Re: RFS: retext (updated package)
Hi Jakub,
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:15:41AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org, 2011-08-05, 23:58:
1.) You add python, python-qt4, python-markdown on top of
${python:Depends} into the Depends line. This should not be
required. Please check to make sure the automatic detection
works ok for you but try to use it to not add too many
dependencies that aren't actually required.
What kind of automatic detection you are talking about?
dh_python2?
Do you mean dh_python2 tries to translate Python dependencies from
requires.txt file to Debian dependencies (from dh_python2(1)
manpage)? retext doesn't even use setuptools, so that couldn't
possibly work.
looking at /usr/share/python/debpython/depends.py I have to admit it does
lack the automatic detection I'd have hoped for (like makeshlibs).
So we can conclude that there is no problem with leaving this as is! ;-)
Thanks for nagging me to look into this!
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
RFS: gtimer (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.0.0-1 of my package gtimer. It builds these binary packages: gtimer - GTK-based X11 task timer The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 575666, 636822 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtimer - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtimer/gtimer_2.0.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Taylor LeMasurier-Wren
Re: RFS: gtimer (updated package)
Hi Taylor, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:47:28AM -0500, Taylor LeMasurier-Wren wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.0.0-1 of my package gtimer. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtimer/gtimer_2.0.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Wow. An update to an oldstable package. ;-) Having a closer look I find: 1.) Standards-Version is still at 3.9.1. Should be bumped to 3.9.2 2.) README.Debian doesn't need to be added to docs. Moreover the file should be named docs not doc 3.) I wonder why there's a configure, but no config.guess and config.sub. In case they should be there, adding autotools-dev to build-depends and dh call in debian/rules would be preferred. 4.) Converting debian/copyright to DEP-5 would be a bonus. The link to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL needs to have a GPL version number. Moreover the GPLv2 statements upstream all have the old FSF address and should be updated. 5.) Your debian/watch fails to fetch the latest version. The correct line would be: http://sf.net/gtimer/gtimer-([\d\.]+)\.tar.* I've fixed 2.) and 5.) and built, signed, uploaded your package. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fgo
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:53 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Hi Christopher,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package fgo.
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgo/fgo_1.3.1-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Reviewing your package I find:
1.) You Build-Depends on debhelper 8.9.3 but only use debian/compat 7 - why?
I updated the dependency on debhelper when updating the package to use
dh_python2, I forgot to up the compat level, this is now fixed.
2.) Your Depends has ${python:Depends} but you still spell out python-tk,
python-imaging, python-imaging-tk - why aren't they caught by the
automagic of dh_python/dh_python2 and need to manually added?
Looking at the manpage for dh_python2, it uses the requires.txt file.
FGo does not have this file, and therefore its dependencies are not tested.
3.) debian/copyright is still at rev. 135 of DEP-5. Please bump to 174 which
is final.
Bumped.
4.) The fix in debian/rules (mv
debian/fgo/usr/share/games/fgo/src/pics/icon.png
debian/fgo/usr/share/pixmaps/fgo.png) should be reported upstream and
fixed
there.
I have removed this and instead linked the icon to the correct
location.
5.) debian/watch file is missing
I have tried building one:
version=3
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
However I get the following error when running it.
uscan warning: In debian/watch,
no matching hrefs for watch line
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
6.) Your package fails to build in a clean pbuilder with:
fakeroot debian/rules clean
dh clean --with python2
dh: unable to load addon python2: Can't locate
Debian/Debhelper/Sequence/python2.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl
/usr/local/lib/perl/5.12.4 /usr/local/share/perl/5.12.4 /usr/lib/perl5
/usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.12 /usr/share/perl/5.12
/usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at (eval 22) line 2.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at (eval 22) line 2.
make: *** [clean] Error 2
This should now be fixed, it definitely builds in pbuilder for me now.
Sorry!
That's ok, thanks for taking the time to hi-light these errors. The updated
package is available from the debian mentors website.
Thanks again,
Chris
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: fgo
Hi Christopher,
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:30:33PM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:53 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package fgo.
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgo/fgo_1.3.1-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Reviewing your package I find:
[...]
2.) Your Depends has ${python:Depends} but you still spell out python-tk,
python-imaging, python-imaging-tk - why aren't they caught by the
automagic of dh_python/dh_python2 and need to manually added?
Looking at the manpage for dh_python2, it uses the requires.txt file.
FGo does not have this file, and therefore its dependencies are not tested.
as was already discussed on d-mentors I had been under the false impression
that dh_phython2 would lookup includes and build the Depends from the
actual *.py files. As this is obviously not the case, I had already
commented that this requirement is no longer valid and your package is good
as is.
[...]
5.) debian/watch file is missing
I have tried building one:
version=3
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
However I get the following error when running it.
uscan warning: In debian/watch,
no matching hrefs for watch line
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
The correct way of writing this looks like:
version=3
opts=uversionmangle=s/-/\./g \
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz\?attredirects=0\amp\;d=1
[...]
For your next upload you might want to also fix:
I: fgo: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key
usr/share/applications/fgo.desktop:3 Encoding
and
P: fgo: no-upstream-changelog
The upstream ChangeLog is obviously under docs/CHANGE_LOG.
Anyway,
Built, Signed, Uploaded (including the debian/watch fix - I'll leave the
last one up to you).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: evolution-tray
Hi Max, On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:56:37AM +0600, Max Tsepkov wrote: Thanks to people from debian-devel the package is now ready and lintian clean. Therefore, I'm reposting the RFS. * Package name: evolution-tray http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/evolution-tray/evolution-tray_0.0.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for your work. Reviewing your package I find: 1.) You're using dh 7 style for debian/rules but scripting the binary target yourself. Why? You don't seem to put any options and even if so, you could still add the override_.. targets. 2.) You include autotools-dev in Build-Depends, but don't add the call to dh in debian/rules. 3.) You put depends for your binary package even though using shlibs:Depends. Why aren't they properly detected by the automatic of dh_shlibdeps? 4.) src/tray.c still has the old FSF-address. Upstream should correct this. 5.) You build-depends on debhelper (= 8.0.0) which will block backporting. Depending on = 8 or = 8.0 would be preferred. 6.) The template header in debian/rules can be removed 7.) debian/watch is missing. 8.) lintian moans about: E: evolution-tray: non-empty-dependency_libs-in-la-file usr/lib/evolution/2.32/plugins/liborg-gnome-evolution-tray.la I don't see why the *.la file is needed at all. Can you explain? Apart from that good to go even though I'm wondering if it'd not be easier to try and find a way to make this code be included upstream in evolution itself. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fgo
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 13:47 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Hi Christopher,
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:30:33PM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:53 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package fgo.
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgo/fgo_1.3.1-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Reviewing your package I find:
[...]
2.) Your Depends has ${python:Depends} but you still spell out python-tk,
python-imaging, python-imaging-tk - why aren't they caught by the
automagic of dh_python/dh_python2 and need to manually added?
Looking at the manpage for dh_python2, it uses the requires.txt file.
FGo does not have this file, and therefore its dependencies are not tested.
as was already discussed on d-mentors I had been under the false impression
that dh_phython2 would lookup includes and build the Depends from the
actual *.py files. As this is obviously not the case, I had already
commented that this requirement is no longer valid and your package is good
as is.
Sorry, I didn’t see the discussion or the comment.
[...]
5.) debian/watch file is missing
I have tried building one:
version=3
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
However I get the following error when running it.
uscan warning: In debian/watch,
no matching hrefs for watch line
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz?attredirects=0amp;d=1
The correct way of writing this looks like:
version=3
opts=uversionmangle=s/-/\./g \
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download
/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo/download/fgo-(.+).tar.gz\?attredirects=0\amp\;d=1
[...]
For your next upload you might want to also fix:
I: fgo: desktop-entry-contains-encoding-key
usr/share/applications/fgo.desktop:3 Encoding
and
P: fgo: no-upstream-changelog
The upstream ChangeLog is obviously under docs/CHANGE_LOG.
Thanks, I have now fixed these, issues and uploaded the fixed package.
After finally guessing the correct syntax for the lintian config file
(~/.lintianrc), I was able to make the -I and --pedantic options
permanent:
pedantic = 1
display-info = 1
This might be useful for others.
Anyway,
Built, Signed, Uploaded (including the debian/watch fix - I'll leave the
last one up to you).
Thanks,
Chris
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: fgo
Hi Christopher, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 02:31:10PM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote: On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 13:47 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: [...] The upstream ChangeLog is obviously under docs/CHANGE_LOG. Thanks, I have now fixed these, issues and uploaded the fixed package. I've just added another line in debian/rules to make sure CHANGE_LOG isn't installed twice, built, signed and uploaded your package. -- Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Default options for Lintian (Was: Re: RFS: fgo)
On 2011-08-06 15:31, Christopher Baines wrote: [...] Thanks, I have now fixed these, issues and uploaded the fixed package. After finally guessing the correct syntax for the lintian config file (~/.lintianrc), I was able to make the -I and --pedantic options permanent: pedantic = 1 display-info = 1 This might be useful for others. [...] Hey, You were not the only one with that problem (#636681). :) I committed a fix for that earlier today, but a review of the actual text is more than welcome[1]. ~Niels [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commitdiff;h=047a2f556dcb3a88b5d41c9125623577e3ac3c04 -- 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/4e3d4706.6000...@thykier.net
Re: Default options for Lintian (Was: Re: RFS: fgo)
Hi Niels, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:52:06PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2011-08-06 15:31, Christopher Baines wrote: [...] Thanks, I have now fixed these, issues and uploaded the fixed package. After finally guessing the correct syntax for the lintian config file (~/.lintianrc), I was able to make the -I and --pedantic options permanent: pedantic = 1 display-info = 1 This might be useful for others. [...] Hey, You were not the only one with that problem (#636681). :) I committed a fix for that earlier today, but a review of the actual text is more than welcome[1]. or use DEBUILD_LINTIAN_OPTS=-IE --pedantic in .devscripts together with debuild. ;-) -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Kilian,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my package.
Your changelog looks like this has been in Debian for a looong time yet I
cannot find any traces of it. If you reckon this is an initial upload there
should be only one entry in debian/changelog.
Yes, this would be an initial upload to Debian, if accepted. I
previously uploaded the package for review to debian-mentors, and added
a changelog entry for each round of reviews.
I would be glad if someone reviewed/uploaded this package for me.
Ok, you asked for it, so here goes:
1.) debian/control has broken RFC822 multiline fields. The first char of all
subsequent lines needs to be a white space.
Subsequent lines in multiline fields begin with a single space
character. I think this complies with RFC822, or am I missing something?
Just for the record: LaTeX is spelled LaTeX not LaTex.
Fixed mispelling of LaTeX.
2.) debian/changelog should only be the initial entry for a first time
upload.
I condensed the various changelog entries (each corresponding to a
package submission to debian-mentors for review) into one entry.
3.) Vcs-Svn and Vcs-Browser look like you haven't splitted out Debian
packaging from upstream. This should be separated as a best practice.
]I changed Vcs-Svn and Vcs-Browser to point to the Debian packaging
trunk, rather than the upstream presage project trunk.
4.) Using dh_python2 would allow you to use ${python:Depends}
I removed dependency on python-support and switched to dh_python2.
5.) debian/copyright is still at rev 135. Latest candidate of DEP-5 is 174
Moreover there's a typo: License: GLP-2+
And these seem to be not included:
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/src/RESearch.h: *No copyright* Public domain
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/lexlib/StyleContext.cxx: Public domain
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/lexlib/StyleContext.h: Public domain
Fixed typo and added missing files.
BTW, is there a tool I can use to check that debian/copyright is in good
shape?
6.) debian/libpresage1.symbols looks pretty empty
The symbols exported by the libpresage1 shared library are controlled
and versioned by a linker version script (src/lib/libpresage.map).
debian/libpresage1.symbols leverages upstream symbol versioning.
7.) usr/share/doc/libpresage-dev doesn't need to be created in
debian/libpresage-dev.dirs - it'll be auto-created by
debian/libpresage-dev.docs if required.
Fixed, removed debian/libpresage-dev.dirs
8.) autotools-dev is pulled in as Build-Depends but not activated in
debian/rules' dh call.
I added the `--with autotools_dev' flag to the dh call in debian/rules.
9.) #468814 should be retitled to ITP
Done.
10.) pyprompter and libpresage-dev are arch any but none of which has any
arch dependent files. Do you plan to add a static lib or something?
I changed pyprompter package to arch: all and changed its dependency to
python-presage (= ${binary:Version}) to clear the lintian
not-binnmuable-all-depends-any error. Is this appropriate?
I'm not sure what to do with the libpresage-dev package.
I tried changing this to arch: all, but this also caused lintian to give
a not-binnmuable-all-depends-any error.
Should -dev packages not be arch: any ?
Can I change its libpresage1 (= ${binary:Version}) to libpresage1 (=
${binary:Version}) ?
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/presage
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/presage/presage_0.8.6-3.dsc
Cheers,
- Matteo
--
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/4e3d4be3.7000...@yahoo.co.uk
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Matteo,
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Matteo Vescovi wrote:
Hi Kilian,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my package.
Your changelog looks like this has been in Debian for a looong time yet I
cannot find any traces of it. If you reckon this is an initial upload there
should be only one entry in debian/changelog.
Yes, this would be an initial upload to Debian, if accepted. I
previously uploaded the package for review to debian-mentors, and
added a changelog entry for each round of reviews.
OMG. ;-)
Anyway, an initial upload is 0.8.6-1 not 0.8.6-3.
And for a real first uploaded we don't need the entire d-mentors history.
That's on lists.d.o for everyone who wants to have a look.
I would be glad if someone reviewed/uploaded this package for me.
Ok, you asked for it, so here goes:
1.) debian/control has broken RFC822 multiline fields. The first char of all
subsequent lines needs to be a white space.
Subsequent lines in multiline fields begin with a single space
character. I think this complies with RFC822, or am I missing
something?
My vim highlighting tells me that whitespace is ok but tabstop isn't.
Practicallly dpkg seems to agree with you that tabs are accepted as well.
;-)
For the Description fiels you've used leading white space btw. just not for
Build-Depends and Depends of libpresage1 and pyprompter.
[...]
5.) debian/copyright is still at rev 135. Latest candidate of DEP-5 is 174
Moreover there's a typo: License: GLP-2+
And these seem to be not included:
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/src/RESearch.h: *No copyright* Public
domain
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/lexlib/StyleContext.cxx: Public domain
./apps/gtk/gprompter/scintilla/lexlib/StyleContext.h: Public domain
Fixed typo and added missing files.
Good.
BTW, is there a tool I can use to check that debian/copyright is in
good shape?
None that I know of. Sorry.
6.) debian/libpresage1.symbols looks pretty empty
The symbols exported by the libpresage1 shared library are
controlled and versioned by a linker version script
(src/lib/libpresage.map). debian/libpresage1.symbols leverages
upstream symbol versioning.
Maybe they're controlled, but the libpresage1.symbols has got nothing but
headers! :-?
7.) usr/share/doc/libpresage-dev doesn't need to be created in
debian/libpresage-dev.dirs - it'll be auto-created by
debian/libpresage-dev.docs if required.
Fixed, removed debian/libpresage-dev.dirs
Good.
libpresage-dev.install still has
usr/share/presage/getting_started.txt usr/share/doc/libpresage-dev
which effectively is a *.docs entry. Not sure why you'd want to hide that in
*.install.
[...]
10.) pyprompter and libpresage-dev are arch any but none of which has any
arch dependent files. Do you plan to add a static lib or something?
I changed pyprompter package to arch: all and changed its dependency
to python-presage (= ${binary:Version}) to clear the lintian
not-binnmuable-all-depends-any error. Is this appropriate?
Sure. Looks good to me. Even though as the arch=all only is built for the
first time, you could as well use = ${source:Version} here.
I'm not sure what to do with the libpresage-dev package.
I tried changing this to arch: all, but this also caused lintian to
give a not-binnmuable-all-depends-any error.
Should -dev packages not be arch: any ?
Can I change its libpresage1 (= ${binary:Version}) to libpresage1
(= ${binary:Version}) ?
Mmmmh, this one is a bit more tricky. I think it's best to leave it as is
because otherwise you'd loosen the Depends too much.
And eventually there'll be a static lib or some other arch dependent code
that you'll want to ship in the -dev package anyway.
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/presage/presage_0.8.6-3.dsc
Your patch
debian/patches/fix-hyphen-used-as-minus-sign-in-text2ngram-man-page.patch
doesn't have a debian/patches/series and therefore isn't applied. Is this
intended?
I'd say it's fine to go in. Do you want to fix the last bits before the
first real upload to Debian or shall we just go as is?
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: presage
Le samedi 6 août 2011 16:35:03, Kilian Krause a écrit : [SNIP] BTW, is there a tool I can use to check that debian/copyright is in good shape? None that I know of. Sorry. config-edit -ui none -application dpkg-copyright from the libconfig-model-perl package. [SNIP] Best regards, Thomas Preud'homme signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: presage
* Matteo Vescovi matteo.vesc...@yahoo.co.uk, 2011-08-06, 15:12:
4.) Using dh_python2 would allow you to use ${python:Depends}
I removed dependency on python-support and switched to dh_python2.
Just FWIW, python:Depends substitution variables in by no means specific
only to dh_python2. python-support generates it too, of course.
Also, your debian/rules violates Policy 4.6.
--
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/20110806144931.ga...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: presage
* Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr, 2011-08-06, 16:42: BTW, is there a tool I can use to check that debian/copyright is in good shape? None that I know of. Sorry. config-edit -ui none -application dpkg-copyright from the libconfig-model-perl package. IME it is completely unsuitable for the purpose of validating copyright files. -- 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/20110806145120.gb...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Kilian, Anyway, an initial upload is 0.8.6-1 not 0.8.6-3. And for a real first uploaded we don't need the entire d-mentors history. That's on lists.d.o for everyone who wants to have a look. Should I revert the package version to 0.8.6-1 before re-uploading to debian-mentors then? I assumed every upload to debian-mentors would require incrementing the package version. I'd say it's fine to go in. Do you want to fix the last bits before the first real upload to Debian or shall we just go as is? I'll take a stab at fixing the last bits first, if you don't mind. Many thanks for reviewing my package and all your help so far. Cheers, - Matteo -- 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/4e3d5567.6030...@yahoo.co.uk
Re: RFS: presage
Le samedi 6 août 2011 16:51:20, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr, 2011-08-06, 16:42: BTW, is there a tool I can use to check that debian/copyright is in good shape? None that I know of. Sorry. config-edit -ui none -application dpkg-copyright from the libconfig-model-perl package. IME it is completely unsuitable for the purpose of validating copyright files. For the consistency with the source files surely. But for the syntax it can be useful. If some error are not catched, I'm sure Dominique Dumont will be very happy to accept patch or even wishlist bug report. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Matteo, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:53:27PM +0100, Matteo Vescovi wrote: Anyway, an initial upload is 0.8.6-1 not 0.8.6-3. And for a real first uploaded we don't need the entire d-mentors history. That's on lists.d.o for everyone who wants to have a look. Should I revert the package version to 0.8.6-1 before re-uploading to debian-mentors then? I assumed every upload to debian-mentors would require incrementing the package version. Yes. mentors.d.n allows to override any version and also allows you to upload any version disregarding whether there'd be a newer version already uploaded or not. The Debian archive itself is of course not so generous. =) I'd say it's fine to go in. Do you want to fix the last bits before the first real upload to Debian or shall we just go as is? I'll take a stab at fixing the last bits first, if you don't mind. Sure. Many thanks for reviewing my package and all your help so far. No problem. Happy to help! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Some Packaging Questions
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Christopher Baines cbain...@gmail.com wrote: I am looking at trying to package some extra aircraft for FlightGear. As I think there are too many aircraft to package individually, I was going to package them in groups according to category (military, helicopters, ...), should I just use one source package or one source package per group? Most of the aircraft are release as .zip archives, I am assuming this means they will have to be re-archived in a better format, but do I archive the aircraft together, or use the quilt format to give many orig archives? Humm. I think perhaps this could be useful outside debian. I wonder if you would not consider maintaining it as a sort of project, where you (as upstream) maintain the groups in .tar.gz format (or similar), and have releases, and loads of documentation on who owns what where. You could then import those into Debian under the groups that the new upstream releases in. I have a feeling doing it in Debian might be a *huge* PITA. Thanks, Chris -Paul -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- 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/cao6p2qqov2+8+var68u2l70bcqyq7u7duv-pw98cjax+w9n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Jakub, Also, your debian/rules violates Policy 4.6. Thanks for spotting that. I fixed it in the latest upload to debian-mentors. Cheers, - Matteo -- 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/4e3d701a.4000...@yahoo.co.uk
Re: RFS: wmmoonclock (updated package)
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:43:07 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Rodolfo, Hi Kilian, thanks a lot for review this package. On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 12:48 +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.27-30 of my package wmmoonclock. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wmmoonclock/wmmoonclock_1.27-30.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Sorry, but no. :'( ;-) 1.) If you update a package without new upstream release you must use the orig.tar.gz file that is in the Debian archive. Any upload using another tarball will fail to be accepted by the Debian archive. 2.) You moved upstream's changelog out of debian/ with the new upstream tarball. As said above the tarball in inalienable without a new upstream release version and thus this change cannot be accepted. Ok. Please, take a look here: http://repo.or.cz/w/dockapps.git Is the git for dockapps. The WindowMaker project is making a new git with the dockapps. Here, in this tree, the changelog file is in the root folder, not in the debian folder. This is the reason for a new version with this file in the root and new version number. 3.) shipping changelog as docs is not an required. dh_installchangelogs should catch it in default locations - unusual locations can be provided in debian/rules as argument. No need to add changelog as docs too. ok 4.) The patches altogether lack a DEP-3 header. Please consider adding one and especially feeding them back upstream to have them included and vanish from Debian packaging. perfect, I will do it. 5.) Regarding taking over the maintainer ship. You should update the title of #588837 to read ITA. ok 6.) Updating debian/copyright to DEP-5 would be a bonus. ok++ 7.) debian/watch is empty. This makes comparing new upstream tarballs to your provided one quite tedious. Please update it to the correct upstream locations. There is not webserver yet. The info at http://windowmaker.org or http://windowmaker.info is not updated. The pages will move to a CMS soon, but there is no tarballs yet. I will update the package if the tarballs are available. Now the files are only in the GIT. Ok, what should I do? Update the problems 3-7? Thanks for your time, 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/a6ba7cf9dceafdaea627a2212affc...@kix.es
RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110806-1 of my package mobile-broadband-provider-info. It builds these binary packages: mobile-broadband-provider-info - database of mobile broadband service providers The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 634207 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mobile-broadband-provider-info - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mobile-broadband-provider-info/mobile-broadband-provider-info_20110806-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Bhavani Shankar Ubuntu Developer | www.ubuntu.com https://launchpad.net/~bhavi -- 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/CAESiwnszRneEUVNbpPkviP0wKnX=me=p8qwbe+bzx9ytdkj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: wmmoonclock (updated package)
Hi kix, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 07:12:07PM +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:43:07 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 12:48 +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.27-30 of my package wmmoonclock. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wmmoonclock/wmmoonclock_1.27-30.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Sorry, but no. :'( ;-) 1.) If you update a package without new upstream release you must use the orig.tar.gz file that is in the Debian archive. Any upload using another tarball will fail to be accepted by the Debian archive. 2.) You moved upstream's changelog out of debian/ with the new upstream tarball. As said above the tarball in inalienable without a new upstream release version and thus this change cannot be accepted. Ok. Please, take a look here: http://repo.or.cz/w/dockapps.git Is the git for dockapps. The WindowMaker project is making a new git with the dockapps. Here, in this tree, the changelog file is in the root folder, not in the debian folder. This is the reason for a new version with this file in the root and new version number. Sorry if I've made myself not clear enough as you do not seem to have gotten my point. To make an upload of 1.27-30 you have to use the orig.tar.gz like http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wmmoonclock/wmmoonclock_1.27.orig.tar.gz which is already in the Debian archive for the last versions. No other file will be accepted by the Debian archive for an upload using upstream version 1.27. And this file does not contain a changelog. If you now provide a new upload with version 1.27-30 that has a changelog file in there instead of under debian/ that means you're not using the same upstream tarball and thus your upload cannot be accepted by the Debian archive scripts. In case you can have upstream declare this as 1.28 release that'll be fine but until then there is no way around using exactly this tarball. 3.) shipping changelog as docs is not an required. dh_installchangelogs should catch it in default locations - unusual locations can be provided in debian/rules as argument. No need to add changelog as docs too. ok 4.) The patches altogether lack a DEP-3 header. Please consider adding one and especially feeding them back upstream to have them included and vanish from Debian packaging. perfect, I will do it. 5.) Regarding taking over the maintainer ship. You should update the title of #588837 to read ITA. ok 6.) Updating debian/copyright to DEP-5 would be a bonus. ok++ 7.) debian/watch is empty. This makes comparing new upstream tarballs to your provided one quite tedious. Please update it to the correct upstream locations. There is not webserver yet. The info at http://windowmaker.org or http://windowmaker.info is not updated. The pages will move to a CMS soon, but there is no tarballs yet. I will update the package if the tarballs are available. Now the files are only in the GIT. That's quite sad but in that case the debian/copyright needs to be updated too (http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~mgh/WindowMaker/DockApps.shtml is no longer valid then). And as a personal preference I'd recommend adding a get-orig-source target in the meantime which would preferably reconstruct some tarball with the contents of the 1.27.orig.tar.gz as is now in the Debian archive (if possible). Ok, what should I do? Update the problems 3-7? Yes, and reuse the original tarball to provide the next upload to mentors.d.n (which would make the list 1-7 I guess). ;-) -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)
Hi Bhavani, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:57:18PM +0530, Bhavani Shankar R wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110806-1 of my package mobile-broadband-provider-info. - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mobile-broadband-provider-info/mobile-broadband-provider-info_20110806-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for your work! Built, Signed, Uploaded. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: presage
Hi Matteo, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 05:46:56PM +0100, Matteo Vescovi wrote: [...] - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/presage/presage_0.8.6-1.dsc I would be glad if you uploaded this package for me. Good work! Built, Signed, Uploaded. And just while I'm watching the uplaod run I was just thinking that for the next upload you may also want to introduce a -dbg package. Have you thought about adding one? Usually complements a library quite well. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: airoscript-ng
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package airoscript-ng. * Package name: airoscript-ng Version : 1.2-1 Upstream Author : David Francos Cuartero xa...@xayon.net * URL : http://airoscript.aircrack-ng.org * License : GPL 2 Section : net It builds these binary packages: airoscript-ng - aircrack-ng user interface The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 626489 My motivation for maintaining this package is that I've been behind this for three years, I ended up being airoscript-ng upstream developer because of that. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/airoscript-ng - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/airoscript-ng/airoscript-ng_1.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards David Francos Cuartero -- 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/20110806205414.gc13...@xayon.net
Re: RFS: ndpmon
2011/8/4 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org
John R. Baskwill wrote:
2011/8/4 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org
[...]
From a quick look at your package:
- You have a debian/patches/debian-changes-1.4.0-1 patch that is
probably not intentional.
You are correct. That was not intentional. The patch has been removed.
- It would be great if you could use DEP-5 [1] for your
debian/copyright.
[1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
I believe the format is correct for DEP-5 now.
Also, if you run 'licensecheck -r .' in the root directory of your
package, you'll notice that some files lack a copyright header. You
should probably contact upstream about that and make sure that all
the files are indeed released under the LGPL.
I emailed upstream to ask whether all of the source files were covered by
the LGPL, and not just the files with a copyright header. This was Olivier
Festor's (one of ndpmon's contacts) reply:
Absolutely ALL files of NDPMon are LGPL.
So I believe everything is fine from a licensing standpoint.
- 'lintian -I --pedantic ndpmon_1.4.0-2_*.changes' had this to say:
W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status
W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.cache
W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log
These files are included in the original tarball. I modified the clean
target to remove these files, and also included lintian overrides for the
files. I will suggest to upstream to not include these files in the future.
I do have one question about the tarball, though. The file I downloaded
was named ndpmon-1.4.0.tgz. Everything I read about packaging seemed to
assume the tarball would be named ndpmon-1.4.0.tar.gz, so I renamed the
file. Is that permissible, or should I have left the name as it was?
W: ndpmon source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.1 (current is
3.9.2)
My lintian says the current standard is 3.9.1, but OK.
I: ndpmon source: debian-watch-contains-dh_make-template
The watch file has been cleaned up.
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon Recieved
Received
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon adress address
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o
Recieved
Received
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o adress
address
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o
unkown
unknown
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o
unkown
unknown
E: ndpmon: helper-templates-in-copyright
I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-manpage
usr/share/man/man8/ndpmon.8.gz
allows to allows one to
I included patches to correct the spelling errors. The patches have not
been sent upstream yet, but I will do that. The copyright file is in DEP5
format.
(Run it with '-i' to get a detailed explanation for each warning or
error.)
- Your .deb contains plenty of .{c,h,o} files, and the full source in
/usr/src; I don't think it's what you intended to do, is it?
The installation target has been modified to not install these files.
- In debian/control, the description of the package contains
information about when, where and by whom the software was
developed; I don't think it's relevant here. You also depend
explicitly on some libraries, but these should be in
${shlibs:Depends} already if the package links against them.
I removed that section of the description, and remove the explicit
dependencies.
I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to ask if you have problems/questions
about these issues.
Thank you very much for taking the time to look at my package. I will
work
on the items you listed.
Great! A couple more things, in case you have too much time on your
hands :)
- debian/docs: You shouldn't install CHANGES, FILES, MD5SUMS or
VERSION; they're really not useful to the user (except changes, but
it's installed as changelog.gz by dh_installchangelogs already).
I changed the docs file to include only the README.
- debian/ndpmon.init: Instead of hardcoding variables such as INIT or
LOGDIR, you could source /etc/default/ndpmon (you'd have to create
it in your package) so that users can easily change these paths.
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't $string a bashism?
I did as you suggested and included a ndpmon.default file with the default
paths for ndpmon.
- debian/{postinst,prerm,postrm} do not do anything, you should remove
them. I also think you can safely remove debian/preinst; the daemon
will be stopped on upgrades by the prerm script
Re: RFS: airoscript-ng
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Francos Cuartero wrote: airoscript-ng - aircrack-ng user interface aircrack-ng needs a new maintainer, do you plan to take over that too? I'm a bit worried about aircrack-ng upstream development too, are you in touch with the developers? -- 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/caktje6fnxu9+jlcc_g8fj5ef7t7pjmtg7fsz3ye_gnho1qp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: lebiniou, lebiniou-data (3rd try) (new upstream version)
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:28:57AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: Regarding fonts/FreeMono.ttf I'm not sure whether that one needs to be removed from the source tarball too. It would be a GPL violation to not remove it. There are quite a few such packages in the archive already, we should not add more. If anyone wants to file some RC bugs on these packages, check out these two links: http://wiki.debian.org/Fonts#license-violation http://pkg-fonts.debian.org/review/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: airoscript-ng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 06.08.2011 22:54, David Francos Cuartero wrote: airoscript-ng - aircrack-ng user interface are you aware of #588588 and #605519? That's something which needs to be addressed before considering an upload bringing a new dependency to aircrack-ng. - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOPbL6AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNteg0P/0ESMbeceZoAjciEC083AYGv jAdkIZ45S7cUPRtWjJ1XKp3/qfD7K4zYy8qeoFpJUs1V34WgmKRNqGKNN4raqxN8 8tcXC1evwJNzYAsuM5O6yllKhJy2rh8gZsmog0/JG5C0J6YTkngYzxUjtpnjoD1G cTBSHwugQkNPMo2QAbckAFAUp7tgCGvWxYCpxengO41FknqBxNjsRaEZ5/6jx4TQ wsTjOGBayYHwf6cukk95FV8Y87jWOc//mY+2GplP4Jxms9yNxOdXr/xMb6TI78Qd PP3g2b1gW9NxhFX4Ou4IojgXl4CCmlxwjX77HhLl2/5tjiCFqwBPICRKjRUFprQo a4RXW2Hdd/mcd+Qyp20HGpif2aEIlIrc9bukSd1AFMwd1Txe+PXJ5y/dgJHECRCD tggKj/Totfw1MdTTsS6eI32+WkBmicq9f/uobMVqG09TatXIbD77O7hBHSpxj12M aE7f15xZgA2nAEvzvgJrOn42vSncMcoihaZYMQ3BejS5+HNozu4uzqnk5JLZLwxS pBnvHH2QXgRW9FRfg+5BgzfiB/Bv8BTAcTEq+ZXSstJcWeeO+jzpqN0VX0H+tno5 jpPe1T4otDZDiH8vfgghLulntxJ2VUl1uuH0sLCjiCvykQ9joH10jAdgcgS/fOdl X4ZfD3uz0FdiBG1XlJbx =T947 -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/4e3db2fa.9010...@toell.net
Re: RFS: ndpmon
Hi John, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 05:26:26PM -0400, John R. Baskwill wrote: 2011/8/4 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org [...] - 'lintian -I --pedantic ndpmon_1.4.0-2_*.changes' had this to say: W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.cache W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log These files are included in the original tarball. I modified the clean target to remove these files, and also included lintian overrides for the files. I will suggest to upstream to not include these files in the future. I do have one question about the tarball, though. The file I downloaded was named ndpmon-1.4.0.tgz. Everything I read about packaging seemed to assume the tarball would be named ndpmon-1.4.0.tar.gz, so I renamed the file. Is that permissible, or should I have left the name as it was? Renaming is fine. uscan will do that for you even if you ask it to --rename. As you have a configure-based upstream source I hope you've put autotools-dev in charge of keeping your config.* files up to date. ;-) W: ndpmon source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.1 (current is 3.9.2) My lintian says the current standard is 3.9.1, but OK. Then use the latest unstable or backports version. ;-) [...] I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon Recieved Received I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon adress address I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o Recieved Received I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o adress address I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o unkown unknown E: ndpmon: helper-templates-in-copyright I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man8/ndpmon.8.gz allows to allows one to I included patches to correct the spelling errors. The patches have not been sent upstream yet, but I will do that. The copyright file is in DEP5 format. Patches should have their headers in DEP-3 format. DEP-5 is for debian/changelog only. [...] Thanks for keeping us posted! Please also tell us when the next version is up on mentors.d.n for review. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ndpmon
Now that I have the correct version of lintian, things look better. I have upload a new version of the ndpmon package. I changed the version back to 1.4.0-1 because I was told I shouldn't change the version number if this was the initial release of the package. Thanks for all of the help. On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: Hi John, On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 05:26:26PM -0400, John R. Baskwill wrote: 2011/8/4 Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org [...] - 'lintian -I --pedantic ndpmon_1.4.0-2_*.changes' had this to say: W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.cache W: ndpmon source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log These files are included in the original tarball. I modified the clean target to remove these files, and also included lintian overrides for the files. I will suggest to upstream to not include these files in the future. I do have one question about the tarball, though. The file I downloaded was named ndpmon-1.4.0.tgz. Everything I read about packaging seemed to assume the tarball would be named ndpmon-1.4.0.tar.gz, so I renamed the file. Is that permissible, or should I have left the name as it was? Renaming is fine. uscan will do that for you even if you ask it to --rename. As you have a configure-based upstream source I hope you've put autotools-dev in charge of keeping your config.* files up to date. ;-) W: ndpmon source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.1 (current is 3.9.2) My lintian says the current standard is 3.9.1, but OK. Then use the latest unstable or backports version. ;-) [...] I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon Recieved Received I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon adress address I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/sbin/ndpmon unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o Recieved Received I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/ndpmon.o adress address I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o unkown unknown I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-binary usr/src/ndpmon/neighbors.o unkown unknown E: ndpmon: helper-templates-in-copyright I: ndpmon: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man8/ndpmon.8.gz allows to allows one to I included patches to correct the spelling errors. The patches have not been sent upstream yet, but I will do that. The copyright file is in DEP5 format. Patches should have their headers in DEP-3 format. DEP-5 is for debian/changelog only. [...] Thanks for keeping us posted! Please also tell us when the next version is up on mentors.d.n for review. -- Best regards, Kilian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFOPbT0vdkzt4X+wX8RAszaAJ9nSKT/ZO80rgmuNXfk2p5Gc4g6FgCfXdGF X/yfR9rGOZU4YH4CIETfweE= =TRbN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- John R. Baskwill, jr...@psu.edu Systems Analyst, Information Technology Services Penn State Harrisburg W303 Olmsted Building 777 West Harrisburg Pike Middletown, PA 17057-4898 Phone: 717-948-6268 Fax: 717-948-6535 -- John R. Baskwill, jr...@psu.edu Systems Analyst, Information Technology Services Penn State Harrisburg W303 Olmsted Building 777 West Harrisburg Pike Middletown, PA 17057-4898 Phone: 717-948-6268 Fax: 717-948-6535
Re: RFS: haproxy (updated package)
On 08/06/2011 08:01 AM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Run lintian with -I --pedantic. Kind regards, Or even: lintian -Ii -E --pedantic Thomas -- 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/4e3dcf53.8080...@goirand.fr
