Re: DEP-5 and derivative work
What file format is pzl? I can't find any info about it. Please run file cat.pzl in the appropriate directory. -- 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/caktje6gxx0laxscynwzhhtullvtf5a6ebv0+oxfhvoxb-bk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: taxbird (updated package)
Hi Olaf, Sorry for the late reply (and it seems that all other people are busy as well :-/). [...] I added two messages to the bug report #619734, including the diffs for the packages. I also uploaded new versions of libgeier (0.12-1.1) and taxbird (0.16-1.1) based on the packages, Marvin provided on his homepage. [...] I'm seeing two problems here: - The NMU bug against libgeier should also be filed against libgeier package; in this case it was just appended to 619734. - The NMU is (intentionally) based on Marvin's packages, which, however, don't exist in Debian (if they did, there wouldn't be too much of a need for an NMU). Could you please build version -0.1 instead of 1.1, which combine Marvin's changes and your modifications into on version, and then update the NMU diffs? You will want to gzip those, as they will obviously be much larger, including all the new upstream changes. Thanks a lot, Michael pgpsWnodqWr4Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: eviacam
As promised, here is my review. I am looking for a sponsor for my package eviacam. * Package name: eviacam Version : 1.5.2 Upstream Author : Cesar Mauri ce...@crea-si.com * URL : http://viacam.org * License : GPL Version 3 or higher according to your copyright file. Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: eviacam- A cross platform webcam based mouse emulator For Debian it is not relevant that this software is cross platform. Also the synopsis should not start with A. I would suggest: eviacom - webcam based mouse emulator I was able to fix most Lintian errors and warnings, but I feel that to fix the remaining warnings I would need some help. W: eviacam source: non-native-package-with-native-version This should be solved by adding a DEBIAN version to the version number in your changelog. I.e. 1.5.2-1. W: eviacam source: empty-debian-diff This is because your upstream package already includes the debian directory and there are no changes to be put in the diff and you are using source 1.0 (implicit). If you want to continue also distributing the debian directory in the upstream release I strongly suggest using source version 3.0 (quilt) to avoid problems with NMU's. See also dpkg-source(1). Please, answer me in CC. Done. Further, my comments on your debian/* files: changelog - As mentioned above, include the Debian version in the first line - Close your ITP bug in the first entry like so: * Initial release (closes: #634840 ) - Please update the time stamp to something more appropriate changelog.in - Not sure if this will be useful in the future. You will most likely be editing the changelog manually (with the help of dch) compat - I believe ideas about which version should be used for new packages varies from sponsor to sponsor, but 7 or 8 is most common nowadays. Of course this influences your build dependencies. control - Your standards version is very old. The current version is 3.9.2. Check what you need to change, and update accordingly. - Any reason for not having priority optional? - Consider putting your Debian packaging in a VCS and add the appropriate tags - I don't think it is appropriate to mention the website in the description. The Homepage field is made for this purpose. - As mentioned above, improve the short description - I am no native speaker but I believe a software is rather strange. If you want to improve the description you could ask on debian-l10n-engl...@lists.debian.org - I don't have understanding of wx2, but do your recommends work, i.e. does the package find the right version, depending on the development package used in the build-depends? copyright - Not mandatory, but quite some sponsors want it: consider to change your copyright file to the DEP5 format [1]. - Please link to the versioned GPL in common-licenses. - You did not include the copyright information of all the files. The copyright file MUST list all the copyright holders and all licenses of ALL files in your project. dirs - I don't think you need this with this content. docs - NEWS is empty, don't install it. - Why install README.ca and not README.es? rules - I find the clean target a little strange, why copy the config.sub and config.guess there? - Clean up commented lines - Not sure, but I think quite some options in your ./configure line are added by the builder automatically. Further comments: Please include a watch file. Your package is newer than the latest upstream release. As you are upstream yourself, why didn't you create this new release yet? The package FTBFS (fails to build from sourse) with the following error: configure: error: Couldn't find linux/videodev.h nor libv4l1-videodev.h Adding libv4l-dev to the build-depends helps to start building the package. It would help to build your own packages in a clean environment to check against such problems (and build in sid as well). Tools such as pbuilder can help you there. With libv4l-dev, it still FTBFS with the output as found below. The complete output can be found here [2] (for a month). Hope this helps to improve the package. Paul [1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [2] http://pastebin.com/FZStE1TJ Making all in wxutil make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/eviacam-1.5.2/wxutil' /bin/bash ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile i486-linux-gnu-g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wall -fexceptions -Wconversion -I/usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-release-2.6 -I/usr/include/wx-2.6 -DGTK_NO_CHECK_CASTS -D__WXGTK__ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -DNO_GCC_PRAGMA -I/usr/include/opencv -pthread -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0 -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/ -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
Le jeudi 21 juillet 2011 01:29:09, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
(I sent out a RFS for gecrit a week ago and have yet to receive a
single reply, so I'm giving this a second try.)
Sorry, forgot to reply.
Dear mentors,
Hi Vincent,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package gecrit.
[SNIP]
* Package name: gecrit
Version : 2.7-1
Upstream Author : Groza Cristian kristi9...@gmail.com
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gecrit/
* License : GPL-3+
Section : editors
It builds these binary packages:
gecrit - simple, easy-to-use Python IDE
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 633420
My motivation for maintaining this package is: gEcrit is a relatively
new and promising Python editor/IDE that I hope will be of use to
other Debian users.
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit/gecrit_2.7-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Below are my remarks but note that I'm just DM and hence can't sponsor your
package.
Things to improve:
* Your orig.tar.gz has a different md5 than the upstream tarball.
* Vcs-Svn should use anonscm link
* Dependency on ${python:Depends} is for python modules, not python programs
and hence is useless
* Same thing for X-Python-Version, it's for python modules
Neutral comments:
dpkg-gencontrol generate a warning about shlibs:Depends [0] but I'm not sure
it's a good idea to remove the ${shlibs:Depends}. A future version of the
package could needs shared library so you can ignore this warning.
[0] dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package gecrit: unknown
substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
On the good sides:
* No lintian warning, even with -I --pedantic. Congratulations.
* Happy to see a DEP5 copyright (not required by policy), especially since
config-edit -application dpkg-copyright -ui none seems happy with it
* Package don't FTBFS.
Best regards,
Thomas Preud'homme
Kind regards
Vincent Cheng
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
* Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr, 2011-07-21, 17:38:
* Dependency on ${python:Depends} is for python modules, not python
programs and hence is useless
Err, no, it's not only for Python modules.
* Same thing for X-Python-Version, it's for python modules
Ditto.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
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/20110721154517.ga5...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
* Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org, 2011-07-21, 17:45:
* Dependency on ${python:Depends} is for python modules, not python
programs and hence is useless
Err, no, it's not only for Python modules.
* Same thing for X-Python-Version, it's for python modules
Ditto.
And in this particular case, the package does ship public public
modules[0], so omitting ${python:Depends} would render the package
RC-buggy.
[0] It's likely not the optimal way to package a Python application, but
oh well…
--
Jakub Wilk
--
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/20110721155337.ga8...@jwilk.net
Re: DEP-5 and derivative work
Hi Pabs, cat.pzl was an example, real file is: penguin-3x2.pzl $file penguin-3x2.pzl penguin-3x2.pzl: data Regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- 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/20110721160158.GA2571@debianero
Re: DEP-5 and derivative work
2011/7/21 Elías Alejandro eal...@gmail.com: cat.pzl was an example, real file is: penguin-3x2.pzl $file penguin-3x2.pzl penguin-3x2.pzl: data Hmmm, can anything read it? What does your package use it for? -- 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/caktje6fqmrmkm6ek8rd0_4dyzhuzfnvdry8h5c+6rgy7-6_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nicolas, IANADD (twb told me, I shall be lazy!), here are some comments on your package: On 21.07.2011 09:13, Nicolas wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package phing. * Please extend description of the -doc package. Its a bit too short. You don't need to be too verbose, but please expand it by a few words. For example you could tell what exactly the package contains and what its purpose is. Compare with other -doc packages in Debian to get an idea * Your copyright looks pretty good, however Copyright: 2001,2002 THYRELL is probably a bit to few of information. Maybe add a contact address, I noticed in the code is listed one. Same for 2003, seasonfive. Yes, this is pure pedantry - feel free to ignore this. * There is a new upstream release. Please consider packaging it. Besides, the checksums of your orig.tar.gz don't not match with upstream's package, being it the full package or the PEAR one. Please don't touch it. $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 bf4c5e709c9141555c299e02aab8ac80cddd2cf7 phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 (this is PEAR) $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz f3e2eb295317b79a9e4223c193430a2896883967 phing-2.4.5.tgz $ sha1sum phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz 367c6a92bee3d3c73c6b36c9afa35a122c1eb11c phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz * What's /usr/share/php/phing/etc for? Those files don't look like something which should be put in a etc-directory. I'm fine if you keep it that way in /usr/share/php/phing/etc, I'm just trying to find out, whether those files are meant to be touched at all. If so, they shouldn't reside in /usr. * In debian/rules, please remove unneeded comments dh-make produced. * Please generate your manpage during build. It seems to me, you ship it pre-compiled from the SGML man page you wrote. * Similar case for the API docs you package straight from the tarball. The DFSG mandate that a software package is available from source and its processing must be self-containing (e.g. compare with the preferred form for modification from the GPL license). For the generated API docs this means, there must be a way to regenerate those docs by means the main archive provides. You don't necessarily need to do this when producing the binary package, but please add at least a README.source file, where you document how to regenerate those API docs, upstream ships, if desired. * Your upstream tarball contains regression tests. Consider running them during build. Good work. Those are almost all cosmetic changes. - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOKFdFAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtNsoQAMUK3PphZGXhVNczYPMDMffG DGlZdGJWkfpowsir6mVZiLMBVMxUsFTmgGuBZtWs2C90bPugPadLXLccs6AjT44f /8Y8nIqDvT2kCwW2O/Izh7QxwnnxNn6X1ryFQlphsJd7uPe6rGX4hHAs8xxEOFCL 06iJCIipq1yH2h7LhoaryFUh5Xng1fTSyzK7R8axEESPW7OUSiS94yrIEQA6d/Ki 4NzYkZjgLiFOqlX5rqa/k6tFs2qwoLVePc1bcwmbJB0ErC32sgnMC7u/gIEZn/g1 t8A11dw4BHwOWwHX8IqkjuIKC7IibSvVuPIIzg+GYRJcoXrgY/Vww6xwIFaK3wPS frhgxRSh8QSFNnHLixEIuZ1YyvunDpMhN6o33oPLaMWvWsoQAvNH2vHUEXIQIxTZ kzddqn0Y5XuuwjpXqIMJFytzL6nYMRSkJyRZrb5n1csgyNK99gi/Gczsm099YTAD ihHXtv9Cwgn3JYXfNdtchkJaLhRuh7ExdzmbR7/VsJ2/5HEpjVtuZK3Fpc8psckP UNRQDbFRUYNWhSuC5brnte++HbV+ZTInkOLi9Jb5lRr5/fdxVigfEK4ph1xV6rh4 me5/OYg6LxgXxlePYfsYXll0KaHTMWEuahzf5k1DQMnH3GFk6NSbpq2hYBt6DQHY P39Ag9vBdig83Y4DSoh+ =KAoz -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/4e285745.2050...@toell.net
Re: DEP-5 and derivative work
package: jigzo-data a jigsaw game. yep, it can read. Use to create jigsaw image. Regards, -- Elías Alejandro -- 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/20110721164607.GA3094@debianero
RFS: libbs2b and bs2b-ladspa
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my packages libbs2b and bs2b-ladspa. * Package name: libbs2b Version : 3.1.0-1 Upstream Author : Boris Mikhaylov boris_mikhay...@users.sourceforge.net * URL : http://bs2b.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2 and others Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libbs2b-dev - Bauer stereophonic-to-binaural DSP library development files libbs2b0 - Bauer stereophonic-to-binaural DSP library -- and -- * Package name: bs2b-ladspa Version : 0.9.1-1 Upstream Author : Sebastian Pipping sebast...@pipping.org and Boris Mikhaylov boris_mikhay...@users.sourceforge.net * URL : http://bs2b.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2 and others Section : sound It builds these binary packages: bs2b-ladspa - Bauer stereophonic-to-binaural DSP LADSPA plugin The package appears to be *sort of* lintian clean. * There are several old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file warnings. Is the correct procedure on these to correct the license texts (seems fishy) or leave them alone (and let lintian yell at me)? * libbs2b gives no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libbs2b.so.0.0.0. A quick bit of Googling leads me to believe that this isn't very important for a slow-moving API like this library's, but my knowledge of the inner workings of the linking system is pretty rudimentary. Input on this or other aspects of library packaging would be much appreciated. * libbs2b also gives source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary win32/sndfile/libsndfile-1.dll, which is true. Of course, I'm not using the win32 files at all, so I guess the best thing to do is just to strip them out, but I'm not sure what the Debian Way to do this is. The upload would fix these bugs: 634993, 634994 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I use this library and LADSPA plugin daily for serious headphone listening. It has also attracted some interest from the community. Some nontrivial number of these audiophile users are moving into Linux by way of the Voyage-MPD project, which is Debian-based; an official Debian package would help these users, many of whom would not be comfortable with compiling software by hand, to try use bs2b in their systems. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libbs2b - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libbs2b/libbs2b_3.1.0-1.dsc -- and -- - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bs2b-ladspa - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bs2b-ladspa/bs2b-ladspa_0.9.1-1.dsc I would be glad for any comments in review and, eventually, if someone would upload this package for me. Thanks! Andrew Gainer signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libbs2b and bs2b-ladspa
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Gainer wrote: The package appears to be *sort of* lintian clean. When in doubt, run lintian with --info, which gives detailed information about the warnings. * There are several old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file warnings. Is the correct procedure on these to correct the license texts (seems fishy) or leave them alone (and let lintian yell at me)? Fix them in debian/copyright and ask upstream to fix them in the source code. * libbs2b gives no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libbs2b.so.0.0.0. A quick bit of Googling leads me to believe that this isn't very important for a slow-moving API like this library's, but my knowledge of the inner workings of the linking system is pretty rudimentary. Input on this or other aspects of library packaging would be much appreciated. Symbols files are more useful for slower-moving ABIs, since they relax dependency versions. * libbs2b also gives source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary win32/sndfile/libsndfile-1.dll, which is true. Of course, I'm not using the win32 files at all, so I guess the best thing to do is just to strip them out, but I'm not sure what the Debian Way to do this is. Yep, write a debian/rules get-orig-source tarball to create a new tarball with those things removed. -- 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/caktje6ehesfwbmz2lnre-qg6mgahuarckkg6txw+vygayk-...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr wrote:
Le jeudi 21 juillet 2011 01:29:09, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
(I sent out a RFS for gecrit a week ago and have yet to receive a
single reply, so I'm giving this a second try.)
Sorry, forgot to reply.
Dear mentors,
Hi Vincent,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package gecrit.
[SNIP]
* Package name : gecrit
Version : 2.7-1
Upstream Author : Groza Cristian kristi9...@gmail.com
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gecrit/
* License : GPL-3+
Section : editors
It builds these binary packages:
gecrit - simple, easy-to-use Python IDE
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 633420
My motivation for maintaining this package is: gEcrit is a relatively
new and promising Python editor/IDE that I hope will be of use to
other Debian users.
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit/gecrit_2.7-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Below are my remarks but note that I'm just DM and hence can't sponsor your
package.
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to review my packaging!
Things to improve:
* Your orig.tar.gz has a different md5 than the upstream tarball.
It looks like upstream released a newer source tarball under the same
name; I've re-uploaded my packaging to mentors.d.n with this new
tarball.
* Vcs-Svn should use anonscm link
Fixed.
* Dependency on ${python:Depends} is for python modules, not python programs
and hence is useless
* Same thing for X-Python-Version, it's for python modules
Neutral comments:
dpkg-gencontrol generate a warning about shlibs:Depends [0] but I'm not sure
it's a good idea to remove the ${shlibs:Depends}. A future version of the
package could needs shared library so you can ignore this warning.
[0] dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package gecrit: unknown
substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
I suppose I'll keep ${shlibs:Depends}, then.
On the good sides:
* No lintian warning, even with -I --pedantic. Congratulations.
* Happy to see a DEP5 copyright (not required by policy), especially since
config-edit -application dpkg-copyright -ui none seems happy with it
* Package don't FTBFS.
Best regards,
Thomas Preud'homme
Kind regards
Vincent Cheng
- Vincent
--
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/CACZd_tDsoeUPFhuiukwbUjQA=pn0b5e1z4swzxzehn7scwa...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: [0] It's likely not the optimal way to package a Python application, but oh well… Please expand on this a bit...is this an issue with my debian packaging, or an issue with upstream's build system? If it's the former, I'll gladly fix it; I'm also in contact with upstream, so if it's the latter, I can get that fixed as well. Thanks! - Vincent -- 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/caczd_tdzfgmep5jbdv8fcfbcc3nbxlrnxrhvpsbgyy3q2qq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: gecrit (2nd try)
* Vincent Cheng vincentc1...@gmail.com, 2011-07-21, 13:53: [0] It's likely not the optimal way to package a Python application, but oh well… Please expand on this a bit...is this an issue with my debian packaging, or an issue with upstream's build system? If it's the former, I'll gladly fix it; I'm also in contact with upstream, so if it's the latter, I can get that fixed as well. Thanks! I don't have strong opinion on how a Python application should be packaged from upstream POV. (However, please note that due to hardcoded paths in the gecrit script, it won't work on non-Debian systems...) As for Debian packaging, you should move the Python modules into a private directory, e.g. /usr/share/gecrit/. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20110721214640.ga4...@jwilk.net
Re: Debian Uploader
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Rodolfo, On 22.07.2011 00:30, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote: I have a question about debian uploader. I am DU for one package, but when I upload it to the ftp-master the package is deleted (after some time). I suppose is because my pgp key is not in the debian keyring (it is in mentors), but I am not sure. By uploader you mean, you are a sponsored maintainer? If so, you can't upload. You rely on your sponsor to upload packages, whether you are listed in there or not. This is by design. To actually upload packages to Debian, you must be a Debian developer or a Debian Maintainer. The latter have restricted upload capabilities. Please read [1] for further explanations. Also ask your sponsor whether he's willing to advocate you (and set the DMUA [2] flag successively) [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-DM-Upload-Allowed - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOKKufAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtZUIQAK3ELzCKQOD2j/WP9re4f9A2 QlMWplTW1ilVwgpsPMGjEU7/8huG1dUjYlfHzOBw72broSi4hyWYWBF///G3H1uK bkh4gTxQrla8AJ8KZ5sSSpKQgfy9J+FX8RIdFOTDGmQj/w1awDPdc7/PlNzlcfkm AAKLvzGrA7u/uP/ilcSXK8DPGc3uoaEjbj5o0obJLPenPxKptKU8grV2eEXC2ND+ jTeJMkL0GDcmV2YHciVd+I37MENZz9qyR1SW+RfxzQFQhkn6QoZ5ZLXClq/+ttFA XAzeS9Oi9yh+6w0ibK5i6SPJgDTPpmQ83bKgGx+YRbFJ987VqviO2TaMGQAE4wEG gof223RtPlZkuoZPBq0j+aoQCqDUKzTaGzw0mIeMksJArrcRV8I3FuhruH20OdmG 05/uuMS9KwBA5i56qNyrifDky9grNZiK69L1/l+oyJtKnXtybPgIMXitKaG8FFSk do7ZVx0hW0RtZFe72ynhlj+tr8Are7cu5u8HJXQxzmJEB7QhdFzxSrV/GqUMJjN8 1U0lrJiz646D0HOcRJ+clIHUH3bBiUxPwvEKipliusPg4JDfcnDd0bLi47dDGCsD pMbPGylZZi5jNcLUFE3M5YlK0uBgcR0Pp7xc5Rl/rxF8xmX06MoDM8mjwEGJ2Psr 668pUjBGbAqPOVKWz6a7 =SUk2 -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/4e28aba0.1060...@toell.net
