date:20101030

[...]

  
  Hmm, how can we encourage non-DDs to review packages.
  
  I'm thinking it might work to offer sponsorship in exchange for
  reviews. So, a DD reviews a package from maintainer. If there are no
  blockers to the upload, the DD says, looks good, review someone elses
  package and I'll upload it.
 
 I see a small problem with this, and it is the following: imagine that 
 somebody packages a useful application. He has no special interest in Debian, 
 but only in that application, and it is an application we consider worth 
 enough to have in Debian.
 

[...]

I liked the idea of requesting reviews from people whose packages will get
sponsored; but I'd just ask for doing that voluntarily. I probably should have
taken the chance to ask people for doing so yesterday, maybe I'll even send
those people another email.

One technical question, however, remains: Could we have some list of packages
that remain to be reviewed? Just telling people please review some package is
pretty awkward...

Best regards,
Michael



pgphcgNyI8ZVV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

2010-10-30 Thread Mònica

Hello,

On Friday 29 October 2010 at 20:13:21, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
 On Viernes 29 Octubre 2010 08:34:25 Paul Wise escribió:
[...]
  I think I'll also do a workshop about reviewing packages at the
  MiniDebConf in Vietnam. Does anyone think that an online workshop (IRC
  or similar) about package review would be helpful?
 
 Yes, I think it will be, but I do not know if it will be popular (timing 
 issues). Maybe several of them, or even periodic bug squashing^H^H^H package 
 reviewing parties? Of course, round the clock, for attendants (packagers and 
 mentors) be able to participate from all places in the world. This month in 
 European morning time, next month in American morning time, next month in 
 Japan morning time, last month in Middle East morning time, and start again.

I think it is a wonderful idea. Maybe there are people (like me) who want to 
help 
Debian in general and don't have interest in a concrete package, but want to 
contribute 
to Debian on the whole.

If this workshop is done (and I'm not sleeping or working), be sure I'll be 
there :-)

Cheers.

-- 
Mònica


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

2010-10-30 Thread Niels Thykier

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 2010-10-30 08:59, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
 [...]

 One technical question, however, remains: Could we have some list of packages
 that remain to be reviewed? Just telling people please review some package 
 is
 pretty awkward...
 
 Best regards,
 Michael
 

Asheesh: Sounds like you got a feature request for Debexpo!

Currently we got a list of unanswered list emails at [1]; though it
has a couple of issues (not limited to it not updating regularly). It
also creates a number of false-positives (e.g. nanoblogger-extra was
also handled in the reply to the nanoblogger email, but detecting this
is non-trivial).

I can try to extend this script to be more suited for this purpose.

~Niels

[1] http://rose.makesad.us/~paulproteus/four-days/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=ItMW
-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/4ccbd80d.5010...@thykier.net

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

2010-10-30 Thread George Danchev


Quoting Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org:

Hi Michael,


I liked the idea of requesting reviews from people whose packages will get
sponsored; but I'd just ask for doing that voluntarily. I probably  
should have

taken the chance to ask people for doing so yesterday, maybe I'll even send
those people another email.

One technical question, however, remains: Could we have some list of packages
that remain to be reviewed? Just telling people please review some  
package is pretty awkward...



It seems to me that this technical question is automatically sorted by  
itself, i.e. any package listed at sponsor-pkglist [1] with 'Needs a  
sponsor' != 'No, Thanks' would make a good candidate for volunteer  
reviewing.


[1] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist


--
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/20101030113354.38021rtsa2swz...@webmail.spnet.net

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:57:09AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
 nana...@wired-net.gr wrote:
  On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:02:33PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
  On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
  t...@debian.org wrote:
   - The package doesn't build without pulseaudio installed:
   ---8---
   ln qso.d/QSO ./QSO
   (cat test_input; qso.d/QSO) | ./morse -w 24 -l -e
   Could not initialize audio: Connection refused
   Can't access speaker.
   make[2]: *** [testmorse] Error 1
   ---8---
   Just libpulse-dev b-dep seems insufficient, and as the program won't work
   without pulseaudio, this means it should also be a dependency of the 
   binary
   package.
  Fixed.
  
   Alternatively, is it possible to make pulseaudio optional rather than
   mandatory?
  Fixed.
 
  One more thing, the install target is missing in upstream Makefile.
  So, the install stage in debian/rules also fails.
  Fixed.
 
  Re-uploaded the fixed package to mentors.d.n.
 
 Your fixes look good. But repacking pristine tarball is not a good
 practice. Please use debian/patches/ instead, as your package is
 already in 3.0 (quilt) format.
 
 In doing so, please just use the downloaded upstream tarball as-is
 (no need to rename the directory to morse-2.2-orig), then *rename*
 (not repack) the tarball to morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz.

Please advice me and show where is the real problem with that.
 
 Please make sure not to modify source files directly. Always
 use quilt to produce patches.

There is source file modification because this is a newe upstream release.

 
 In previous version, 2.1-4, you had 6 patches in debian/patches/.
 Is there a good reason to drop all of them? If so, please log it
 in your debian/changelog. Or you may resurrect some patches,
 such as 00makefile, 01morseX11 you are currently applying.

These patches have been included to this new upstream release.
There is no need to keep and increase the number of applied patches.

 
 In fact, the patch to add morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 manpages
 can be replaced by adding them under debian/ and use dh_installman
 (and the list in debian/manpages) to install them.

I have build the package and installed it without any problems. dh_installman
seems to work fine for the moment.

 
 The patches from previous version, however, refer to the ITA bug
 (http://bugs.debian.org/553991) which is not relevant to the problem
 they are fixing. So, if you are using them in the new version, please
 just drop the Bug-Debian: field if it does not actully fix the bug.
 

No I am not using them.

 After all, don't forget to log changes from previous version you have
 done, including the added Recommends: and debian/rules changes.
 
Fixed and reuploaded the package to mentors.

Cheers,
Chris.  


-- 
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/20101030084742.ga3...@dinofilaria.home

Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package)

2010-10-30 Thread Ansgar Burchardt

Hi,

Daniel Echeverry epsilo...@gmail.com writes:
 I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8-3 of my package
 9menu.

I did take a look at your package.  Some comments:

 · debian/changelog: There is a space missing in the last line.
 · debian/compat: You build-depend on debhelper 7, but use compat
   level 5.  Is that intentional?
 · debian/rules:
   - dh_auto_clean will run $(MAKE) clean for you.
   - No need to remove stamp-build as you don't create it.
   - You use override_* targets to pass arguments to debhelper tools,
 except for dh_install which uses debian/install.  You might want to use
 only one style.
   - Is the chmod in the clean target necessary?
 · debian/watch: The comments in the first lines should be removed as
   they don't really apply here.
 · debian/control: I don't think the Homepage field is helpful for end
   users.  There is no additional information, only release tarballs.

Regards,
Ansgar


--
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/87r5f8jacd@marvin.43-1.org

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

2010-10-30 Thread Niels Thykier

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 2010-10-30 02:16, The Fungi wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:44:37PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
 [...]
 Is it always an upstream package worst than a repackaged package?
 [...]
 
From what I've seen, in most cases, yes.
 
 I am one of the guilty one pet package upstream authors who gets
 my Debian work uploaded by a gracious sponsor. [...]


Hi

Personally I believe that Noel's statement is relates to upstream, who
have their own packaging + their own little repository as compared to
upstreams like you, who also work on the Debian side.

 Even with a special interest in Debian I am fairly certain my
 *one* package would be improved if repackaged by an experienced
 Debian Developer.

Mmm... if such an improvement exists, it is likely a non-issue (or not
worth the time) since your sponsor has not mentioned it.

On a related note, while an experienced DD (or non-DD for that matter)
may make a better debian package most of them would still be an
inferior maintainer. All bug reports are handled by one who knows the
code and the latency of forwarding upstream bugs is ... 0!

 On several occasions I've gotten close to ...
 even applying for a DM/DD role
 in the project, but I'm mindful of the limited spare time I have in
 my life and careful not to commit to responsibilities beyond my
 present capacity.

Personally I think you should have an extra look at the DM role. You may
not be ready for it just yet, but I think aiming for it would be an
improvement for you. :)

As I see it, the DM role does not come with any extra responsibilities
for you other than the annual ping, if you are already double checking
your own package before sending it to your sponsor. It is not like
becoming a DM forces you to become a DD later[1] or anything.
  Sure, you also have to explicitly agree to abide by some rules and
guidelines, but you are probably following all these already.

On the plus side, you would be able to upload your pet package at will.
This saves you an email to your (at that time ex-)sponsor with every
upload (at the price of one email per year).

But of course, you should contact your sponsor about it - he/she knows
you, your package and your skills better than I do. :)

~Niels

[1] Individuals may apply to become a Debian Maintainer without being
in the n-m queue, or having any intention of joining the n-m queue.

http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=SITe
-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/4ccbea25.5050...@thykier.net

Re: RFS: lightspeed (updated package)

2010-10-30 Thread Ansgar Burchardt

Hi,

Tony Palma xbyt...@gmail.com writes:
 I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.2a-8 of my package
 lightspeed.

I did take a brief look at your package (not a full review) and here are
some comments:

 · debian/changelog: What change does
 * Obsolete package removed since 1.2a-6. Closes: #601353
   refer to?

 · You use the new source format 3.0 (quilt), but all changes to the
   upstream source are stored in a single large diff.  They should be
   split into individual patches.

 · It would be nice if generated files such as ./configure were not
   included in the diff, but generated at build-time instead.  This
   makes the diff much shorter and easier to review.

 · You build depend on autotools-dev, but seem not to replace
   config.{guess,sub} with more recent versions.

 · debian/rules: No need to include comments about deprecated commands.

Regards,
Ansgar


--
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/87fwvoj7w8@marvin.43-1.org

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:57:09AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
nana...@wired-net.gr wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:02:33PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:

Your fixes look good. But repacking pristine tarball is not a good
practice. Please use debian/patches/ instead, as your package is
already in 3.0 (quilt) format.

In doing so, please just use the downloaded upstream tarball as-is
(no need to rename the directory to morse-2.2-orig), then *rename*
(not repack) the tarball to morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz.

Please advice me and show where is the real problem with that.

$ wget http://www.catb.org/~esr/morse/morse-2.2.tar.gz
$ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/morse/morse_2.2-1.dsc
$ cmp morse-2.2.tar.gz morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz
morse-2.2.tar.gz morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz differ: byte 5, line 1
$ mkdir orig deb
$ tar xzf morse-2.2.tar.gz -C orig
$ tar xzf morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz -C deb
$ diff -Nuar orig/morse-2.2 deb/morse-2.2-orig
... The diffs you have done directly to upstream source here ...
... (which should not be done) ...

Please make sure not to modify source files directly. Always
use quilt to produce patches.

There is source file modification because this is a newe upstream release.

No, I didn't mean the difference between upstream versions,
but the diff between upstream tarball and your .orig.tar.gz.

In previous version, 2.1-4, you had 6 patches in debian/patches/.
Is there a good reason to drop all of them? If so, please log it
in your debian/changelog. Or you may resurrect some patches,
such as 00makefile, 01morseX11 you are currently applying.

These patches have been included to this new upstream release.
There is no need to keep and increase the number of applied patches.

Most patches still apply to the new upstream source (not your
current .orig.tar.gz), although some refreshing may be needed.

The inclusions you mentioned were done to your .orig.tar.gz,
but are not actually merged upstream yet.

There are many good reasons to keep upstream tarball intact.
See [1] for some explanations.

[1]
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz

In fact, the patch to add morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 manpages
can be replaced by adding them under debian/ and use dh_installman
(and the list in debian/manpages) to install them.

I have build the package and installed it without any problems. dh_installman
seems to work fine for the moment.

OK. So, you can install morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 without
patching upstream source. Just ship them under debian/ dir.

The patches from previous version, however, refer to the ITA bug
(http://bugs.debian.org/553991) which is not relevant to the problem
they are fixing. So, if you are using them in the new version, please
just drop the Bug-Debian: field if it does not actully fix the bug.

No I am not using them.

You should. :-)

After all, don't forget to log changes from previous version you have
done, including the added Recommends: and debian/rules changes.

Fixed and reuploaded the package to mentors.

Thanks. Please re-consider the pending changes above.

Regards,
--
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/

--
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/aanlkti=vue3=twsl0q3lz8z_7ha6-vcn9s7c=uc-l...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: midish update

2010-10-30 Thread Alexandre Ratchov

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 08:53:14PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I'm looking for a sponsor to verify and upload the new 1.0.3-1
 version of midish.
 
 It builds a single package:
 
   midish - shell-like MIDI sequencer/filter
 
 The package is lintian clean, and available here:
 
   - http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/midish
   - deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free
   - dget 
 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/midish/midish_1.0.3-1.dsc

I got no comments on this package so far. The current package is more
than 3 years old and a lot of bugs and usability issues were fixed
since then. And as we're at it I've just updated the package to the
new 1.0.4 release.

cheers,

-- Alexandre


-- 
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/20101030121441.ga15...@moule.localdomain

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 06:17:36PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
 debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:57:09AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
  On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
  nana...@wired-net.gr wrote:
   On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:02:33PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan 
   wrote:
 
  Your fixes look good. But repacking pristine tarball is not a good
  practice. Please use debian/patches/ instead, as your package is
  already in 3.0 (quilt) format.
 
  In doing so, please just use the downloaded upstream tarball as-is
  (no need to rename the directory to morse-2.2-orig), then *rename*
  (not repack) the tarball to morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz.
 
  Please advice me and show where is the real problem with that.
 
 $ wget http://www.catb.org/~esr/morse/morse-2.2.tar.gz
 $ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/morse/morse_2.2-1.dsc
 $ cmp morse-2.2.tar.gz morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz
 morse-2.2.tar.gz morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz differ: byte 5, line 1
 $ mkdir orig deb
 $ tar xzf morse-2.2.tar.gz -C orig
 $ tar xzf morse_2.2.orig.tar.gz -C deb
 $ diff -Nuar orig/morse-2.2 deb/morse-2.2-orig
 ... The diffs you have done directly to upstream source here ...
 ... (which should not be done) ...
 
  Please make sure not to modify source files directly. Always
  use quilt to produce patches.
 
  There is source file modification because this is a newe upstream release.
 
 No, I didn't mean the difference between upstream versions,
 but the diff between upstream tarball and your .orig.tar.gz.

diff -Nuar orig/morse-2.2/Makefile deb/morse-2.2-orig/Makefile
--- orig/morse-2.2/Makefile 2010-10-14 15:22:37.0 +0300
+++ deb/morse-2.2-orig/Makefile 2010-10-29 18:32:21.0 +0300
@@ -37,10 +37,16 @@
qso.d/*.[ch] qso.d/Makefile

default:
-   make testmorse
+   make all
 
 all: morse QSO morse.1 QSO.1
  
 +install: all
 +  install morse.d/morsePA $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin/morse
 +  install morse.d/morseLinux $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin
 +  install morse.d/morseX11 $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin
 +  install qso.d/QSO $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin
 +
  morse:
cd morse.d  make DEVICE=${DEVICE}
ln morse.d/morse ./morse
diff -Nuar orig/morse-2.2/morseLinux.1 
deb/morse-2.2-orig/morseLinux.1
--- orig/morse-2.2/morseLinux.1 1970-01-01 
02:00:00.0 +0200
+++ deb/morse-2.2-orig/morseLinux.1 
2010-10-29 18:32:21.0 +0300
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.so man1/morse.1
diff -Nuar orig/morse-2.2/morseX11.1 
deb/morse-2.2-orig/morseX11.1
--- orig/morse-2.2/morseX11.1   1970-01-01 
02:00:00.0 +0200
+++ deb/morse-2.2-orig/morseX11.1   
2010-10-29 18:32:21.0 +0300
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.so man1/morse.1



Ok I should repackage it and produce a patch for this minor change.

 
  In previous version, 2.1-4, you had 6 patches in debian/patches/.
  Is there a good reason to drop all of them? If so, please log it
  in your debian/changelog. Or you may resurrect some patches,
  such as 00makefile, 01morseX11 you are currently applying.
 
  These patches have been included to this new upstream release.
  There is no need to keep and increase the number of applied patches.
 
 Most patches still apply to the new upstream source (not your
 current .orig.tar.gz), although some refreshing may be needed.
 
 The inclusions you mentioned were done to your .orig.tar.gz,
 but are not actually merged upstream yet.
 

Fixed.

 There are many good reasons to keep upstream tarball intact.
 See [1] for some explanations.
 
   [1] 
 http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz

Fixed.

 
  In fact, the patch to add morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 manpages
  can be replaced by adding them under debian/ and use dh_installman
  (and the list in debian/manpages) to install them.
 
  I have build the package and installed it without any problems. 
  dh_installman
  seems to work fine for the moment.
 
 OK. So, you can install morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 without
 patching upstream source. Just ship them under debian/ dir.

I am using the same principle while installing the manpages as the previous 
versions did 
from the previous DD's. 
 
  The patches from previous version, however, refer to the ITA bug
  (http://bugs.debian.org/553991) which is not relevant to the problem
  they are

Re: RFS: ovito

2010-10-30 Thread Pekko Metsä

Hi,

2010/10/29 Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org:
 I have briefly reviewed your package and it seems the following
 should be fixed before uploading to the archives:

Great, thank you for your effort and the comments!

 - ovito includes an embedded code copy of muparser
  (src/atomviz/utils/muparser/), which is available as a Debian
  package and should be used instead.

I would have never found this myself.  How did you noticed it?
The embedded code is still in the source, but the binaries are now
linked against Debian package libmuparser0 instead.  Is that OK?

 - To the best of my knowledge, the archive management software (dak)
  doesn't yet support .lzma packed orig.tar. files, even though dpkg
  does. Please use bzip2 or gzip instead.

OK, corrected.

 - The tarball still has the .svn directories, probably upstream
  didn't properly use svn export for packaging. Please repack the
  orig.tar file accordingly.

Corrected, the new source is now uploaded with the new version.

 - Lintian has some more information for you:
  I: ovito: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key 
 /usr/share/applications/ovito.desktop:2 Encoding
  I: ovito: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/lib/ovito/libCore.so lauch launch
  I: ovito: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/lib/ovito/libCore.so Unkown Unknown
  I: ovito: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/lib/ovito/plugins/libAtomViz.so 
 Unkown Unknown

These are now patched, also.  I informed the upstream author about the
relevant issues, and encouraged him to visit them in the next patch release.

The new version with version number 0.9.2-1~2 is now uploaded to
mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ovito
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ovito/ovito_0.9.2-1~2.dsc

Is it Ok to use versions like '0.9.2-1~n' in these trials, and bump
the version to 0.9.2-1 after your final approval?

 Hope this helps,

Yes it did, thanks again!

King regards,
 Pekko Metsä


--
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/aanlktikbu3q7mb0dmq-eosg9ngodutfmqs7xopjvg...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 06:17:36PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:

 Ok I should repackage it and produce a patch for this minor change.

OK. It looks good now.

 OK. So, you can install morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 without
 patching upstream source. Just ship them under debian/ dir.

 I am using the same principle while installing the manpages as the previous 
 versions did
 from the previous DD's.

That's OK.

  The patches from previous version, however, refer to the ITA bug
  (http://bugs.debian.org/553991) which is not relevant to the problem
  they are fixing. So, if you are using them in the new version, please
  just drop the Bug-Debian: field if it does not actully fix the bug.
 
  No I am not using them.

 You should. :-)

 Why should I refer again to a closed bug that was only for the adoption?
 The bug has already been closed and recorded to the changelog.

I thought you meaned you were not using the patches.
Misunderstood, sorry.

However, as you have dropped 4 patches from previous version,
and added one, it should be logged why.

Please also fix this lintian warning, as previously commented by
Scott Howard:

W: morse: copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file
N:
N:The copyright file refers to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD. Due to the
N:brevity of this license, the specificity of this copy to code whose
N:copyright is held by the Regents of the University of California, and
N:the frequency of minor wording changes in the license, its text should
N:be included in the coypright file directly rather than referencing this
N:file.
N:
N:This file may be removed from a future version of base-files if
N:references to it drop sufficiently.
N:
N:
N:
N:Severity: minor, Certainty: certain
N:

That is: update the license text from upstream COPYING:
  http://www.catb.org/~esr/morse/COPYING
And remove this paragraph from debian/copyright:

  On Debian systems, the complete text of the BSD License can be
  found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD'.

With this two changes done, I'll do the upload for you.

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


-- 
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/aanlktim_boyclje6gjdwt19+ph7nomuxrqjevj0q5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 08:09:35PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
 debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 06:17:36PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 
  Ok I should repackage it and produce a patch for this minor change.
 
 OK. It looks good now.
 
  OK. So, you can install morseX11.1 and morseLinux.1 without
  patching upstream source. Just ship them under debian/ dir.
 
  I am using the same principle while installing the manpages as the previous 
  versions did
  from the previous DD's.
 
 That's OK.
 
   The patches from previous version, however, refer to the ITA bug
   (http://bugs.debian.org/553991) which is not relevant to the problem
   they are fixing. So, if you are using them in the new version, please
   just drop the Bug-Debian: field if it does not actully fix the bug.
  
   No I am not using them.
 
  You should. :-)
 
  Why should I refer again to a closed bug that was only for the adoption?
  The bug has already been closed and recorded to the changelog.
 
 I thought you meaned you were not using the patches.
 Misunderstood, sorry.
 
 However, as you have dropped 4 patches from previous version,
 and added one, it should be logged why.
 
 Please also fix this lintian warning, as previously commented by
 Scott Howard:
 
 W: morse: copyright-refers-to-deprecated-bsd-license-file
 N:
 N:The copyright file refers to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD. Due to the
 N:brevity of this license, the specificity of this copy to code whose
 N:copyright is held by the Regents of the University of California, and
 N:the frequency of minor wording changes in the license, its text should
 N:be included in the coypright file directly rather than referencing this
 N:file.
 N:
 N:This file may be removed from a future version of base-files if
 N:references to it drop sufficiently.
 N:
 N:
 N:
 N:Severity: minor, Certainty: certain
 N:
 
 That is: update the license text from upstream COPYING:
   http://www.catb.org/~esr/morse/COPYING
 And remove this paragraph from debian/copyright:
 
   On Debian systems, the complete text of the BSD License can be
   found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD'.
 
 With this two changes done, I'll do the upload for you.

Fixed the above twp changes and reuploaded to mentors.


Thanks a lot for your time.
Chris.


-- 
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/2010103012.ga3...@dinofilaria.home

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:

 Fixed the above twp changes and reuploaded to mentors.

Err.. Wait a second. When logging about dropped patches, please
be specific which ones are dropped. 4 previous patches are too
broad.

And while we are at it, following changes are still missing:
- The Homepage: field addition
- The Recommends: pulseaudio field

These should really be the last set.

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


-- 
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/aanlktikhw6i8e0_8vizknquvs0jzdbebjccam4cfq...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
t...@debian.org wrote:

 And while we are at it, following changes are still missing:
 - The Homepage: field addition
 - The Recommends: pulseaudio field

I mean, their changelog entries are still missing. The changes
themselves are already there.

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


-- 
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/aanlktimdzbbscapiccnwnfempe30khcgv-3=dsfgf...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
t...@debian.org wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
 debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:

 Fixed the above twp changes and reuploaded to mentors.

 Err.. Wait a second. When logging about dropped patches, please
 be specific which ones are dropped. 4 previous patches are too
 broad.

 And while we are at it, following changes are still missing:
 - The Homepage: field addition
 - The Recommends: pulseaudio field

 These should really be the last set.

Oh, yes. And another one: the debian/copyright file update.

That is, changelog should be updated on every change done.

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


-- 
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/aanlktim8bvymsfnynjubtf2umujfqcwq4utw4=3vm...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:41:40PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
 t...@debian.org wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
  debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
 
  Fixed the above twp changes and reuploaded to mentors.
 
  Err.. Wait a second. When logging about dropped patches, please
  be specific which ones are dropped. 4 previous patches are too
  broad.
 
  And while we are at it, following changes are still missing:
  - The Homepage: field addition
  - The Recommends: pulseaudio field
 
  These should really be the last set.
 
 Oh, yes. And another one: the debian/copyright file update.
 
 That is, changelog should be updated on every change done.
 
 Regards,

Hi,
The dropped patches ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE NEW UPSTREAM RELEASE. Should 
they
recorded to the changelog file? What if I had 1 patches applied to a new 
upstream 
release along with new package features? Should I log all the 1 patches 
that are dropped
to the changelog file?
That not makes sense. I removed this changelog entry concerning the previous 
patches as you
suggested and reuploaded the package. Please consider that tha dropped as you 
say patches
are already included in the new upstream source files for ESR.

Cheers,
Chris.  


-- 
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/20101030161909.gb3...@dinofilaria.home

Re: RF[CS]: ubiquity (mozilla extension) in Debian

2010-10-30 Thread Gabriele Giacone

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/2010 03:34 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10/26/2010 07:41 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
 We try and maintain a symbiotic relationship with Debian. If we fix
 something, we send it upstream to help Debian. When Debian fixes
 something, we benefit.
 
 IMHO just the latter is always true.
 
 I'm working with Debian, and I'm not a DM, DD or anything. Therefore
 saying that the latter is always true is wrong. However, your bias is
 clearly noted. Also wrong, but noted.

For the latter, I mean When Debian fixes something, we benefit and
such fixes _always_ go to ubuntu when sync runs.
On the contrary, when something is fixed on ubuntu just _sometimes_ it's
sent back to Debian.

 Anyway, renamed.
 
 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ubiquity-mozilla/ubiquity-mozilla_0.6-1.dsc
 
 You're having trouble following the rules. I'm going to CC the Debian
 Group to see if they could help you.
 
 I quote:
 
 The binary package's name should be xul-ext-ext with ext being the
 extension's name. E.g. xul-ext-nostalgy for Icedove's nostalgy
 extension.
 
 ( as was noted before at http://wiki.debian.org/Mozilla/ExtensionsPolicy )
 
 
 You should rename the package to fix Debian's conventions.

Mails from M.Shuler in this thread will help you.
If you don't want to read not even them, we're talking about source
package name.

 You should also consider being nicer to people and sister projects.
 Such unjustified and blind hate is not proper. It makes me not want to
 help you, at all.

Given that you're interested in ubuntu packages, you could have learnt
what happens if source package name already exists and how to manage
that on ubuntu side: I guess blacklisting as requested by Luca then
probably renaming to ubiquity-whatever. How about time spent doing that
rename instead of writing to d-mentors?
I would have considered that as your love of ubuntu.
More love of ubuntu could also be adding some ubuntu-related ubiquity
extension commands as Filippo and others did for debian ones [1].

[removed rant]


- --
Gabriele

[1]
http://people.debian.org/~filippo/ubiquity-commands/ubiquity-commands.html

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzMSF4ACgkQp3cdCbVcnCs+bQCdFOIXhdq0IJ3o4Y6T4iPSXzZC
MXkAoIheVwwie42BeZzLY0KdPpH0ocS/
=6K3S
-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/4ccc4865.90...@gmail.com

Re: RF[CS]: ubiquity (mozilla extension) in Debian

2010-10-30 Thread Fernando Lemos

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
 Given that you're interested in ubuntu packages, you could have learnt
 what happens if source package name already exists and how to manage
 that on ubuntu side: I guess blacklisting as requested by Luca then
 probably renaming to ubiquity-whatever. How about time spent doing that
 rename instead of writing to d-mentors?

That harsh attitude towards people trying to help you certainly makes
your request for sponsoring look really good. Well done.


-- 
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/aanlkti=cvnbrvhz8fbgh9qugejltowdzsxqv+kzjp...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:

 The dropped patches ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE NEW UPSTREAM RELEASE. Should 
 they
 recorded to the changelog file? What if I had 1 patches applied to a new 
 upstream
 release along with new package features? Should I log all the 1 patches 
 that are dropped
 to the changelog file?
 That not makes sense. I removed this changelog entry concerning the previous 
 patches as you
 suggested and reuploaded the package. Please consider that tha dropped as 
 you say patches
 are already included in the new upstream source files for ESR.

I know they are included upstream. But dropping *debian* patches
are changes in debian packaging. It's about the files that get
removed from debian/ dir. And debian/changelog is for keeping
history of such changes.

To aid keeping track of problems in the future, the changelog
should be specific which patches were dropped, or one would
end up having to diff the source to find out what were actually
changed.

Regarding your question about having 1 patches, you know
that's exaggeration. Even big projects like gcc and openoffice.org
don't have that many *debian* patches. And you can study their
changelogs to see how detailed they are logging about patches.
On the other hand, for those big projects, saying dropped 16 out
of 50 patches without saying which would surely cause a real
headache when one tries to track a problem caused by some
upload in the past.

Note that in most cases, each patch that gets merged upstream
often means a communication work with upstream author, or
they were cherry-picked from upstream VCS before release, or
upstream author had done the same change by coincidence.
But in any case, it means your work on new upstream releases
to check whether the patches are still applicable. And you can log it
one by one as you found it needs change.

I'd suggest changelog entries like this:

  * debian/patches/00makefile: Updated to cover pulseaudio device.
  * debian/patches/02morsemake: Dropped, ... (I don't know the
reason you dropped it. It's not included upstream yet. So, please
fill your reason here.)
  * debian/patches/03morse, debian/patches/04qso,
debian/patches/05grammar: Dropped, merged upstream.
  * debian/patches/02morseLinux: Added to add new alias manpage.

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


-- 
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/aanlktimzsa1i+37thnysow5_er=njhmtgm_jzecur...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)

I agree in the most part. I have added the suggested changelog entries
and reuploaded the package to mentors. I hope this is fine now.

Regards,
Chris.  

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:21:31AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Nanakos Chrysostomos
 debian_...@wired-net.gr wrote:
 
  The dropped patches ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE NEW UPSTREAM RELEASE. 
  Should they
  recorded to the changelog file? What if I had 1 patches applied to a 
  new upstream
  release along with new package features? Should I log all the 1 patches 
  that are dropped
  to the changelog file?
  That not makes sense. I removed this changelog entry concerning the 
  previous patches as you
  suggested and reuploaded the package. Please consider that tha dropped as 
  you say patches
  are already included in the new upstream source files for ESR.
 
 I know they are included upstream. But dropping *debian* patches
 are changes in debian packaging. It's about the files that get
 removed from debian/ dir. And debian/changelog is for keeping
 history of such changes.
 
 To aid keeping track of problems in the future, the changelog
 should be specific which patches were dropped, or one would
 end up having to diff the source to find out what were actually
 changed.
 
 Regarding your question about having 1 patches, you know
 that's exaggeration. Even big projects like gcc and openoffice.org
 don't have that many *debian* patches. And you can study their
 changelogs to see how detailed they are logging about patches.
 On the other hand, for those big projects, saying dropped 16 out
 of 50 patches without saying which would surely cause a real
 headache when one tries to track a problem caused by some
 upload in the past.
 
 Note that in most cases, each patch that gets merged upstream
 often means a communication work with upstream author, or
 they were cherry-picked from upstream VCS before release, or
 upstream author had done the same change by coincidence.
 But in any case, it means your work on new upstream releases
 to check whether the patches are still applicable. And you can log it
 one by one as you found it needs change.
 
 I'd suggest changelog entries like this:
 
   * debian/patches/00makefile: Updated to cover pulseaudio device.
   * debian/patches/02morsemake: Dropped, ... (I don't know the
 reason you dropped it. It's not included upstream yet. So, please
 fill your reason here.)
   * debian/patches/03morse, debian/patches/04qso,
 debian/patches/05grammar: Dropped, merged upstream.
   * debian/patches/02morseLinux: Added to add new alias manpage.
 
 Regards,
 -- 
 Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
 http://linux.thai.net/~thep/
 
 
 -- 
 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/aanlktimzsa1i+37thnysow5_er=njhmtgm_jzecur...@mail.gmail.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/20101030173533.gc3...@dinofilaria.home

Re: roxterm resizing bug serious enough for freeze exception?

2010-10-30 Thread Tony Houghton

On 27/10/10 23:00, Simon Paillard wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 08:54:06PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:
 With some window managers and/or when closing many roxterm tabs rapidly
 with keyboard auto-repeat, closing tabs may cause the window to shrink,
 reducing the number of columns and/or rows in the remaining tabs'
 terminals (see
 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=3089323group_id=124080atid=698428
 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/roxterm/+bug/665730.

 Would this bug be considered serious enough to ask for another freeze
 exception?
 
 It doesn't sound so, unless the patch (any existing patch today?) is small /
 not invasive.
 
 You should read the current freeze status:
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/10/msg2.html

So far I haven't been able to produce a quick, simple fix for this that
doesn't break other behaviour, so I I'll be leaving 1.18.5 alone for
now after all.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk


-- 
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/4ccc5d5e.4030...@realh.co.uk

Request for voluntary package reviews

Hi Williams and chrysn,

I have recently sponsored your packages downloadstatusbar and visolate. As many
others are still looking for sponsors for their packages, and in a follow-up to
[1], I would like to ask you to give back to the community, if you feel happy
about your package having been uploaded to Debian archives.

This is a completely voluntary step, but it would be great if you could help
others by reviewing their packages. Of course you cannot actually do the
sponsoring, but the more feedback prospective package maintainers get for their
fresh packages, the better those packages will be, which in turn makes
later sponsoring a lot easier.

You can find a long list of packages seeking sponsorship at [2], but please note
that some of these packages have been reviewed already. Some of the packages
which, to the best of my knowledge, have not seen any review yet are [3], [4]
and [5].

Thank you very much for your contribution and thanks in advance if you should
choose to help others as well.

Best regards,
Michael


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg00424.html
[2] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg00464.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/09/msg00095.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg00352.html



pgpy4r2IoFifq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

 On 2010-10-30 08:59, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
  [...]
 
  One technical question, however, remains: Could we have some list of 
  packages
  that remain to be reviewed? Just telling people please review some 
  package is
  pretty awkward...
  
  Best regards,
  Michael
  
 
 Asheesh: Sounds like you got a feature request for Debexpo!
 
 Currently we got a list of unanswered list emails at [1]; though it
 has a couple of issues (not limited to it not updating regularly). It
 also creates a number of false-positives (e.g. nanoblogger-extra was
 also handled in the reply to the nanoblogger email, but detecting this
 is non-trivial).
 

[...]

I think this is a superb step in the right direction; while clearly the list on
mentors.debian.net, as suggested in another email in this thread, is the more
comprehensive list of packages in need of sponsorship, this web page is a proper
list of RFS needing attention.

I have no idea about the technical details of this script, but the following
would seem like interesting improvements:

- Have it run daily, if possible. As you said, its pretty much out-of-date
  already.
- Could the list of open RFS be checked against
  http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html and maybe, possibly using UDD, against
  the list of packages already in the archives? If the version can be extracted
  from the RFS, then a check against UDD could help cleanup such
  nanoblogger-extra cases.

Best regards,
Michael



pgpwv4lPx2hdc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Open RFS lacking (further) response

[...]

 
 I liked the idea of requesting reviews from people whose packages will get
 sponsored; but I'd just ask for doing that voluntarily. I probably should have
 taken the chance to ask people for doing so yesterday, maybe I'll even send
 those people another email.
 

[...]

Done as [1]. Should anybody else like this idea, feel free to take my take,
improve it, etc. If you have ideas to improve it, please let me know as well.

Best,
Michael

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg00478.html 



pgprC6iEDy3XJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ovito

Hi again,

[...]

 
  - ovito includes an embedded code copy of muparser
   (src/atomviz/utils/muparser/), which is available as a Debian
   package and should be used instead.
 
 I would have never found this myself.  How did you noticed it?
 The embedded code is still in the source, but the binaries are now
 linked against Debian package libmuparser0 instead.  Is that OK?
 

It is, yes! I didn't even have to spot it myself, licensecheck did :-) Well,
licensecheck told me that there was MIT-licensed code in this folder, which made
me take a closer look.

In fact, your debian/copyright file will have to reflect this as well: Even
though you don't use it anymore, the license of these files should still be
noted in there.

[...]

  - The tarball still has the .svn directories, probably upstream
   didn't properly use svn export for packaging. Please repack the
   orig.tar file accordingly.
 
 Corrected, the new source is now uploaded with the new version.
 

I did't do much checking to see where you got it from, but you might want to
update the debian/watch file as well.

[...]

 
 Is it Ok to use versions like '0.9.2-1~n' in these trials, and bump
 the version to 0.9.2-1 after your final approval?
 

Sure, that's ok. But I'm pretty sure the next version (with a fixed copyright
file and possibly an updated debian/watch file) is ready to be uploaded, so
please switch over to your desired final version.

Best regards,
Michael



pgpAALT5G0v4w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RF[CS]: ubiquity (mozilla extension) in Debian

2010-10-30 Thread Gabriele Giacone

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/2010 06:53 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
 Given that you're interested in ubuntu packages, you could have learnt
 what happens if source package name already exists and how to manage
 that on ubuntu side: I guess blacklisting as requested by Luca then
 probably renaming to ubiquity-whatever. How about time spent doing that
 rename instead of writing to d-mentors?
 
 That harsh attitude towards people trying to help you certainly makes
 your request for sponsoring look really good. Well done.

I would read what you quote even in this way: Ubuntu is a Debian
derivative not the contrary. Why should we rename source packages if
their name already exists in derivatives? For NEW packages, should we
check in ~140 derivatives? Or should derivatives manage that?. You know
my position.

I don't like discriminating among them eg. I look at DDPOs with
ubuntu=0. Does anyone know how not to display derivs info on PTS?

Regarding sponsors, I hope they are interested in this package, not in
the packager. Unfortunately, I need a sponsor and I don't intent to
apply to NM process yet. Probably when I feel ready to do it, Debian
will already completely be assimilated by uborg.


- --
Gabriele, who thinks he should have joined the project 10 years ago.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzMgRoACgkQp3cdCbVcnCs0CgCgqseRtJff5ouVdRfK7nAkKGYa
sbsAn33V379tmbw1lcXqcm8vMDC9SltU
=TKdF
-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/4ccc8126.9020...@gmail.com

Re: Request for voluntary package reviews

2010-10-30 Thread chrysn

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
 I have recently sponsored your packages downloadstatusbar and visolate.

thanks; i've received the messages, just waited for the package to pass
through NEW for confirmation.

 As many others are still looking for sponsors for their packages, and
 in a follow-up to [1], I would like to ask you to give back to the
 community, if you feel happy about your package having been uploaded
 to Debian archives.

i wasn't aware that mentors is used like this -- it might be useful to
have this stated on mentors.debian.net, the start page text mainly
emphasizes on the different roles of developers as sponsors and
non-developers as sponsees.

as a result, i just subscribed to mentors.


concerning the midish package:

i've had a look at the midish package mentioned in [1]. it seems to be
packaged in a reasonable way.

the only potential issue i've spottet is that Willem van Engen,
co-author of mdep_alsa.c, is mentioned in the file's copyright section,
but not in debian/copyright; also, Samuel Mimram did the earlier
packaging, he might deserve being mentioned in debian/copyright as well,
unless 0.3.0-1 was a complete re-packaging, in which case that should be
stated in the changelog.

(on the minor end of the severity scale, one might suggest to upstream
to keep source code, man pages and examples in appropriate
sub-directories, but that's probably just a matter of style.)

i couldn't test the functionality itself for lack of midi hardware, but
at least that's reflected by appropriate warnings by midish.


hth
chrysn

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg00464.html
20101030121441.ga15...@moule.localdomain

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] RF[CS]: ubiquity (mozilla extension) in Debian

2010-10-30 Thread Benjamin Drung

Am Samstag, den 30.10.2010, 18:31 +0200 schrieb Gabriele Giacone:
  Anyway, renamed.
  
  http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ubiquity-mozilla/ubiquity-mozilla_0.6-1.dsc

I did a quick review:

1) Please rename the source package to ubiquity-extension (or
xul-ext-ubiquity). We don't want to have mozilla in the name any more
(all extension of our team [1] have no mozilla in it) and all extensions
that have a conflicting source name uses -extension as prefix:
* imap-acl-extension
* notify-extension
* sage-extension

2) You use features of mozilla-devscripts 0.22 [2]. Please adjust the
Build-Depends.

3) ${xpi:Recommends} (= 3.6) doesn't work, because multiple items
could be generated. If you want versioned Recommends, mozilla-devscripts
needs to be adjusted.

4) Don't rely on the installation destination of install-xpi (run by
dh_auto_install). It may change in the future. Run install-xpi
-i /usr/share/xul-ext/$(NAME) [...] instead of dh_auto_install.

5) You may be interested in xpi-repack to get rid of the get-orig-source
rule (more details in the man page).

[1] 
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/mozilla-devscripts

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request for voluntary package reviews

2010-10-30 Thread Steffen Möller

On 10/31/2010 12:03 AM, chrysn wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
 I have recently sponsored your packages downloadstatusbar and visolate.
 
 thanks; i've received the messages, just waited for the package to pass
 through NEW for confirmation.
 
 As many others are still looking for sponsors for their packages, and
 in a follow-up to [1], I would like to ask you to give back to the
 community, if you feel happy about your package having been uploaded
 to Debian archives.
 
 i wasn't aware that mentors is used like this -- it might be useful to
 have this stated on mentors.debian.net, the start page text mainly
 emphasizes on the different roles of developers as sponsors and
 non-developers as sponsees.
 
 as a result, i just subscribed to mentors.

The reviewing of packages is not an immediate requirement, neither for DDs
nor for anyone else. However, the distribution would not work without it.
With your first package in the distribution, the DM status is only a formality,
really. I understood Michael's stimulus rather as a continuation of his
initial mentoring, i.e. a training for your Debian Developer status.

Your review was fine, from what I saw. You may want to ask Michael to
advocate you if you are not on the NM already.

Steffen


-- 
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/4ccca94f.4070...@gmx.de

Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package)

2010-10-30 Thread Daniel Echeverry


El 30/10/10 04:31, Ansgar Burchardt escribió:

Hi,

Daniel Echeverryepsilo...@gmail.com  writes:

I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8-3 of my package
9menu.

I did take a look at your package.  Some comments:

  · debian/changelog: There is a space missing in the last line.
  · debian/compat: You build-depend on debhelper 7, but use compat
level 5.  Is that intentional?
  · debian/rules:
- dh_auto_clean will run $(MAKE) clean for you.
- No need to remove stamp-build as you don't create it.
- You use override_* targets to pass arguments to debhelper tools,
  except for dh_install which uses debian/install.  You might want to use
  only one style.
- Is the chmod in the clean target necessary?
  · debian/watch: The comments in the first lines should be removed as
they don't really apply here.
  · debian/control: I don't think the Homepage field is helpful for end
users.  There is no additional information, only release tarballs.

Regards,
Ansgar

Hi!

Thanks for taking enough time  to check out  the package, I will  check 
the suggestions you gave me


thank you very much

--
Epsilon
http://www.rinconinformatico.net
http://www.fitnessdeportes.com
http://www.dragonjar.org
Linux user: #477840
Debian 6.0 Squeeze


--
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/4cccb410.7090...@gmail.com

Re: RFS: midish update

2010-10-30 Thread Paul Wise

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Alexandre Ratchov a...@caoua.org wrote:

 I got no comments on this package so far. The current package is more
 than 3 years old and a lot of bugs and usability issues were fixed
 since then. And as we're at it I've just updated the package to the
 new 1.0.4 release.

Some comments were posted here:

http://lists.debian.org/20101030220327.ga27...@hephaistos.amsuess.com

-- 
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/aanlktimowd7hv1puji0ro5yxdzu33rpaijsnwxh8o...@mail.gmail.com

Re: RFS: morse (New upstream release)