) dico-module-dictorg - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (dict.org databse support) dico-module-guile - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Guile support) dico-module-mediawiki - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Wiki support) dico-module-outline - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Emacs outline support) dico-module-python - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Python support) dicoclient-python - python Dico client module and shell dicod - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server dicoweb - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (web interface) libdico0 - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (shared library) wit - wiki translator The latest entry in the Debian changelog is: dico (2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release (Closes: #522368). As required, I tested the package against unstable's version of lintian and it is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dico - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dico/dico_2.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. uploaded. -- Best Regards LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: NEW: dico 2.0-1
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 01:48:35PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: uploaded. ---end quoted text--- Thanks ! -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7 (@ subkeys.pgp.net) GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
