Re: RFS: pmatch
Hi Tomasz, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 17:58 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pmatch. * Package name: pmatch Version : 0.4.0-1 Upstream Author : Tomasz Muras * URL : http://pmatch.rubyforge.org/ * License : GPL v3 Section : utils It builds these binary packages: pmatch - Duplicate finder and removal tool The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 632450 I'm an upstream author of the package and DM - after review and few uploads I plan to maintain the package myself. Packaging is fairly simple - there is really only one ruby script that needs to be packaged (plus accompanying files). My motivation for creating and packaging this utility is lack of the functionality I required- see pmatch page and ITP bug for more details. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pmatch - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pmatch/pmatch_0.4.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thank you for your work. Reading the ITP with all the replies I'm somewhat hesitant to sponsor this without asking a possibly redundant question. Yet as of now I'm not convinced with your answer. ATM I'm still not fully seeing your rationale why the superior functionality of pmatch cannot be added to some project (like fdupes which I've used in the past) for other reasons than it not being ruby. Have you tried to talk to them and they don't like patches or what's the backstory? Regarding your packaging: 1. Standards-Version is still at 3.9.1 2. debian/watch still contains comment lines - can be safely removed I'd say. Otherwise it'd be fine to go in. Thanks for your clarification. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Hi Andreas, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 20:09 +0200, Andreas Moog wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.7-1 of my package trophy. It builds these binary packages: trophy - 2D car racing action game trophy-data - 2D car racing action game (data files) trophy-dbg - 2D car racing action game (debugging symbols) The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 622168, 632562 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trophy/trophy_1.1.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as new maintainer for this orphaned package. Regarding your package: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. 2. Your debian/copyright does list a specific version of your upstream source as Source. Please use the generic URL so that this is valid for all future versions. 3. I don't think --prefix=/usr is required with dh_auto_configure. That should come automagically. As the package is not orphaned for long I'd welcome if you could fix the above and put forth a new package before we put it into Debian. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: pmatch
On 04/07/11 at 08:31 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Tomasz, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 17:58 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pmatch. * Package name: pmatch Version : 0.4.0-1 Upstream Author : Tomasz Muras * URL : http://pmatch.rubyforge.org/ * License : GPL v3 Section : utils It builds these binary packages: pmatch - Duplicate finder and removal tool The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 632450 I'm an upstream author of the package and DM - after review and few uploads I plan to maintain the package myself. Packaging is fairly simple - there is really only one ruby script that needs to be packaged (plus accompanying files). My motivation for creating and packaging this utility is lack of the functionality I required- see pmatch page and ITP bug for more details. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pmatch - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pmatch/pmatch_0.4.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thank you for your work. Reading the ITP with all the replies I'm somewhat hesitant to sponsor this without asking a possibly redundant question. Yet as of now I'm not convinced with your answer. ATM I'm still not fully seeing your rationale why the superior functionality of pmatch cannot be added to some project (like fdupes which I've used in the past) for other reasons than it not being ruby. Have you tried to talk to them and they don't like patches or what's the backstory? Also, there's already a pmatch project, that seems more popular: http://www.phpinsider.com/php/code/pmatch/ Since you are the upstream, it might be worth considering changing the name. - Lucas -- 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/20110704065422.ga32...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Hi Theodore, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 00:45 +0300, Theodore Lytras wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xul-ext-zotero, an extension for Iceweasel. * Package name: xul-ext-zotero Version : 2.1.8-1 Upstream Author : Center for History and New Media, George Mason University c...@gmu.edu * URL : http://www.zotero.org/ * License : Affero GPLv3 Section : web It builds these binary packages: xul-ext-zotero - Collect, organize, cite, and share your research sources The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 504058 My motivation for maintaining this package is: Zotero is IMHO the best citation manager out there, a powerful research tool that I (and thousands of other people) use on a regular basis, and its latest version should always be in the Debian repositories. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero/xul-ext- zotero_2.1.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as maintainer for a new Debian package. 1. Your debian/changelog has a non-standard syntax (that might work though). Please put closes with initial release either in () or onto the second line without leading asterisk. 2. Debhelper compat is still at 7. Please bump to 8 as is correctly pulled in Build-Depends. 3. CDBS is no longer preferred. Please use dpkg v3 source style and debhelper 7 dh-style for debian/rules 4. Your short description lacks the information that this is a firefox/iceweasel extension 5. debian/copyright is not DEP-5 format. Please update. 6. debian/README and debian/README.source can be deleted 7. Most importantly I don't see a single bit of info that you coordinated this with Benj. Mako Hill m...@debian.org who set the bug to ITP this January. From what I see your name doesn't appear in the BTS at all for this bug. How come yuo now step up as new maintainer and Benjamin isn't even listed as Uploader? Thanks for clarifying. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package)
Hi Thomas, Thomas Goirand wrote: Considering that nobody replied to you in 4 days, I reviewed the package, and uploaded. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. It FTBFSed on kfreebsd-* unfortunately, so I'll work on fixing that and will have a new version ready soon... Stay tuned :) 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/20110704080104.ga10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Le Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:16:20AM +0200, Kilian Krause a écrit : CDBS is no longer preferred. Hi Kilian, I think that it is quite a bold statement. At least, there is not formal archive-wide of deprecation of CDBS. Personally, I find that CDBS can be much easier to use than dh for setting up correctly CFLAGS in some packages. To be honest, with over-enthousiasm for dh, I mildly broke several of my packages, in the sense that I did not realise immediately that they stopped setting -Wall -g -O2 as compilation flags or honor the noopt build option (Policy §4.9.1). Cheers, -- 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/20110704081249.ga21...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Hi Sebastian, Sebastian H. wrote: Ok, I've read through a few of the doc pages, fixed some (most?) of the issues and prepared a new package. lintian from squeeze now doesn't report any problems anymore. Except for the too new standards 3.9.2 but that's because lintian is too old. Looks good. Just use a versioned URL [1] for the Format field in debian/copyright. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?view=markuppathrev=174 [...] Oh and I forgot to mention, you should open an ITP bug against the wnpp pseudo-pacakge and add the proper instruction to close it in your debian/changelog [1]. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#newpackage I've tried the bugreport utility from squeeze to report an ITP but it seems to have crashed before sending. I can try it again with the sid version tomorrow. You can also report the bug via email [2] if really reportbug doesn't work for you. [2] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting 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/20110704081435.gb10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Hi Charles, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:16:20AM +0200, Kilian Krause a écrit : CDBS is no longer preferred. Hi Kilian, I think that it is quite a bold statement. At least, there is not formal archive-wide of deprecation of CDBS. Personally, I find that CDBS can be much easier to use than dh for setting up correctly CFLAGS in some packages. To be honest, with over-enthousiasm for dh, I mildly broke several of my packages, in the sense that I did not realise immediately that they stopped setting -Wall -g -O2 as compilation flags or honor the noopt build option (Policy §4.9.1). it may be due to the fact that I never quite got the right feeling for getting CDBS packaging be more easy than traditional style, yes. So whomever wants to quote me here can rephrase this to I don't like CDBS - not back then, not now. ;-) So in this sense it's not preferred by me especially for reviewing packages to be sponsored. But thanks for putting this straight. -- Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: pysvn (updated package)
Hi Henry, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 21:13 -0500, Henry velez wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.7.5-1 of my package pysvn. It builds these binary packages: python-svn - A(nother) Python interface to Subversion python-svn-dbg - A(nother) Python interface to Subversion (debug extension) The upload would fix these bugs: 611062 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pysvn - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pysvn/pysvn_1.7.5-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as new maintainer. The correct procedure to address the bug 611062 is to put a new title ITA: ... instead of O: Moreover your pacakge doesn't use dpkg v3 source format. Please switch to that. Otherwise Lintian complains about: P: pysvn source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system Source/setup_configure.py Please convert that to a patch in debian/patches/ with dpkg v3 source style and make sure the patche(s) are forwarded upstream. The changes to Source/setup_configure.py seem mostly ok (from a first look) but should be known to upstream anyway - and preferably fixed upstream with their next release. One more patch that you may want to bring forth would be fixing #470526 and/or discussing this with upsteam. Typos that may further be worth fixing: I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so propery property I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so overriden overridden I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so specifed specified I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so propery property I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so overriden overridden I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so specifed specified Your debian/copyright is not in DEP-5 format. Please update that. Most importantly Import/pycxx-6.2.2/ seems to be missing entirely in the debian/copyright! Final remarks by lintian: I: python-svn: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/pyshared/pysvn/ I: python-svn: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration Both of which I think should be easy enough to fix. As you've discussed joining DPMT please make sure to add the Vcs headers to debian/control once the package is moved there. Please make sure the copyright file is corrected and throw a new version into mentors. Should be fine then. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: pdebuild --debbuildopts -sa does not accept orig.tar.bz2 format?
Hi mira, I stumbled upon the same problem when I wanted to rebuild a package which also ships the original source as a .tar.bz2 file. On Debian Lenny using pbuilder 0.181 --debuildopts -sa did the trick for me, however. Regards, Lukas -- 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/cacb1aev4ubzj11n3vedk2jfsoohvllne_mpwerbattqu4mj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Benoît, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 10:14 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Looks good. Just use a versioned URL [1] for the Format field in debian/copyright. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?view=markuppathrev=174 just for me to understand. DEP-5 is frozen. Why exactly is the version needed now that it isn't altered anymore? Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: kamerka
Hi Sebastian, Sebastian Krzyszkowiak wrote: 2011/7/1 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org: [...] - Your short and long descriptions are too technical; have a look at [1] for the best practices. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-control Changed to: Description: shiny photo taking application Kamerka is an KDE application, using Video4Linux to get image from webcam and able to save photos. Features easy to use, animated user interface. The grammar could still be improved upon; I'm not a native English speaker, so you'd probably best contact [1] for assistance. [1] debian-l10n-engl...@lists.debian.org - In debian/control, you recommend dolphin, gimp and inkscape; this is way too strong. In fact, I would not even suggest them, so I think you should drop that line entirely. Same thing for suggesting kdebase-workspace-bin; why would someone who doesn't have it installed already want to add this package with all its dependencies? Kamerka displays desktop notification on taking photo with buttons to edit it in GIMP or Inkscape, or displaying it in Dolphin. Those apps are currently hardcoded, that's why I put them to recommends. It also calls kde-open binary, which is provided by kdebase-workspace-bin. Is it ok, or should I remove those lines? Well if the application can make direct use of them, maybe more them to a Suggests; apt-get install recommended packages by default, and I can tell you for sure that I wouldn't install a webcam application if it was pulling in gimp, inkscape and half of KDE with itself. 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/20110704082800.gc10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Hi Kilian, Kilian Krause wrote: Benoît, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 10:14 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: Looks good. Just use a versioned URL [1] for the Format field in debian/copyright. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?view=markuppathrev=174 just for me to understand. DEP-5 is frozen. Why exactly is the version needed now that it isn't altered anymore? Well first of all, I'd say because this is the format that the DEP-5 specification recommends. But more concretely, if you just use the unversioned URL, a parser wouldn't know whether you did that on an older revision of the specification (like many people did), or if you did it knowingly, to show that you meant the latest, frozen revision. I imagine that once DEP-5 is accepted, there will be a different URL without any version number that can be used unambiguously. But please, correct me if I'm wrong. 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/20110704083725.gd10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: Jampal (2nd try)
Hi Peter, Peter Bennett wrote: Thank you for taking the time to review this. I will take care of these and get a new package uploaded. You're welcome. Thanks for your work on this package. Regarding openoffice.org - the envelope command creates an openoffice or libreoffice write document. Also there are some sample spreadsheets in openoffice format. You can certainly use most of the features without open office. I will remove it as a recommended package. Maybe you can change it to a Suggests, but keep in mind that openoffice isn't the only application that can read the OpenDocument format. Regarding patches to upstream - it is a lot of work to release a new upstream version, and I would not want to do that just to fix an issue with Debian that does not affect other non-Debian users. In that case I may include patches, which would be rolled into the next upstream version. Does this make sense? That makes perfect sense, thanks for clarifying. 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/20110704085112.ge10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. What do you base this statement on? IMO being able to modify and rebuild the build system on Debian is just as essential to our users as being able to modify and rebuild the programs and documentation etc. Using dh-autoreconf helps ensure that we learn about failures early, especially since some Debian QA folks do periodic archive-wide rebuilds and report FTBFS bugs. -- 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/CAKTje6GugzvXB_APfswOqA-S=5N=byrbigdtgjy-5jevke1...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: qasmixer
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:25:26AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi, just for me to understand. DEP-5 is frozen. Why exactly is the version needed now that it isn't altered anymore? It doesn't really matter because it has to be changed for the final location anyway. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/05/msg00529.html Sven -- And I don't know much, but I do know this: With a golden heart comes a rebel fist. [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ] -- 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/20110704085445.GA10824@marvin
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:49:59AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. You mean, you want to discourage actually building from source? That's a huge disservice, especially in case the security team has to make a fix and suddenly realizes the package hasn't been able to build from the real source for years. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- 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/20110704091115.ga24...@angband.pl
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org writes: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. I strongly disagree with this view. While dh-autoreconf may not be the best solution in all cases, it does have its uses (apart from the obvious case where the upstream tarball does not have generated files like configure co). For example, running dh-autoreconf instead of including the regenerated configure and whatnot in the debian.tar.gz has the following advantages: * It's much much smaller. * It makes it easy to keep the generated files up to date. Which can easily benefit the buildds. * If autoreconf breaks the package build, no big deal: it probably needed an update anyway, if for nothing else, then to allow transitioning the old version of auto* out of Debian, so we won't have 5 or more versions of, say, automake in the distribution. The only downside from my point of view, is that it pulls in quite a bit of stuff, which places some extra burden on the buildds. Of course, if a package's build system has a tendency to break randomly when autoreconf'd, then regenerating configure co with a known good version is advisable. But for most cases, where both configure and the Makefile.ams are dead simple, I see little harm, and that's far outweighted by having a small and clean .debian.tar.gz. I believe that touching as little as possible in the upstream sources is desirable, that the debian patches remain unobtrusive and reasonably compact. Regenerating configure co goes against this, as it touches not only the sources, but generated files aswell. -- |8] -- 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/8739im1hm1@balabit.hu
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Hi Paul, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 09:59 +0100, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. What do you base this statement on? IMO being able to modify and rebuild the build system on Debian is just as essential to our users as being able to modify and rebuild the programs and documentation etc. Using dh-autoreconf helps ensure that we learn about failures early, especially since some Debian QA folks do periodic archive-wide rebuilds and report FTBFS bugs. I do remember these funny situations where you autoconf with another version and/or another setup than upstream and configure was generated but broken. Thus all I was saying is that configure shouldn't be among those files dynamically generated on the buildd based on an unknown (at least in this regard) setup. -- Best regards, Kilian -- 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/1309774994.5463.64.ca...@rusty.rus.uni-stuttgart.de
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Hi Adam, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 11:11 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:49:59AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. You mean, you want to discourage actually building from source? absolutely not. It should be the source. But a known working one. Not something that may end up working by chance. That's a huge disservice, especially in case the security team has to make a fix and suddenly realizes the package hasn't been able to build from the real source for years. That exactly was my idea too. To ship a source that is known and can be predicted regarding changes. If a security upload would be required but autoconf generates a broken configure due to some circumstances that couldn't be predicted at time the package was uploaded to unstable this is bad and will cause more time to be spent than what would actually be required for *only* fixing the bug. In other words I did say: generate whatever dh-autoconf would get you dynamically, test it, put it together as a patch and ship that patch statically for everyone to read what exactly the change is instead of hushing it up inside a large set of deep magic (that in my experience may or may not work based on random circumstances - depending on the upstream sources). -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Kilian Krause wrote: I do remember these funny situations where you autoconf with another version and/or another setup than upstream and configure was generated but broken. Thus all I was saying is that configure shouldn't be among those files dynamically generated on the buildd based on an unknown (at least in this regard) setup. This is like using upstream built .o files because GCC produced broken code at some point. I would hope those days are behind us. -- 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/caktje6ebljqfdgy0x92zqsatsqjh-urnleoe2grh_hmo060...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Gergely, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 12:10 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org writes: 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. I strongly disagree with this view. While dh-autoreconf may not be the best solution in all cases, it does have its uses (apart from the obvious case where the upstream tarball does not have generated files like configure co). Perfectly agreed, it's not the best solution in all cases. For example, running dh-autoreconf instead of including the regenerated configure and whatnot in the debian.tar.gz has the following advantages: * It's much much smaller. * It makes it easy to keep the generated files up to date. Which can easily benefit the buildds. * If autoreconf breaks the package build, no big deal: it probably needed an update anyway, if for nothing else, then to allow transitioning the old version of auto* out of Debian, so we won't have 5 or more versions of, say, automake in the distribution. The only downside from my point of view, is that it pulls in quite a bit of stuff, which places some extra burden on the buildds. Of course, if a package's build system has a tendency to break randomly when autoreconf'd, then regenerating configure co with a known good version is advisable. But for most cases, where both configure and the Makefile.ams are dead simple, I see little harm, and that's far outweighted by having a small and clean .debian.tar.gz. Maybe it's just me knowing more upstream sources with a tendency to break randomly rather than just coping well with frequently running autoconf (and still getting the desired result). Anyway, my point was that I'm not willing to spend time on investigating a package that I would otherwise sponsor and find out the long way. It *may* be having a dead simple build system, but finding out and especially finding corner cases will demand much deeper inspection than just the patch with the updated part required. I believe that touching as little as possible in the upstream sources is desirable, that the debian patches remain unobtrusive and reasonably compact. Regenerating configure co goes against this, as it touches not only the sources, but generated files aswell. Depends on how large the change is. Usually you can strip this down quite well to only a one page diff that's really required. So I guess we can make this a personal requirement for me sponsoring a package. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: That exactly was my idea too. To ship a source that is known and can be predicted regarding changes. If a security upload would be required but autoconf generates a broken configure due to some circumstances that couldn't be predicted at time the package was uploaded to unstable this is bad and will cause more time to be spent than what would actually be required for *only* fixing the bug. Which is why we should rebuild from source as often as possible to catch those issues. In other words I did say: generate whatever dh-autoconf would get you dynamically, test it, put it together as a patch and ship that patch statically for everyone to read what exactly the change is instead of hushing it up inside a large set of deep magic (that in my experience may or may not work based on random circumstances - depending on the upstream sources). That sounds like something that goes against the spirit of our social contract, specifically We will not hide problems. By shipping a pre-built build system you are papering over any autotools bugs; those should be known and fixed instead. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/ -- 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/CAKTje6HKmzZtpOv8TLvvY+EQh0L8=krk_6nakmocaqnqtuy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Paul, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 11:33 +0100, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Kilian Krause wrote: I do remember these funny situations where you autoconf with another version and/or another setup than upstream and configure was generated but broken. Thus all I was saying is that configure shouldn't be among those files dynamically generated on the buildd based on an unknown (at least in this regard) setup. This is like using upstream built .o files because GCC produced broken code at some point. I would hope those days are behind us. I know it is, but that's at least until now my experiences. I'd also hope it'd be better and as you seem to suggest this is no longer the situation it used to be, I guess I'll give the next one a try. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
Paul, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 11:36 +0100, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: That exactly was my idea too. To ship a source that is known and can be predicted regarding changes. If a security upload would be required but autoconf generates a broken configure due to some circumstances that couldn't be predicted at time the package was uploaded to unstable this is bad and will cause more time to be spent than what would actually be required for *only* fixing the bug. Which is why we should rebuild from source as often as possible to catch those issues. Seconded. In other words I did say: generate whatever dh-autoconf would get you dynamically, test it, put it together as a patch and ship that patch statically for everyone to read what exactly the change is instead of hushing it up inside a large set of deep magic (that in my experience may or may not work based on random circumstances - depending on the upstream sources). That sounds like something that goes against the spirit of our social contract, specifically We will not hide problems. By shipping a pre-built build system you are papering over any autotools bugs; those should be known and fixed instead. I would say there's a difference between hiding a problem and calling for one. But as already explained, maybe the situation has improved and things go smoothly now. I'll be looking into this once time permitting. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Am 04.07.2011 10:14, schrieb Benoît Knecht: Hi Sebastian, Sebastian H. wrote: Ok, I've read through a few of the doc pages, fixed some (most?) of the issues and prepared a new package. lintian from squeeze now doesn't report any problems anymore. Except for the too new standards 3.9.2 but that's because lintian is too old. Looks good. Just use a versioned URL [1] for the Format field in debian/copyright. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?view=markuppathrev=174 That's changed and there's a new package. (I didn't increment the package version number.) - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer/qasmixer_0.12.1-1.dsc [...] Oh and I forgot to mention, you should open an ITP bug against the wnpp pseudo-pacakge and add the proper instruction to close it in your debian/changelog [1]. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#newpackage I've tried the bugreport utility from squeeze to report an ITP but it seems to have crashed before sending. I can try it again with the sid version tomorrow. You can also report the bug via email [2] if really reportbug doesn't work for you. After switching the reportbug interface from the gtk to curses it worked. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632642 Sebastian -- 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/4e11a475.2070...@gmx.de
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Sebastian H. wrote: Am 04.07.2011 10:14, schrieb Benoît Knecht: Sebastian H. wrote: I've tried the bugreport utility from squeeze to report an ITP but it seems to have crashed before sending. I can try it again with the sid version tomorrow. You can also report the bug via email [2] if really reportbug doesn't work for you. After switching the reportbug interface from the gtk to curses it worked. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632642 But you forgot to add a '(Closes: #632642)' instruction in your debian/changelog... 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/20110704114253.gg10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: qasmixer
I've tried the bugreport utility from squeeze to report an ITP but it seems to have crashed before sending. I can try it again with the sid version tomorrow. You can also report the bug via email [2] if really reportbug doesn't work for you. After switching the reportbug interface from the gtk to curses it worked. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632642 But you forgot to add a '(Closes: #632642)' instruction in your debian/changelog... Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this bug tracking thing. How does this look? - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer/qasmixer_0.12.1-1.dsc Sebastian -- 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/4e11acd4.6000...@gmx.de
Re: RFS: wmmixer
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:48:13 +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Hi, Name: wmmixer Maintainer: Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) (k...@kix.es) (Debian QA page) Version:1.5-12 Uploaded: 2011-04-05 15:38:10 Description:wmmixer - mixer application designed for WindowMaker Repository URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wmmixer Section:x11 Priority: extra Lintian warnings: 1 Lintian report: W: wmmixer source: changelog-should-mention-qa N: N: If this upload is to orphan this package, please mention this fact on N: the first line of the changelog. If this is a QA upload, please mention N: QA (group) upload there. N: N: Severity: normal, Certainty: certain N: Closes bugs:454286 Sorry, but your changelog entry isn't really appropriate. - Why have urgency=low QA (group) upload in the first line when you are doing a proper upload? - Aren't you adopting this package? At least #490739 appears to say so. - Duplicate information about bumping to 3.9.1 - A blank line before the list of changes would be nice. Furthermore, why did you bump the debhelper build dependency to 7.0 when at the same time not making use of its new simplified debian/rules? Best regards, Michael Hi Michael, thanks a lot for your reply. - Why have urgency=low QA (group) upload in the first line when you are doing a proper upload? Lintian detects the package as orphan and then shows the warning. If I try to write QA (group) upload in the first line (alone), lintian shows other warning. I don't know how to avoid the lintian warning. What should I do? IMHO the lintian warning message cannot be solved. - Aren't you adopting this package? At least #490739 appears to say so. I am trying to do that. - Duplicate information about bumping to 3.9.1 - A blank line before the list of changes would be nice. Solved (both) in my sources. When the previous comments where solved, then I will update the new package. Furthermore, why did you bump the debhelper build dependency to 7.0 when at the same time not making use of its new simplified debian/rules? I cannot find the info to rewrite the debian/rules to 7.0 What are the differences? When can I found docs about it. Thanks a lot, best regards. kix. -- ||// //\\// Rodolfo kix Garcia ||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/ -- 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/1d7e175fb07950309f75164098252...@kix.es
Re: RFS: wmmixer
Hi again, [...] - Why have urgency=low QA (group) upload in the first line when you are doing a proper upload? Lintian detects the package as orphan and then shows the warning. If I try to write QA (group) upload in the first line (alone), lintian shows other warning. I don't know how to avoid the lintian warning. What should I do? IMHO the lintian warning message cannot be solved. - Aren't you adopting this package? At least #490739 appears to say so. I am trying to do that. I think both the non-QA-upload and lintian warning will be fixed by closing this particular ITA bug in the changelog properly. [...] Furthermore, why did you bump the debhelper build dependency to 7.0 when at the same time not making use of its new simplified debian/rules? I cannot find the info to rewrite the debian/rules to 7.0 What are the differences? When can I found docs about it. Please take a look at, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debhelper http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/cdbs_killer___40__design_phase__41__/ Hope this helps, Michael pgp1O2NtF1AIJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Le lundi 4 juillet 2011 10:12:49, Charles Plessy a écrit : Le Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:16:20AM +0200, Kilian Krause a écrit : CDBS is no longer preferred. Hi Kilian, Hi Charles I think that it is quite a bold statement. At least, there is not formal archive-wide of deprecation of CDBS. Personally, I find that CDBS can be much easier to use than dh for setting up correctly CFLAGS in some packages. To be honest, with over-enthousiasm for dh, I mildly broke several of my packages, in the sense that I did not realise immediately that they stopped setting -Wall -g -O2 as compilation flags or honor the noopt build option (Policy §4.9.1). Note that since debhelper 8.9.0, CFLAGS is automatically set to -g -O2 by dh_auto_build and dh_auto_configure in case it's not already set. See #544844. Cheers, Best regards. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: qasmixer
Sebastian H. wrote: I've tried the bugreport utility from squeeze to report an ITP but it seems to have crashed before sending. I can try it again with the sid version tomorrow. You can also report the bug via email [2] if really reportbug doesn't work for you. After switching the reportbug interface from the gtk to curses it worked. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632642 But you forgot to add a '(Closes: #632642)' instruction in your debian/changelog... Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this bug tracking thing. How does this look? That would work, but it's customary to put it at the end of a chagelog entry describing what has been done to fix the bug, like so: * Initial public release (Closes: #632642) This way, there's no need for someone reading the changelog to look up the bug to get even the slightest idea of what it's about. 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/20110704134225.gh10...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: qasmixer
After switching the reportbug interface from the gtk to curses it worked. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632642 But you forgot to add a '(Closes: #632642)' instruction in your debian/changelog... Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this bug tracking thing. How does this look? That would work, but it's customary to put it at the end of a chagelog entry describing what has been done to fix the bug, like so: * Initial public release (Closes: #632642) This way, there's no need for someone reading the changelog to look up the bug to get even the slightest idea of what it's about. That makes sense :) The new package source is uploaded. Sebastian -- 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/4e11ca7a.5040...@gmx.de
Re: RFS: trophy (Adopted and updated package)
On 07/04/2011 08:49 AM, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Andreas, Hi Kilian, thanks for the review. 1. Using dh-autoreconf is ugly. Please try to avoid it and backport the full regenerated configure in your patch to make sure the source is identical on all buildds. IMHO dh-autoreconf is a solution for a local build that you maintain for yourself outside of Debian, but not for an official pacakge. I have to disagree on this one, some of the reasons have already been stated by others in this thread. I personally find it so much easier and cleaner to patch the source files and have autofoo deal with the finished product at buildtime. It makes the patch way easier to read/understand and in case of new upstream releases (where maybe this patch isn't included) it is easier to integrate. If there should be an issue with the autotools source files and they are exposed by building on a official buildd then the source file needs to be fixed of course - but I rather have it visible at the time of the upload, not some time later when (for whatever reasons) my package becomes RC-buggy. 2. Your debian/copyright does list a specific version of your upstream source as Source. Please use the generic URL so that this is valid for all future versions. Of course, thanks for pointing that out. 3. I don't think --prefix=/usr is required with dh_auto_configure. That should come automagically. You are right. That was a leftover from the old rules file. As the package is not orphaned for long I'd welcome if you could fix the above and put forth a new package before we put it into Debian. New version uploaded to mentors and pushed to git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-games/trophy.git (Note that I put the pkg-games team as maintainer and myself as Uploader). Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RFS: taxbird (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.16-0.1 of the package taxbird. It builds these binary packages: taxbird- The first free Elster client (German Tax Declarations) The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/taxbird - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/taxbird/taxbird_0.16-0.1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Please CC me, since I'm not subscribed to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org. Regards, Olaf -- 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/87vcviavw6@rat.lan
RFS: libgeier (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12-0.1 of my package libgeier. It builds these binary packages: libgeier-dev - Development files for the libgeier library libgeier0 - Elster client library (German tax declarations) The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libgeier - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libgeier/libgeier_0.12-0.1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Please CC me, since I'm not subscribed to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org. Regards, Olaf -- 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/8739imcah0@rat.lan
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Στις Δευ 04 Ιουλ 2011, ο/η Kilian Krause έγραψε: Hi Theodore, Hi Kilian, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 00:45 +0300, Theodore Lytras wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xul-ext-zotero, an extension for Iceweasel. * Package name: xul-ext-zotero Version : 2.1.8-1 Upstream Author : Center for History and New Media, George Mason University c...@gmu.edu * URL : http://www.zotero.org/ * License : Affero GPLv3 Section : web It builds these binary packages: xul-ext-zotero - Collect, organize, cite, and share your research sources The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 504058 My motivation for maintaining this package is: Zotero is IMHO the best citation manager out there, a powerful research tool that I (and thousands of other people) use on a regular basis, and its latest version should always be in the Debian repositories. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero/xul-ext- zotero_2.1.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as maintainer for a new Debian package. Thank you for your quick and helpful reply. Please note that I am brand new to Debian packaging and the community in general (although I use Debian for a few years now), and excuse any mistakes and mishandlings on my part. 1. Your debian/changelog has a non-standard syntax (that might work though). Please put closes with initial release either in () or onto the second line without leading asterisk. Fixed, thanks! 2. Debhelper compat is still at 7. Please bump to 8 as is correctly pulled in Build-Depends. Fixed. 3. CDBS is no longer preferred. Please use dpkg v3 source style and debhelper 7 dh-style for debian/rules Switched to dpkg v3 source style. However, I am not sure how to write the debian/rules file properly without CDBS. I would need some extra help/pointers on how to do that. 4. Your short description lacks the information that this is a firefox/iceweasel extension Fixed. 5. debian/copyright is not DEP-5 format. Please update. I wanted to do this in DEP-5, but I did not see Affero GPLv3 in the list of license keywords in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index6h1 . Should I just use the GPL keyword, or should I specify at some other place that the license is Affero GPLv3? 6. debian/README and debian/README.source can be deleted Fixed. 7. Most importantly I don't see a single bit of info that you coordinated this with Benj. Mako Hill m...@debian.org who set the bug to ITP this January. From what I see your name doesn't appear in the BTS at all for this bug. How come yuo now step up as new maintainer and Benjamin isn't even listed as Uploader? Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, I didn't realize at all that I should coordinate with Benjamin. Actually I didn't read the bug report through. My bad. Then again, I see that the original request was for the Zotero Iceweasel extension (which is what I have packaged), while Benjamin later refers to Zotero Standalone (another story) and his intent to package *that* when it hits beta. Nonetheless, I am sending a separate email to the bug report thread and to Benjamin. Maybe he would be interested in sponsoring this package, and I would be glad to help with Zotero Standalone too. One further question: should I dupload again the fixed and corrected package to mentors.debian.net, the same way I did the first time? And should the revision number be the same, or incremented +1? Thank you very much for all the assistance, Theodore Lytras -- 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/201107042153.19191.thlyt...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Hi Theodore, On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:53:18PM +0300, Θοδωρής Λύτρας wrote: Στις Δευ 04 Ιουλ 2011, ο/η Kilian Krause έγραψε: On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 00:45 +0300, Theodore Lytras wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xul-ext-zotero, an extension for Iceweasel. * Package name: xul-ext-zotero Version : 2.1.8-1 Upstream Author : Center for History and New Media, George Mason University c...@gmu.edu * URL : http://www.zotero.org/ * License : Affero GPLv3 Section : web It builds these binary packages: xul-ext-zotero - Collect, organize, cite, and share your research sources The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 504058 My motivation for maintaining this package is: Zotero is IMHO the best citation manager out there, a powerful research tool that I (and thousands of other people) use on a regular basis, and its latest version should always be in the Debian repositories. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xul-ext-zotero/xul-ext- zotero_2.1.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as maintainer for a new Debian package. Thank you for your quick and helpful reply. Please note that I am brand new to Debian packaging and the community in general (although I use Debian for a few years now), and excuse any mistakes and mishandlings on my part. Don't worry. That's why you propose one version of a package to the Debian mentors and will be mentored to getting it into a shape like it should be. There's no offense taken if it's not right the first time or the second time. ;-) [...] 3. CDBS is no longer preferred. Please use dpkg v3 source style and debhelper 7 dh-style for debian/rules Switched to dpkg v3 source style. However, I am not sure how to write the debian/rules file properly without CDBS. I would need some extra help/pointers on how to do that. you may have seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debhelper http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/cdbs_killer___40__design_phase__41__/ were the recommendations that Michael put forth earlier today. Apart from that man dh will also list some common examples of how things can be achieved. Other than that, reading /usr/bin/dh may help if you're not scared of scripting and somewhat willing to have these open aside: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-rules As a more basic guide Lucas has further published a great tutorial (also available as packaging-tutorial package) which is at: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging-tutorial/packaging-tutorial.pdf If in doubt, just mail the question here. [...] 5. debian/copyright is not DEP-5 format. Please update. I wanted to do this in DEP-5, but I did not see Affero GPLv3 in the list of license keywords in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index6h1 . Should I just use the GPL keyword, or should I specify at some other place that the license is Affero GPLv3? You can just list the license without short tag in full. If you want to use multiple Files paragraphs just choose an arbitrary name that's unique within the copyright file (e.g. AGPLv3) and use that with the final License tag and following full quote of the license. [...] 7. Most importantly I don't see a single bit of info that you coordinated this with Benj. Mako Hill m...@debian.org who set the bug to ITP this January. From what I see your name doesn't appear in the BTS at all for this bug. How come yuo now step up as new maintainer and Benjamin isn't even listed as Uploader? Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, I didn't realize at all that I should coordinate with Benjamin. Actually I didn't read the bug report through. My bad. Oops! Good that we noticed then! ;-) Then again, I see that the original request was for the Zotero Iceweasel extension (which is what I have packaged), while Benjamin later refers to Zotero Standalone (another story) and his intent to package *that* when it hits beta. If that is indeed two independent projects, please file a second bug so that each project does have its own ITP and can be closed accordingly. Nonetheless, I am sending a separate email to the bug report thread and to Benjamin. Maybe he would be interested in sponsoring this package, and I would be glad to help with Zotero Standalone too. That's sort of what I had
RFS: john (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.7.8-1 of my package john. It builds these binary packages: john - active password cracking tool john-data - active password cracking tool - character sets The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 592401 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/john - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/john/john_1.7.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Ruben Molina signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: Jampal (2nd try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Peter, On 24.05.2011 02:29, Peter Bennett wrote: This is my second attempt. I have fixed errors that were pointed out to me last time. glad to see you fixed most of the problems I addressed last time. Thank you very much. This time I have some minor, mostly cosmetic issues only but please note I didn't extensively review your package. I was just looking how you are doing. Here we go: * Your standards version is still outdated. Please push to 3.9.2 after verifying eventual changes [1] * Please remove the VCS links in your control file if you don't use it. Even better it would be, if you would use a VCS for Debian related packaging though :) * Another thing I mentioned last time is to eventually push debhelper compatibility level to version 8 (in debian/compat and debian/control). This is the recommended version as of today. * Benoît already mentioned the concerns about OpenOffice I addressed last time as well [2]. You can certainly recommend it if you believe this is the way to go, see [3] for the precise meaning of package relationships. However you still need to exchange OpenOffice by LibreOffice. Its the latter which is in Debian now. * The long description of tagbkup (glad you made a dedicated package for it!) contains something like (use the -cm option, see below) which was probably extracted from a manual or so. Please rework the description since neither the switch should be explained in the description field not does below exist at all. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/05/msg00307.html [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOEjjjAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtUlMQAL1w2dqJX3AuGTjGdiN9D5D/ bf9AtaudC3VVj+CiQRtMaArb6IwM8WgqSoVM3mAuNOsRETBIhg6MZAHnIiv+T1AX E4HqjJmzz1XVTG1HQIFmvLBwkse4aIJuZYJHbRv8y+BwvTmVLbKmlfGIobTZ9at/ 5OSnA1AkMpMm5OFS8y0SfJUiWzEOJd6ik5w+dyXK9KYr03cF5EPuFPQr7yISXHPS +NElnDHazTGeeLqbqXZ8N8ziTWu8iCHUqv97W7ioB7cQhWkq0m0BNR6uARU9n33u 6n471gBcv9UHlZM7jRskAIUwIPtC93wGaSMw7OXBz/tj9TcV3ouWA2iyaGnFJSkk +v3xOxxMnjQhpyVX6r8KqommrqtEbrl97++gAfl7Wv9h4diVHdTcKTRLju7K2BeG sHqy/hatiWbAQ6/n1Fw2uN4xBKdBSGpHGF4TshLbNPHERWnWugee4XxB+xEb03D5 ncRLUsfYSd5Dv0FiRdYFhpTui+0xZrluGuviz1WtPSeLCFlb4nvTyc2mCH7BxpRk ZH+whEbBZEevGax2NWQIYdBKhgbjT5AfyrUBqVBt/+OXoedkVmOadFS3nGPYYWHT ylA1a2uTFuNJVs+4Syqilz/z9B92MdGhUBZCkp3hnzgMM4fiPOGugXs6gw7+SsE/ 1g+1/llE9GrjVa5dTPAy =Szwr -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/4e1238e4.6050...@toell.net
Re: RFS: xul-ext-zotero
Le Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:30:29PM +0200, Kilian Krause a écrit : On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:53:18PM +0300, Θοδωρής Λύτρας wrote: I wanted to do this in DEP-5, but I did not see Affero GPLv3 in the list of license keywords in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index6h1 . Should I just use the GPL keyword, or should I specify at some other place that the license is Affero GPLv3? You can just list the license without short tag in full. If you want to use multiple Files paragraphs just choose an arbitrary name that's unique within the copyright file (e.g. AGPLv3) and use that with the final License tag and following full quote of the license. In addition, I recommend to use the SPDX short names when available. http://spdx.org/licenses/ Have a nice day, -- 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/20110704230449.gb5...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: RFS: Sponsor needed for pmwiki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Robert, On 04.07.2011 03:17, Strobl, Robert wrote: I need a sponsor for: Package name: pmwiki License:GPL ^^^- its GPL-2 btw. Version: 2.2.27 here are a few notes, from me not being a developer and therefore unable to sponsor you: * The currently recommended debhelper version is 8 (see debhelper(7)). Please push in debian/compat and debian/control * Your Standards version is heavily outdated. See [1] for a list what to check, in order to verify whether your package complies with the most recent standards version which is 3.9.2. * Some notes about your dependencies: + I wonder why you depend on PHP 4. PHP 4 is not available in Debian anymore. + Moreover you depend on lighttpd (= 2.4.19) which does not exist at all. Maybe you meant 1.4.19 which would correspond to the Lighttpd version which was in Lenny. + Instead of your dependency line apache2 | lighttpd you probably want to depend on the httpd-cgi virtual package [2] instead, and give a preference if you wish. + Finally php-fastcgi seems wrong to me unless you actually depend on Lighttpd or any other (Fast-)CGI compatible web server. For Apache you maybe want to depend on libapache2-mod-php5 instead, since this is what most people are using for PHP when using Apache. * Your synopsis line is not a synopsis, see [3] for best practices. Moreover you need to provide a long description line See §3.4.2 [4] * Please add VCS links if possible [5]. If not, remove the commented out entries in debian/control. * You debian/copyright contains the full URL, i.e. the direct link to the origin package. Its not wrong to do so, but keep in mind you have to update this for every upload. Generally its fine enough to point to the upstream homepage there. There is also DEP-5 [6] which is perhaps the way to go for future packages. This not required though. * debian/docs is empty. If you don't install any docs that way, remove the file * Similarly, remove pmwiki.doc-base.EX unless you really want to ship a doc-base package (if so, you would still have to rename it of course) * Your postinst script is terribly dangerous. No you don't want chmod 777. Really. Moreover this script can be called in many different ways and you break most of them. Finally you miss the #DEBHELPER# hook. Please read [7][8][9] about maintainer script invocation. * Please remove unnecessary comments in debian/rules * Please make a compliant patch from patches/debian-changes-2.2.27-1. Its contents are not wrong, but its considered a bad style to make upstream changes like this. Please make a proper quilt patch [10][11][12] * You don't provide a watch file. Learn more about watch files on [13] * Your package contains GIF files. There are some discussions whether they fall into the preferred form for modification rule as they are binary data [14]. However I believe for your use case its fine to package them. Maybe someone else may comment on this. * Your package is not lintian clean (this shouldn't suprise you): W: pmwiki source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends pmwiki W: pmwiki source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/pmwiki.doc-base.EX W: pmwiki source: maintainer-script-lacks-debhelper-token debian/postinst W: pmwiki source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch W: pmwiki source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.2) I: pmwiki source: debian-watch-file-is-missing P: pmwiki: no-upstream-changelog E: pmwiki: description-starts-with-package-name I: pmwiki: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly W: pmwiki: description-too-long E: pmwiki: extended-description-is-empty W: pmwiki: extra-license-file usr/share/pmwiki/docs/COPYING.txt I: pmwiki: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/pmwiki/pub/css/ I: pmwiki: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/pmwiki/wiki.d/ W: pmwiki: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/share/pmwiki/pmwiki.php W: pmwiki: maintainer-script-ignores-errors postinst [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-synopsis [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-extendeddesc [5] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs [6] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [7] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-mscriptsinstact [8] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-maint-scripts [9] http://wiki.debian.org/MaintainerScripts [10] http://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt [11] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ [12] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/modify.en.html [13] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianwatch and uscan(1) [14]
Re: RFS: arp-scan (updated package, new maintainer)
Hi! On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: William, On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 09:01 -0500, William Vera wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: William, On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 03:05 -0500, William Vera wrote: I guess you should try to do what it reads. Ask arp-s...@nta-monitor.com and see what they tell about why this is happening - and how to fix it properly. Exactly, I already sent a email Good. ;-) I just received reply from the upstream, it seems if it was a flaw in the tarball, the package is updated and uploaded to mentors[0], and it appears lintian clean (tested with lintian -IE -iv --pedantic). Apparently the current maintainer is not entirely dead, however I've written a couple of unanswered emails[1], and has not renamed the ITA. I think the package should be updated. Thanks in advance Regards [0] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arp-scan/arp-scan_1.8.1-1.dsc [1] http://bugs.debian.org/631213 -- William Vera bi...@billy.com.mx PGP Key: 1024D/F5CC22A4 Fingerprint: 3E73 FA1F 5C57 6005 0439 4D75 1FD2 BF96 F5CC 22A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPQrxNJk74yyo5n0MJQfB=dqnhvxy+9zbvufcnxp8a0iszm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: pysvn (updated package)
Hi Kilian. Thank you for answering. I will do the respective changes and then I will let you know. Regards. 2011/7/4 Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org Hi Henry, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 21:13 -0500, Henry velez wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.7.5-1 of my package pysvn. It builds these binary packages: python-svn - A(nother) Python interface to Subversion python-svn-dbg - A(nother) Python interface to Subversion (debug extension) The upload would fix these bugs: 611062 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pysvn - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pysvn/pysvn_1.7.5-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for stepping up as new maintainer. The correct procedure to address the bug 611062 is to put a new title ITA: ... instead of O: Moreover your pacakge doesn't use dpkg v3 source format. Please switch to that. Otherwise Lintian complains about: P: pysvn source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system Source/setup_configure.py Please convert that to a patch in debian/patches/ with dpkg v3 source style and make sure the patche(s) are forwarded upstream. The changes to Source/setup_configure.py seem mostly ok (from a first look) but should be known to upstream anyway - and preferably fixed upstream with their next release. One more patch that you may want to bring forth would be fixing #470526 and/or discussing this with upsteam. Typos that may further be worth fixing: I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so propery property I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so overriden overridden I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_6.so specifed specified I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so propery property I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so overriden overridden I: python-svn: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pysvn/_pysvn_2_7.so specifed specified Your debian/copyright is not in DEP-5 format. Please update that. Most importantly Import/pycxx-6.2.2/ seems to be missing entirely in the debian/copyright! Final remarks by lintian: I: python-svn: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/pyshared/pysvn/ I: python-svn: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration Both of which I think should be easy enough to fix. As you've discussed joining DPMT please make sure to add the Vcs headers to debian/control once the package is moved there. Please make sure the copyright file is corrected and throw a new version into mentors. Should be fine then. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian -- Henry Vélez
