RFS: gnustep-dl2 (updated package, 2nd try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.0-1 of the package gnustep-dl2, which i intend to adopt. It builds these binary packages: gnustep-dl2 - Objective-C Classes needed for Database Access gnustep-dl2-postgresql-adaptor - gnustep-dl2 adaptor to connect to PostgreSQL gnustep-dl2-sqlite-adaptor - gnustep-dl2 adaptor to connect to SQLite libgnustep-dl2-0 - bundle of runtime libraries for gnustep-dl2 libgnustep-dl2-dev - development files for gnustep-dl2 runtime libraries Beside the new upstream version being packaged, the original package has been split in its functional components, including a bundle of runtime libraries, according to the recommendations made by upstream authors and by the Debian GNUstep Maintainers group [1] [2]. There are other modifications, like the addition of flags for optimized build, changes in the installation paths to comply with the FHS, manpages for binaries and changes to generate and install the complete documentation. The upload would fix this bug: 461896 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-dl2 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-dl2/gnustep-dl2_0.12.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Federico Gimenez Nieto [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnustep-dev/2010-01/msg4.html [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnustep-maintainers/2010-February/002039.html -- 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/4a79814f1003200054y24434fbaj2320cab50175c...@mail.gmail.com
openssl and MIT license ?
Hi, i'm the maintainer of nodejs (MIT license), and upstream author announced he is willing to switch to openssl. I know there are issues with the GPL license and the openSSL license, so i wonder if : - the openSSL license is compatible with the MIT license ? Knowing that the code linking to openSSL will be MIT licensed. Some other portions of nodejs are GPL. - the debian packaging work itself is GPL-2, i guess there's nothing wrong with that ? Thanks for any tips, Jérémy Lal -- 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/4ba4b75c.4030...@edagames.com
Re: RFS: gnustep-dl2 (updated package, 2nd try)
On 3/20/2010 3:54 AM, Federico Giménez Nieto wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.0-1 of the package gnustep-dl2, which i intend to adopt. It builds these binary packages: gnustep-dl2 - Objective-C Classes needed for Database Access gnustep-dl2-postgresql-adaptor - gnustep-dl2 adaptor to connect to PostgreSQL gnustep-dl2-sqlite-adaptor - gnustep-dl2 adaptor to connect to SQLite libgnustep-dl2-0 - bundle of runtime libraries for gnustep-dl2 libgnustep-dl2-dev - development files for gnustep-dl2 runtime libraries Beside the new upstream version being packaged, the original package has been split in its functional components, including a bundle of runtime libraries, according to the recommendations made by upstream authors and by the Debian GNUstep Maintainers group [1] [2]. There are other modifications, like the addition of flags for optimized build, changes in the installation paths to comply with the FHS, manpages for binaries and changes to generate and install the complete documentation. The upload would fix this bug: 461896 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-dl2 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-dl2/gnustep-dl2_0.12.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Federico Gimenez Nieto [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnustep-dev/2010-01/msg4.html [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnustep-maintainers/2010-February/002039.html Uploaded. Thanks. Barry deFreese -- 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/4ba4c21f.9040...@debian.org
Re: RFS: go
David Baird dhba...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be in favor of calling the Google implementation of Go google-go, and if another implementation is ever created, it could be called something-else-go. or as short version: ggo Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: n2n (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.0.0~svn4035-1 of my package n2n. It builds these binary packages: n2n- Peer-to-Peer VPN network daemon The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/n2n - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/n2n/n2n_2.0.0~svn4035-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards cristian paul peñaranda rojas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: grub2-splashimages (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.1 of my package grub2-splashimages. It builds these binary packages: grub2-splashimages - a collection of great GRUB2 splashimages The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 509778, 534210, 565872 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grub2-splashimages - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grub2-splashimages/grub2-splashimages_1.0.1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Krzysztof Burghardt krzysz...@burghardt.pl http://www.burghardt.pl/ -- 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/80bd11421003201139r56e9f2b9va244f1a414117...@mail.gmail.com
Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Hello, since yesterday I am Debian Maintainer, but now I have a question: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? In http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer [1] is said, that I should add a new line in debian/control file with: DM-Upload-Allowed: yes and upload the updated package to mentors.d.o. On the other hand some new Debian Maintainers write in their RFS: I would be most grateful if a kind sponsor would set the DM-Upload-Allowed bit which seems that the sponsor must set a bit. And these packages does not have DM-Upload-Allowed: yes in debian/control file. Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn [1] -- Uploading packages == Once you have your key in the debian-maintainers keyring, you will be able to upload packages, where the following conditions hold: * the package already lists you in the Maintainer or the Uploaders control fields * the package already has the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes control field * the package is not NEW -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Initially the plan was for DMUA to be set on package X only by sponsor Y after they are satisfied with the quality of uploads of package X by maintainer Z. These days DMUA seems much more casually added, often by the DM rather than the DD. Where maintainers ask for DMUA to be added, they probably remember the initial plan for it whereas most others do not seem to know about it. -- 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/e13a36b31003201212m70b60987t582064d39c241...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Initially the plan was for DMUA to be set on package X only by sponsor Y after they are satisfied with the quality of uploads of package X by maintainer Z. These days DMUA seems much more casually added, often by the DM rather than the DD. Well, I remember some sponsors asking me to remove DMUA (or they removed it themselves) before uploading, when I was a DM. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 -- 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/ho37ih$qf...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Initially the plan was for DMUA to be set on package X only by sponsor Y after they are satisfied with the quality of uploads of package X by maintainer Z. These days DMUA seems much more casually added, often by the DM rather than the DD. Where maintainers ask for DMUA to be added, they probably remember the initial plan for it whereas most others do not seem to know about it. So I am right to do in this way? 1. Set the DMUA first time inside the package (debian/control) 2. upload to mentors.d.o 3. ask for (last) sponsoring (RFS) Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 22:00, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Initially the plan was for DMUA to be set on package X only by sponsor Y after they are satisfied with the quality of uploads of package X by maintainer Z. These days DMUA seems much more casually added, often by the DM rather than the DD. Where maintainers ask for DMUA to be added, they probably remember the initial plan for it whereas most others do not seem to know about it. So I am right to do in this way? 1. Set the DMUA first time inside the package (debian/control) 2. upload to mentors.d.o 3. ask for (last) sponsoring (RFS) No, the correct process would be: 1. prepare a package 2. upload it to mentors.d.n 3. find a sponsor 4. reiterate 1-3 for some times then ask the sponsor to add the DM flag. This should be done by the sponsor since he trusts you can manage that package correctly without supervision. 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8b2d7b4d1003201404u5cd17c8byf0e44f9e0db15...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: No, the correct process would be: 1. prepare a package 2. upload it to mentors.d.n 3. find a sponsor 4. reiterate 1-3 for some times then ask the sponsor to add the DM flag. This should be done by the sponsor since he trusts you can manage that package correctly without supervision. Then the DMUA line inside the package is the older way and no more recommended for an Debian Maintainer? Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 22:19, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: No, the correct process would be: 1. prepare a package 2. upload it to mentors.d.n 3. find a sponsor 4. reiterate 1-3 for some times then ask the sponsor to add the DM flag. This should be done by the sponsor since he trusts you can manage that package correctly without supervision. Then the DMUA line inside the package is the older way and no more recommended for an Debian Maintainer? mh? As Paul said, and I reaffirmed, the DMUA flag should be set by the sponsor (or by the sponsoree after a request for the sponsor), not silently added by the sponsoree without coordination with the usual sponsor. 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8b2d7b4d1003201436i6c032b35tb7e169531e2f2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 22:19, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: Then the DMUA line inside the package is the older way and no more recommended for an Debian Maintainer? Sorry for this misunderstanding question. mh? As Paul said, and I reaffirmed, the DMUA flag should be set by the sponsor (or by the sponsoree after a request for the sponsor), not silently added by the sponsoree without coordination with the usual sponsor. Now I understand the procedure. Thanks! So I will look for a more detailed statement inside http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer about DMUA, because those text was the cause for my questions. Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:12:29AM +0700, Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Initially the plan was for DMUA to be set on package X only by sponsor Y after they are satisfied with the quality of uploads of package X by maintainer Z. These days DMUA seems much more casually added, often by the DM rather than the DD. Where maintainers ask for DMUA to be added, they probably remember the initial plan for it whereas most others do not seem to know about it. Just for the record, although Joachim seems to have received his answer and explanation - since the text he quoted was from my recent RFS's, I'd just like to point out that Paul Wise is absolutely right - I do remember the initial goals of the DM policy, and I think they're quite the right thing to do, so I'm sticking by them :) Even more so now that some DD's (at the very least Paul Wise and Sandro Tosi, and also Hector Oron who uploaded the last revision of qliss3d for me and set DMUA) have expressed their agreement to it. 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. pgpx9kYGxJb8Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
I demand that Sandro Tosi may or may not have written... [snip] the DMUA flag should be set by the sponsor (or by the sponsoree after a request for the sponsor), At the request of the sponsor, surely. [snip] -- | Darren Salt| linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds,demon,co,uk| Northumberland | Army | + They're after you... There are two ways to write bug-free code; only the third way works. -- 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/51009e153c%li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
On 21.03.2010 00:20, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Sandro Tosi may or may not have written... [snip] the DMUA flag should be set by the sponsor (or by the sponsoree after a request for the sponsor), At the request of the sponsor, surely. I think this is realy [tm] from sponsor to sponsor. I like it, if the maintainer sets the flag, gives me the dsc and then I can still decide (accept/reject) his decision. In my opinion it is bad to modify (also little flags like them) in uploads for maintainers, but I know, that other DDs handle this also in another way. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ -- 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/4ba55ba9.4020...@debian.org
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org writes: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 22:00, Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: So I am right to do in this way? 1. Set the DMUA first time inside the package (debian/control) 2. upload to mentors.d.o 3. ask for (last) sponsoring (RFS) As I'm sure is also true of many others, I initially set the DMUA field myself on my first package, and was told not to do that by the sponsor (along with other changes suggested in the mentoring process). It's an attractive nuisance, IMO, because the first-time packager is trying to make the package as complete and helpful to the sponsor as can be, and setting all the fields seems to the new maintainer like one way of making the package closer to being complete. No, the correct process would be: 1. prepare a package 2. upload it to mentors.d.n 3. find a sponsor 4. reiterate 1-3 for some times then ask the sponsor to add the DM flag. This should be done by the sponsor since he trusts you can manage that package correctly without supervision. Yes, the procedure Sandro describes is my experience with several packages through various sponsors, and is IMO the right way to do it currently. There has been talk in the past of having the field taken out of package data altogether and flagged in some other way to make it more obvious that it's not for the package maintainer to set. I don't recall the details though; anyone? -- \ “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software | `\ approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark | _o__)Pilgrim, 2006 | Ben Finney -- 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/87sk7utu41@benfinney.id.au
Re: Use of DM-Upload-Allowed field
Le Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 08:03:31PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit : How is the actual status of using the DM-Upload-Allowed field/bit? Hi Joachim and all, just for the record, in the Debian Med packaging team, we add the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes field to all our packages, and regulate DM upload rights by having them or not in the Uploaders field. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20100321020122.gc31...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: RFS: lal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just FYI - lal is extremely light weight an recommended frequently for use in WM's such as openbox. Blogs that suggest it: http://urukrama.wordpress.com/openbox-guide/#Clocks http://www.minuslab.net/d/?p=62 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=852420 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=40795 from freshmeat: lal is a clock for the dock. It is a very simple application designed for use with WMs like Openbox that provide a dock area. The font, time format, text color, and width can all be specified on the command line or in your ~/.Xdefaults. It's very flexible but also very tiny. It's something that hasn't been packaged because compiling it is so simple and easy. Me learning how to package with this application probably took longer than it did to build the source. Personally, I can't see using anything else. I have this in my own PPA but I'd rather see the rest of the world be able to use it with no troubles. If you'd like to see it, I uploaded an image: http://imagebin.ca/img/89-XQyC.png I hope this helps anyone interested understand why it's going to be useful to others. Also, I recently uploaded this again with some improvements to debian/* files. Thanks, On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:43:55 -0500 Michael Lustfield mtecknol...@ubuntu.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package lal. * Package name: lal Version : 1.1-1 Upstream Author : Mikael Magnusson mika...@comhem.se : Dave Foster d...@minuslab.net * URL : http://projects.l3ib.org/lal * License : GPLv3 Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: lal- dockable clock applet for various window managers The package appears to be lintian clean. My motivation for maintaining this package is: I have been using this tool for a while including in my own PPA. After realizing how many people were using it I figured I should work with the authors and get this into Debian. I intend to add an excellent feature in the future but this is a ways off. I'll be excited to bring this to other users as well. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lal - - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lal/lal_1.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks, - -- Michael Lustfield Kalliki Software Network and Systems Administrator -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuiursACgkQ3y7Nst6YLGV93ACgpCCS6CSFzNqTkmahoIyrEEgi MDIAoJVzb86rzEt+yn5J8PEac49L2xib =sZYv -END PGP SIGNATURE- - -- Michael Lustfield Kalliki Software Network and Systems Administrator -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuli7MACgkQ3y7Nst6YLGUcTACeJwKcZqO4pZ3fP12omO4Hn2Lv x5oAnjdPAeRn7Miljpz4NgFe8sIFHyrC =ZvMv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RFS: commit-patch
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package commit-patch. * Package name: commit-patch Version : 2.3-1 Upstream Author : David Caldwell da...@porkrind.org * URL : http://porkrind.org/commit-patch/ * License : GPLv2 Section : vcs It builds these binary packages: commit-patch - Commit fine grained patches to source code control repositories The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 574787 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I belive it is of general use to Debian users. I am the upstream author and use Debian as my primary Linux system so I have a personal interest in both Debian and this package and good motivation to keep it maintained. Here's more from the package description: Normally version control systems don't allow fine grained commits. commit-patch allows the user to control exactly what gets committed by letting the user supply a patch to be committed rather than using the files in the current working directory. commit-patch supports Darcs, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, Subversion, or CVS repositories. Also included is an Emacs interface to commit-patch. It allows you to just hit C-c C-c in any patch buffer to apply and commit only the changes indicated by the patch, regardless of the changes in your working directory. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/commit-patch - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/commit-patch/commit-patch_2.3-1.dsc I would please me to no end if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks, David pgptX0LhxD5by.pgp Description: PGP signature
