Re: RFS: webhoneypot
Hi, Christian Pohl w...@pohlcity.de writes: W: webhoneypot: script-not-executable ./usr/share/webhoneypot/update/update-templates.php Um? it is executable Does the update script modify files shipped in the package? - You don't seem to have taken Ansgar's remark into account (I would not expect packages to install a virtual host configuration in /etc/apache2...) No, I didn't Why? _I_ expect a virtual host configuration in the sites-available directory of apache (read: not the sites-enabled directory!). I hate it when I have to search the documentation to find the example config (like in squirrelmail or mediawiki or...). And the sites-available directory is for site-configs that are _available_ and I first look there. The site can simply be enabled with a2ensite sitename. There is a web application policy (still not official as far as I know) that asks to provide web server configuration files that can be included in /etc/package [1]. Many (most?) packages follow this recommendation and in my opinion it is important to standardize this (so one does only have to look in a single location). [1] http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-httpd.html#s-httpd-register-httpd Providing sites in sites-available also ignores admin preferences for naming files there. I think this is important as they are also used with utility programs such as a2ensite. (And I myself like to use the FQDN in sites-available.) Please note that I don't maintain any web application packages myself, so I am not too familiar with packaging them. 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/s2svd3t1v5v@pc-admin-01.mathi.uni-heidelberg.de
Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, Ø£Ø٠د اÙÙ ØÙ Ùد٠aelmahmo...@sabily.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this. Would you please elaborate ? Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd binary-indep http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html Message-id: 20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru Best regards David Kalnischkies And in short: Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still call the build target. In reality the build target must work with only Build-Depends installed contrary to what policy says. MfG Goswin -- 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/87y68pl3sm@frosties.localnet
Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:40:57PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, Ø£Ø٠د اÙÙ ØÙ Ùد٠aelmahmo...@sabily.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this. Would you please elaborate ? Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd binary-indep http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html Message-id: 20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru Best regards David Kalnischkies And in short: Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still call the build target. In reality the build target must work with only Build-Depends installed contrary to what policy says. I do hope this mess can be sorted out after squeeze is released. Mandating build-arch and build-indep would be a good thing, IMHO. It's not the buildd software that can change this though--the actual sticking point is dpkg-buildpackage, which is used by sbuild. sbuild is actually perfectly capable of installing Build-Depends-Indep and removing Build-Conflicts-Indep when invoked with the -A (build arch-all) option, but there are no buildds building arch-indep packages yet. If we ever throw away uploaded binaries and build everything on buildds, this would then be useful. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: zsnes (updated package - ITA)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.510-3 of my package zsnes. It builds these binary packages: zsnes - Emulator of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (TM) The upload would fix these bugs: - 573418 : the ITA - 579040 : build-depends-on-obsolete-package xutils and xlibmesa-gl-dev I also enhanced the package by removing several (trivial) lintian warnings. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zsnes - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zsnes/zsnes_1.510-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thank you -- Etienne Millon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: webhoneypot
Am 2010-11-19 11:10, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt: Hi, Christian Pohlw...@pohlcity.de writes: W: webhoneypot: script-not-executable ./usr/share/webhoneypot/update/update-templates.php Um? it is executable Does the update script modify files shipped in the package? I'll have to check that. I hope not. - You don't seem to have taken Ansgar's remark into account (I would not expect packages to install a virtual host configuration in /etc/apache2...) No, I didn't Why? _I_ expect a virtual host configuration in the sites-available directory of apache (read: not the sites-enabled directory!). I hate it when I have to search the documentation to find the example config (like in squirrelmail or mediawiki or...). And the sites-available directory is for site-configs that are _available_ and I first look there. The site can simply be enabled with a2ensitesitename. There is a web application policy (still not official as far as I know) that asks to provide web server configuration files that can be included in /etc/package [1]. Many (most?) packages follow this recommendation and in my opinion it is important to standardize this (so one does only have to look in a single location). [1]http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-httpd.html#s-httpd-register-httpd thanks for the link. I will look at it. Providing sites in sites-available also ignores admin preferences for naming files there. I think this is important as they are also used with utility programs such as a2ensite. (And I myself like to use the FQDN in sites-available.) okay, that is a good point. Please note that I don't maintain any web application packages myself, so I am not too familiar with packaging them. Regards, Ansgar Regards, 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/4ce6a85a.4060...@pohlcity.de
Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:40:57PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, Ø£Ø٠د اÙÙ ØÙ Ùد٠aelmahmo...@sabily.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this. Would you please elaborate ? Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd binary-indep http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html Message-id: 20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru Best regards David Kalnischkies And in short: Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still call the build target. In reality the build target must work with only Build-Depends installed contrary to what policy says. I do hope this mess can be sorted out after squeeze is released. Mandating build-arch and build-indep would be a good thing, IMHO. It's not the buildd software that can change this though--the actual sticking point is dpkg-buildpackage, which is used by sbuild. sbuild is actually perfectly capable of installing Build-Depends-Indep and removing Build-Conflicts-Indep when invoked with the -A (build arch-all) option, but there are no buildds building arch-indep packages yet. If we ever throw away uploaded binaries and build everything on buildds, this would then be useful. Regards, Roger Don't count on it. This has been going on for years and years. The simple solution is to just declare the build-indep/arch targets required (maybe going via SHOULD to MUST) and then have dpkg-buildpackage just use them when sources have changed (or just use them and break things). Unfortunately this would make a lot of packages instantly RC buggy so people are afraid of doing that. And without mandating the targets and making Build-Depends-Indep actually usefull there is no incentive for maintainers to change the source. But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to debian/rules. Just change build: to build%: and dpkg-buildpackage could use build-arch/indep targets instead of build. Aparently that is too much to ask. MfG Goswin -- 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/87y68p6tcx@frosties.localnet
Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
In 87y68p6tcx@frosties.localnet, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:40:57PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, Ø£Ø٠د اÙÙ ØÙ Ùد٠aelmahmo...@sabily.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this. Would you please elaborate ? Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd binary-indep http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html Message-id: 20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still call the build target. In reality the build target must work with only Build-Depends installed contrary to what policy says. I do hope this mess can be sorted out after squeeze is released. Mandating build-arch and build-indep would be a good thing, IMHO. Don't count on it. This has been going on for years and years. The simple solution is to just declare the build-indep/arch targets required (maybe going via SHOULD to MUST) and then have dpkg-buildpackage just use them when sources have changed (or just use them and break things). Unfortunately this would make a lot of packages instantly RC buggy so people are afraid of doing that. And without mandating the targets and making Build-Depends-Indep actually usefull there is no incentive for maintainers to change the source. But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to debian/rules. Just change build: to build%: and dpkg-buildpackage could use build-arch/indep targets instead of build. Aparently that is too much to ask. I volunteer to make /this/ fix to any package that is unmaintained or whose maintainer is unresponsive, *if* Debian will change policy to /require/ build- arch/indep and make dpkg-buildpackage use them instead of build sometime after the Squeeze release and before the Wheezy freeze. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package, Second try)
Hi, · Does the README provide any information relevant to the user that is not already provided elsewhere (e.g. in the copyright file)? If not, it should not be installed. I think that the README file is very important in any package, the README file has important descriptive information and explain what each file does But is this true for this package's README file? The paragraph describing the program is included in both the package description and the man page as well, the list of files is not relevant: with one exception (two with README) they are not included in the binary package. And the license is already included in the copyright file. 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/877hg9cb0j@marvin.43-1.org
Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package, Second try)
On 19/11/10 15:29, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Hi, · Does the README provide any information relevant to the user that is not already provided elsewhere (e.g. in the copyright file)? If not, it should not be installed. I think that the README file is very important in any package, the README file has important descriptive information and explain what each file does But is this true for this package's README file? The paragraph describing the program is included in both the package description and the man page as well, the list of files is not relevant: with one exception (two with README) they are not included in the binary package. And the license is already included in the copyright file. OK, remove the 9menu.docs. Please check out again: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/9/9menu/9menu_1.8-4.dsc Regards Daniel -- 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/4ce6e98a.20...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: 9menu (updated package, Second try)
Daniel Echeverry epsilo...@gmail.com writes:
OK, remove the 9menu.docs. Please check out again:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/9/9menu/9menu_1.8-4.dsc
Uploaded with one minor change (chmod -x debian/{patches,format}/*;
somehow this sneaked in with the last upload).
Thanks for your work :-)
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/87y68pasvo@marvin.43-1.org
Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
Le Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:30:00PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a écrit : I volunteer to make /this/ fix to any package that is unmaintained or whose maintainer is unresponsive, *if* Debian will change policy to /require/ build- arch/indep and make dpkg-buildpackage use them instead of build sometime after the Squeeze release and before the Wheezy freeze. Nice to see enthousiasm ! Perhaps such project would make a good Debian enhancement proposal (DEP, http://dep.debian.net/ ) Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy 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/20101120005134.gh8...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: RFS: webhoneypot
Hi Christian, Christian Pohl wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package webhoneypot. * Package name: webhoneypot Version : 0.1.123 Upstream Author : Johannes Ulrich jullrich_at_sans_dot_edu * URL : http://code.google.com/p/webhoneypot/ * License : GPL-2 Section : web It builds these binary packages: webhoneypot - DShield Web Honeypot Project The upload would fix these bugs: 595907 I didn't look at your package yet, but lintian reports a few issues that you should definitely fix: I: webhoneypot source: missing-debian-source-format P: webhoneypot source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system apache/webhoneypot and 5 more I: webhoneypot source: no-complete-debconf-translation I: webhoneypot source: debian-watch-file-is-missing W: webhoneypot source: non-native-package-with-native-version W: webhoneypot source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends webhoneypot W: webhoneypot source: dh-clean-k-is-deprecated W: webhoneypot source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.0 (current is 3.9.1) You can get a detailed description of these messages by running: lintian -iI --pedantic webhoneypot_0.1.123.dsc Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20101116140608.ga7...@debian.lan
debconf with locally derived options
Hi all, Is it possible for debconf, in the config file, to ask questions to which the answer is one of several that make sense on the local system, but couldn't be put in the templates file? One example would be configuring a daemon, and asking which of the configured IP addresses of the machine it should listen on. Obviously the packager has no idea what IP addresses are going to be on the target machine, so can't list them in templates. I would therefore want to generate the list on the fly, and present them as options to the user. Thanks, Richard -- 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/1290238595.27475.8.ca...@topaz.wgtn.cat-it.co.nz
