Re: RFS: sweethome3d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/02/2010 12:26 AM, Michal Čihař wrote: Hi Dne Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:01:36 +0100 Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com napsal(a): On 03/01/2010 08:51 AM, Michal ihaY wrote: The license seems to be GPL-2+ (at least all file headers I checked say so). Please fix it in debian/copyright. you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. At our option, we can choose GPL-3+, can't we? What would be the reason for that? Yes, technically you can, but you are supposed to describe actual license in debian/copyright. Actual before or after our choice? We are redistributing it and we can choose whether releasing it under version 2 or 3. What reason for that? Why not? Is GPL-2 better than GPL-3? I'm trying to understand differences between them. Why is needed 01noMacOSX? All MacOSX code seems to be behind if, so it should be safe to stay, or am I wrong? Removed some references to MacOSX code. Without those removals, build fails due to classes included in AppleJavaExtension.jar which I didn't replace. I didn't take a deeper look at it. I would be good idea to document this in patch description. It's always good to mention why the patch is needed when it is not obvious. I'll do it. Why do you install startup script to usr/share/sweethome3d and create symlink in usr/bin? I think it should be directly in usr/bin. I already did it for jxplorer: link without .sh extension under /usr/bin that refers to the script under share/application /usr/bin/sweethome3d - ../share/sweethome3d/sweethome3d.sh I like it but we can talk about it. Well I feel the symlink and different location is useless, but I'd like to use package.install or dh_install but they don't rename files. Possibly without install -d/install stuff. And sweethome3d.jar was also feeling alone under /usr/share/sweethome3d ;) Cheers, Gabriele -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuM3K4ACgkQp3cdCbVcnCvXcgCfe5LYw8nhTFQ0/nEGmL674X1q G8IAniXFJTr0lWaVADTJhk7yLiQXCfJ4 =SwNs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8cdcbe.1060...@gmail.com
What to do if the source name of a package changes
Hello, I'm the maintainer of the libv4l package. It produces two binary packages: libv4l-0 and libv4l-dev. With the latest release upstream decided to rename it to v4l-utils and add some utilities. To be consistent with upstream I changes the package source name to v4l-utils. But what actions do I have to take to take to replace libv4l with v4l-utils in the archive? Thanks, Gregor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/9d2cd631003020210n797269d8pd5b4ee98d489a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: sweethome3d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dne Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:39:10 +0100 Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com napsal(a): Actual before or after our choice? We are redistributing it and we can choose whether releasing it under version 2 or 3. What reason for that? Why not? Is GPL-2 better than GPL-3? I'm trying to understand differences between them. For example because GPL-3 is not compatible with GPL-2 by itself. So once the code is under GPL-3 you can not use it in GPL-2 licensed program. Also I don't see reason why you should limit Debian users from use the program under terms of GPL-2. Why do you install startup script to usr/share/sweethome3d and create symlink in usr/bin? I think it should be directly in usr/bin. I already did it for jxplorer: link without .sh extension under /usr/bin that refers to the script under share/application /usr/bin/sweethome3d - ../share/sweethome3d/sweethome3d.sh I like it but we can talk about it. Well I feel the symlink and different location is useless, but I'd like to use package.install or dh_install but they don't rename files. Possibly without install -d/install stuff. And sweethome3d.jar was also feeling alone under /usr/share/sweethome3d ;) Okay, this is just matter of preferences. - -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuM4usACgkQ3DVS6DbnVgRWRQCgxrnhfIv2zDqO0ZIncr0LLxhD zpUAoN7U3a67/eDkYYbDcuLGfhICpKNI =R0jq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What to do if the source name of a package changes
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:10:59 +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote: To be consistent with upstream I changes the package source name to v4l-utils. But what actions do I have to take to take to replace libv4l with v4l-utils in the archive? http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-Hailing frequencies open, Captain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302101422.gf29...@colleen.colgarra.priv.at
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:23:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Dominik George d...@naturalnik.de (26/02/2010): OK, as it is done in postinst, there does not seem to be a difference to my current chown setup. dpkg-statoverride will make sure that the permissions are set everytiem the file is re-installed, but chown in postinst will as well ... And will nuke possible local changes? Erm, surely the script would check with dpkg-statoverride --list before setting the permissions, as described in Policy 10.9.1 :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 If the meanings of 'true' and 'false' were switched, then this sentence wouldn't be false. pgpNQdbPjhdY1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:23:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Dominik George d...@naturalnik.de (26/02/2010): OK, as it is done in postinst, there does not seem to be a difference to my current chown setup. dpkg-statoverride will make sure that the permissions are set everytiem the file is re-installed, but chown in postinst will as well ... And will nuke possible local changes? Erm, surely the script would check with dpkg-statoverride --list before setting the permissions, as described in Policy 10.9.1 :) I'm pretty sure KiBi was referring to the chown method :) -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e13a36b31003020243w18a0a2f9gf53d251ba8249...@mail.gmail.com
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:43:07PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:23:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Dominik George d...@naturalnik.de (26/02/2010): OK, as it is done in postinst, there does not seem to be a difference to my current chown setup. dpkg-statoverride will make sure that the permissions are set everytiem the file is re-installed, but chown in postinst will as well ... And will nuke possible local changes? Erm, surely the script would check with dpkg-statoverride --list before setting the permissions, as described in Policy 10.9.1 :) I'm pretty sure KiBi was referring to the chown method :) Oh. Right. Sowwy :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 If this sentence were in Chinese, it would say something else. pgpaay3ZgFof2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What to do if the source name of a package changes
On 2010-03-02 11:14 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:10:59 +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote: To be consistent with upstream I changes the package source name to v4l-utils. But what actions do I have to take to take to replace libv4l with v4l-utils in the archive? http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package I don't think this applies here, because Gregor wants to rename the *source* package (and probably add a new binary package v4l-utils). The developer's reference states this in § 5.9.2: , | There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not | necessary: If a (source or binary) package is an orphan, it will | be removed semi-automatically. For a binary-package, this means | if there is no longer any source package producing this binary | package; if the binary package is just no longer produced on some | architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For a | source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to | have been taken over by another source package. ` So, assuming that the new source package still produces all the binary packages that libv4l did, no special action is necessary. There is a downside to this renaming though: the history in the PTS will be truncated. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vddfdm9o@turtle.gmx.de
Re: What to do if the source name of a package changes
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:57:07 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: To be consistent with upstream I changes the package source name to v4l-utils. But what actions do I have to take to take to replace libv4l with v4l-utils in the archive? http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package I don't think this applies here, because Gregor wants to rename the *source* package (and probably add a new binary package v4l-utils). If the binary packages are the same, yes. I (possibly wrongly) assumed they would also change. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-Bones: The man's DEAD, Jim! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302110329.gg29...@colleen.colgarra.priv.at
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:37:25 +0200, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:23:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Dominik George d...@naturalnik.de (26/02/2010): OK, as it is done in postinst, there does not seem to be a difference to my current chown setup. dpkg-statoverride will make sure that the permissions are set everytiem the file is re-installed, but chown in postinst will as well ... And will nuke possible local changes? Erm, surely the script would check with dpkg-statoverride --list before setting the permissions, as described in Policy 10.9.1 :) It is my very *intention* to kick local changes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/0027a82f289c4cc94b8c1f399120b...@naturalnet.de
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:00:25PM +0100, Dominik George wrote: On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:37:25 +0200, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:23:25AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Dominik George d...@naturalnik.de (26/02/2010): OK, as it is done in postinst, there does not seem to be a difference to my current chown setup. dpkg-statoverride will make sure that the permissions are set everytiem the file is re-installed, but chown in postinst will as well ... And will nuke possible local changes? Erm, surely the script would check with dpkg-statoverride --list before setting the permissions, as described in Policy 10.9.1 :) It is my very *intention* to kick local changes. Mmm, in this case by local changes we (at least I, but I assume also KiBi and Paul Wise) mean what the sysadmin has done by hand after installing a previous version of the package, not what some parts of the package installation have done during the installation itself. The dpkg-statoverride --list is meant to ease things in this scenario: 1. The sysadmin installs an older version of the package 1a. Possibly, this older version *during installation* installs some scripts as owned by userA/groupA 1b. Possbily, this older version *again, during installation, in a postinst script* fixes those permissions by dpkg-statoverride to userB/groupB, which is as they usually ought to be, for 99% of the users of this package 2. The sysadmin seems them owned by userB and decides that *for this particular installation* on her server, the files should instead be owned either by userC, or, as the case may be, by userA, so the sysadmin does a dpkg-statoverride to tell the Debian packaging system that these files really ought to be owned by userC (or userA), on her machine only. 3. The sysadmin installs a newer version of the package. Since the files should *normally* be owned by userB, but in this case the sysadmin has explicitly requested her preference for them to be owned by userC (or userA), her wishes should not be countermanded without good reason. Of course, if you, as the maintainer, say that those files should really, really, REALLY be owned by userB, and any local changes MUST be countermanded, then, by all means, use chown - but in that case, it would be better if you did a find ... ! ( -user userB -or -group groupB), and if any files are found, splash a high priority debconf prompt warning about them and asking (with default yes) to restore them to userB. This is what Policy 10.9.1's dpkg-statoverride list before set is meant to do. If your case is the really, really, REALLY case from the last point, then fine, have it your way :) But if it's just the maintainer Makefile installs them as userA, but on Debian systems they ought to be userB *unless the sysadmin decides something else*, then you should go with dpkg-statoverride. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 When you are not looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish. pgpMy2UImzFMc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CHowning files - or not?
Mmm, in this case by local changes we (at least I, but I assume also KiBi and Paul Wise) mean what the sysadmin has done by hand after installing a previous version of the package, not what some parts of the package installation have done during the installation itself. I know what local changes are. And I *want* any of these changes to be lost when a package is updated. As I mentioned in my very first mail, this is a repository of packages for *local* deployment, to systems *I* maintain, that are supposed to be *stock* installations with *no* modifications watsoever, and that are *never* touched by anyone except me. -nik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/35af2cfef4b02f59cc2976c25890a...@naturalnet.de
Re: CHowning files - or not?
tisdag den 2 mars 2010 klockan 14:22 skrev Dominik George detta: I know what local changes are. And I *want* any of these changes to be lost when a package is updated. As I mentioned in my very first mail, this is a repository of packages for *local* deployment, to systems *I* maintain, that are supposed to be *stock* installations with *no* modifications watsoever, and that are *never* touched by anyone except me. -nik Then the package hardly merits to be present in a public Debian repository! It should be kept in a local or in a business internal repository. -- Mats Erik Andersson, fil. dr Abbonerar på: debian-mentors, debian-devel-games, debian-perl, debian-ipv6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302140124.ga5...@mea.homelinux.org
Re: CHowning files - or not?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:01:24PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: tisdag den 2 mars 2010 klockan 14:22 skrev Dominik George detta: I know what local changes are. And I *want* any of these changes to be lost when a package is updated. As I mentioned in my very first mail, this is a repository of packages for *local* deployment, to systems *I* maintain, that are supposed to be *stock* installations with *no* modifications watsoever, and that are *never* touched by anyone except me. -nik Then the package hardly merits to be present in a public Debian repository! It should be kept in a local or in a business internal repository. From Dominik's original mail, the package is not really meant to be present in a public Debian repository :) Dominik, well, in that case you may use chown. Personally, I would still go with the dpkg-statoverride thing, something like: find ... -type f | while read f; do # only do something when no setting exists # NN # if ! dpkg-statoverride --list $i /dev/null 21 # NN # then #include: debconf processing, question about foo and bar # NN #if [ $RET = true ] ; then dpkg-statoverride --update --add sysuser userA 4755 $i # NN # fi # NN # fi done That is, pretty much the loop from Policy 10.9.1, with most of the lines commented out with a NN (not needed) or something, and maybe a brief explanation why this is so. My reasons would be 1. maybe something will change in the future and dpkg-statoverride may be needed, and 2. forming good habits for future Debian packages :) But if you don't feel like it, just use chown - but make a point to remember that this is a special case and for other packages you might want to use dpkg-statoverride :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 If I had finished this sentence, pgptWUJl1gtRq.pgp Description: PGP signature
lintian 2.3.3 warning: native-package-with-dash-version
[Please keep CC] Following lintian warning is displayed: $ debian -us -uc ... W: dyndns source: native-package-with-dash-version W: dyndns source: debian-watch-file-in-native-package The debian/changelog line reads: dyndns (2010.0301+gitdd160bd-1) unstable; urgency=low This should not be happening as there is an *.orig.* file in a directory above. The program is packaged directly from a git repository: $ ls -1 ../*z dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd.tar.gz dyndns_2010.0301+gitdd160bd.orig.tar.gz ( NAME_VERSION.orig.tar.gz ) Lintian version is: $ apt-cache policy lintian lintian: Installed: 2.3.3 Candidate: 2.3.3 Package pin: 2.3.3 Can anyone see any obvious errror, that eludes my eyes? Files available at: http://cante.net/~jaalto/tmp/tmp/dyndns-lintian-problem.tar.gz Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tysyheb6@jondo.cante.net
RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20100302-1 of my package mobile-broadband-provider-info. It builds these binary packages: mobile-broadband-provider-info - database of mobile broadband service providers The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mobile-broadband-provider-info - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mobile-broadband-provider-info/mobile-broadband-provider-info_20100302-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Bhavani Shankar.R https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community member. What matters in life is application of mind!, It makes great sense to have some common sense..! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b269a4e91003020837m2ed6d373oaf3d60bdee368...@mail.gmail.com
Re: lintian 2.3.3 warning: native-package-with-dash-version
* Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net, 2010-03-02, 18:35: [Please keep CC] Following lintian warning is displayed: $ debian -us -uc ... W: dyndns source: native-package-with-dash-version W: dyndns source: debian-watch-file-in-native-package The debian/changelog line reads: dyndns (2010.0301+gitdd160bd-1) unstable; urgency=low This should not be happening as there is an *.orig.* file in a directory above. The program is packaged directly from a git repository: $ ls -1 ../*z dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd.tar.gz dyndns_2010.0301+gitdd160bd.orig.tar.gz ( NAME_VERSION.orig.tar.gz ) [...] Can anyone see any obvious errror, that eludes my eyes? $ cat dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd/debian/source/format 3.0 (native) Hope that explains everything. :) -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lintian 2.3.3 warning: native-package-with-dash-version
Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net (02/03/2010): [Please keep CC] [Done.] Can anyone see any obvious errror, that eludes my eyes? Files available at: $ cat dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd/debian/source/format 3.0 (native) (Enjoy 3.0…) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lintian 2.3.3 warning: native-package-with-dash-version
--- dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd.orig//debian/source/format 2010-03-01 10:26:56.0 -0300 +++ dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd/debian/source/format2010-03-02 13:52:57.0 -0300 @@ -1 +1 @@ -3.0 (native) +3.0 (quilt) Regards, Eriberto - Brazil 2010/3/2 Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net: ... W: dyndns source: native-package-with-dash-version W: dyndns source: debian-watch-file-in-native-package -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4784fdae1003020854j332bcc5fob38796ab5eb16...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes: Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net (02/03/2010): [Please keep CC] [Done.] Can anyone see any obvious errror, that eludes my eyes? Files available at: $ cat dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd/debian/source/format 3.0 (native) (Enjoy 3.0…) Jakub, Cyril thanks. I had re-packaged it several times and couln't notice that one. Time to send an improvement suggestion to lintian-info description. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ljeahdej@jondo.cante.net
Re: RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes: Jari Aalto jari.aa...@cante.net (02/03/2010): [Please keep CC] [Done.] Can anyone see any obvious errror, that eludes my eyes? Files available at: $ cat dyndns-2010.0301+gitdd160bd/debian/source/format 3.0 (native) (Enjoy 3.0…) Jakub, Cyril thanks. I had re-packaged it several times and couln't notice that one. Time to send an improvement suggestion to lintian-info description. Jari But m not using any patch system there to convert the source format ... Regards -- Bhavani Shankar.R https://launchpad.net/~bhavi, a proud ubuntu community member. What matters in life is application of mind!, It makes great sense to have some common sense..! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b269a4e91003020915h5be9eac5yf1588ea9e24a5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Bhavani Shankar R bh...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20100302-1
of my package mobile-broadband-provider-info.
Done. Thanks for your work!
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Identica: @kartikm
Blogs: {ftbfs, kartikm}.wordpress.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/85c01b291003021022x3452abe1t206ae5978efca...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: iptotal (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.3-12 of my package iptotal. It builds these binary packages: iptotal- monitor for IP traffic, not requiring SNMP The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 572246 (grave). [1] The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/iptotal - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/iptotal/iptotal_0.3.3-12.dsc I would be glad if someone reviewed/uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Ignace Mouzannar [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=572246 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b10d7e9c1003021118k6c778322occf88063f7ca7...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: gdisk (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.6.4-1 of my package gdisk. It builds these binary packages: gdisk - GPT fdisk text-mode partitioning tool The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gdisk - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gdisk/gdisk_0.6.4-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks in advance. -- Guillaume Delacour signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RFS: backup-manager (updated package, RC bug fix)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.7.9-2 of my package backup-manager. It builds these binary packages: backup-manager - command-line backup tool backup-manager-doc - documentation package for Backup Manager Apart from one overridden warning, the package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 518707, 567477, 569587. #567477 is a release-critical bug. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/backup-manager - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/backup-manager/backup-manager_0.7.9-2.dsc There is a git repository at http://git.debian.org/?p=users/joachim-guest/backup-manager.git where you can see in detail what I broke. Since this is the first time I touched debconf stuff in this or any other package, potential sponsors should pay special attention to this area. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Sven pgpoqNSL6Q3V6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: sweethome3d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/02/2010 11:05 AM, Michal Čihař wrote: For example because GPL-3 is not compatible with GPL-2 by itself. So once the code is under GPL-3 you can not use it in GPL-2 licensed program. Also I don't see reason why you should limit Debian users from use the program under terms of GPL-2. Upstream and debian/ licenses changed back to GPL-2+. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sweethome3d/sweethome3d_2.2+dfsg-1.dsc Thanks, Gabriele -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuNe1kACgkQp3cdCbVcnCvcLwCg1XdaZ7W5c6QociyD0eEtO293 YEoAn2lXvSVv2ReBX9+d82LpmNOftq5g =nDsG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8d7b59.2050...@gmail.com
Re: What to do if the source name of a package changes
Gregor Jasny gja...@googlemail.com writes: I'm the maintainer of the libv4l package. It produces two binary packages: libv4l-0 and libv4l-dev. With the latest release upstream decided to rename it to v4l-utils and add some utilities. To be consistent with upstream I changes the package source name to v4l-utils. But what actions do I have to take to take to replace libv4l with v4l-utils in the archive? You may want to consider whether you really need to rename the package. Renaming source packages is sort of annoying, in that you lose the link between the old and new package in a bunch of places (the PTS, the BTS, etc.). There isn't any technical difficulty with upstream using a different distribution name than the Debian source package name. Sometimes it's easier to just stick with the existing name. -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k4tuv1y8@windlord.stanford.edu
RFS: gkrellm-cpufreq
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gkrellm-cpufreq. * Package name: gkrellm-cpufreq Version : 0.6.1-1 Upstream Author : Christoph Winkelmann c...@tks6.net * URL : http://mathicse.epfl.ch/~winkelma/gkrellm2-cpufreq/ * License : GPL Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: gkrellm-cpufreq - CPU frequency plugin for GKrellM The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 572289 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I'm using this plugin. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gkrellm-cpufreq - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gkrellm-cpufreq/gkrellm-cpufreq_0.6.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Adrian Glaubitz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100303011127.ga18...@physik.fu-berlin.de
Re: RFS: ceph
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote: On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Sage Weil wrote: Ok, the build is fixed (man_MANS vs dist_man_MANS in the man/Makefile.am), and pbuilder is behaving fine on my other box. The updated .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/source/ceph_0.18git20100209082702-1.dsc eek, have no spare time while prepping for a PyCon talk and conference.freeculture.org this weekend. Ping me in 10 days? Hi Asheesh, I've rebuilt packages for the latest release (0.19.1). The .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.19.1-1.dsc I've also futzed around with my scripts for building .debs for the ceph.newdream.net repository (now using pbuilder, reprepro). I suspect I'm not quite doing the right thing wrt package versions for the different distributions (I'm appending something like ~bpo50+1 for lenny .deb, etc.), but for now at least it works well enough for the separate repository. And I'm not sure it's that important from the perspective of getting the packages in sid anyway. There is also a ceph-kclient package with the source code for the kernel module: http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph-kclient/ceph-kclient_0.19.1-1.dsc As I understand it there is some make-kpkg magic that is supposed to build it automagically (if it's properly packaged) but I haven't found any good documentation on how that should be done for standalone modules. Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1002261504530.17...@cobra.newdream.net
RFS: recoverjpeg (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.0-1 of my package recoverjpeg. It builds these binary packages: recoverjpeg - tool to recover JPEG images from a filesystem image The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 572234 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_2.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards William Vera -- William Vera bi...@billy.com.mx PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4 Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b3e93d821003021909q33a4fe30r606cd11c290c5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: otf-ipaexfont (NEW)
Quoting Hideki Yamane (henr...@debian.or.jp): Now I've uploaded fixed one, could you review it again? I haven't followed this very closely but is it OK to upload the fixed package now? I can do it (I guess that the previous pointer to the .dsc file is the right one) but prefer asking before doing it. As you may have noticed, my involvment in pkg-fonts has lowered slightly in the recent weeks after the rush in late 2009 (only temporary, no intent to give up on my side). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
