Re: RFS: xxxterm
Hi, [...] I've just uploaded a new package containing a rule that converts the icon into an xpm file. It removes the lintian error, making the package lintian clean. Here's the link to the package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xxxterm/xxxterm_1.518-1.dsc [...] Built, signed, and uploaded. Thanks a lot for your work, Michael pgp3d0J0hImwd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xxxterm
Hi Michael, On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: [...] Built, signed, and uploaded. Great! Thank you Cheers, -- Luis Henriques -- 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/20110905103133.GC2522@hades
Re: RFS: getstream
Hi! Hervé Rousseau he...@moulticast.net writes: On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 14:17, Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org wrote: The orig.tar.gz downloaded from the website differs from the orig.tar.gz in your package: 1144dc0180cedb494f6c7826e994fc3bcf7eebe4 getstream_20100616.orig.tar.gz.website 1e45acb2b75b6da9ecd446408f04dd2631c5f71f getstream_20100616.orig.tar.gz.mentors Is there any reason for that? Hi ! I guess I unpacked the archive and did some changes I forgot to reverse and start again from the original .tgz... I have re-uploaded the package on mentors.debian.net with the proper original archive from upstream's website. I'm mostly fine with uploading. However I'm wondering about the licensing. I couldn't find any information about a license apart from a single file that claims to be taken from the kernel and being GPLv2 (not GPLv2 or later like in debian/copyright though that doesn't matter probably as it was Public Domain before). Is there any claim hidden somwhere that the rest of getstream is GPLv2? Regards Christoph -- 9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731 Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer -- 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/878vq3w79g@hepworth.siccegge.de
Tracking RFSs as bugs
Hi, I've been thinking about how mentors works lately (after watching Asheesh's debconf11 talk). It seems like the 4 day response effort worked somewhat well for a while, but kind of tailed off, and I've been pondering what could be done instead that would have some staying power. I've noticed that the release team has a lot of success addressing their issues in a rather timely manner. I think that this success comes from the fact that they treat all of the items they need to accomplish as bugs [0]. So, as requests get old, they notice that and do something about it (or they just close it out if the submitter isn't responsive). Anyway, I think mentors could greatly benefit from a similar work flow. So, I was wondering if there were any thoughts on setting up a mentors.debian.net pseudo-package [1]? It seems like all of the existing ones are debian.org features, so I'm not sure if that would require mentors becoming an official .org service first or not? Anyway, I think this could be a really significant improvement to the mentors culture. Best wishes, Mike [0] http://bugs.debian.org/release.debian.org [1] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages -- 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/20110905151209.05edc47147b9d5355c42c...@gmail.com
RFS: roxterm (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package roxterm. * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.1.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-3+ Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: roxterm- Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator roxterm-common - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator roxterm-gtk2 - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator roxterm-gtk3 - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/roxterm Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_2.1.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Tony Houghton -- 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/20110905204848.1b81ab3a@tiber.centauri
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
Hi Michael, hi all, (keeping Don CC'ed) [...] I've noticed that the release team has a lot of success addressing their issues in a rather timely manner. I think that this success comes from the fact that they treat all of the items they need to accomplish as bugs [0]. So, as requests get old, they notice that and do something about it (or they just close it out if the submitter isn't responsive). [...] I'm all for tracking RFS in some more formal way, it would quite a bit reduce the load on my inbox (which I'm currently using for tracking). There is one fundamental difference, however, to, e.g, the release team: there is no *team*. Who are they in case of sponsoring? What makes the situation worse is that the number of people filing RFS is unbounded, this process is open to everyone (don't get me wrong, this is a good thing in general). I don't think technical infrastructure alone will solve those problems. In fact, mentors.debian.net would already have all the necessary infrastructure: packages are uploaded there and hence tracked. It is possible to leave comments, and maybe this whole RFS business should just move over to mentors.debian.net. Oh, and with all this moaning about RFS not being dealt with in a timely manner: true, we don't manage to get packages reviewed and sponsored within 4 days, but is the situation really that bad at the moment? Are there any packages older than one month still waiting for sponsorship? Best, Michael pgpThnq9RAMkD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: cppcheck, new upstream version 1.50
Hi, On 08/31/2011 10:22 PM, Reijo Tomperi wrote: George Danchev wrote: On Monday, August 15, 2011 12:41:29 AM Reijo Tomperi wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/package/cppcheck Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cppcheck/cppcheck_1.50-1.dsc JFYI, also hinting co-sponsors :) I'll try to have a look in the coming days, unless someone did it before me. A couple of weeks has passed. Any progress with this? uploaded, after a build failure in the first version was fixed. Joachim -- 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/4e652d2...@gmx.de
RFS: libpam-tacplus
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libpam-tacplus. * Package name: libpam-tacplus Version : 1.3.5-1 Upstream Author : Jeroen Nijhof jer...@nijhofnet.nl * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/tacplus * License : GPLv2 Section : admin It builds those binary packages: libpam-tacplus - TACACS+ protocol client library and PAM module in C To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libpam-tacplus Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-tacplus/libpam-tacplus_1.3.5-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. With kind regards, Jeroen Nijhof signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Packaging php app/scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I have simple app in php and would like to package it. Source is in git (2 branches; upstream and debian, gbp.conf is pointing into these branches). I used dh_make to debianised package, relevant packages has been edited. When running git buildpackage final deb package is containing only docs in usr/share/doc/[package] dir (dh_installdocs i surnning as meant). When I'm trying to override_dh_install with dh_install --sourcedir=src I'm still having: cp: cannot stat `debian/tmp/src/index.php': No such file or directory My whole php app code is in src directory, so all files from this dir should be copied into package and they aren't. But package_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz created during build process is containing all files I need. Can anybody point me what should I change to achieve my goal? Thx for any help in advance. - -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam | |0|0|0| kuLa - | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0xC100B4CA -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOZTS+AAoJEOqHloDBALTK/NAIAL2JU9GrQ+t+vxWfLMrMdpcl EEzaodKTjovTTBfe6wXgNm6TDyRUW6+CUBb0eYiPUxEHQIpLWQPtd6iBs/BEo5rn 9SnRrEV4pUFDBmQMKI4GNBv27oyYSo/HFS5ZOEYcHSJZXyzitHi+lkkbQP8e18jD KOioOk/33YAotDJF8On2jqIoKIEkHsI20LbNPAiZzy2+25YLbm+EafwZe9e3/fwU 7DyLf8OzqvyUqQBguLv4UBWCmJ/jsMdnCD9SUtu8Q5KCIBPL1ABJYccPYUW8kUjR yWAwVaV0iP1eDaug3ZuvDFRpE1L5MRo8zAjorirvPg9RlnH6sPYcIujx8JckO3I= =Eb0Y -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/4e6534be.5060...@kulisz.net
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
* Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org, 2011-09-05, 20:51: I've noticed that the release team has a lot of success addressing their issues in a rather timely manner. I think that this success comes from the fact that they treat all of the items they need to accomplish as bugs [0]. So, as requests get old, they notice that and do something about it (or they just close it out if the submitter isn't responsive). This is not a new idea: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2002/08/msg00262.html I'm all for tracking RFS in some more formal way, it would quite a bit reduce the load on my inbox (which I'm currently using for tracking). Same here. There is one fundamental difference, however, to, e.g, the release team: there is no *team*. Who are they in case of sponsoring? What makes the situation worse is that the number of people filing RFS is unbounded, this process is open to everyone (don't get me wrong, this is a good thing in general). I don't think technical infrastructure alone will solve those problems. Of course it won't, but that's not a reason not to think about improvements. In fact, mentors.debian.net would already have all the necessary infrastructure: packages are uploaded there and hence tracked. It is possible to leave comments, and maybe this whole RFS business should just move over to mentors.debian.net. I can't talk to debexpo using my MUA. This is a big no-go for me. Oh, and with all this moaning about RFS not being dealt with in a timely manner: true, we don't manage to get packages reviewed and sponsored within 4 days, but is the situation really that bad at the moment? Are there any packages older than one month still waiting for sponsorship? Probably dozens of them... -- 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/20110905204611.ga...@jwilk.net
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
On 05/09/2011 20:51, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Oh, and with all this moaning about RFS not being dealt with in a timely manner: true, we don't manage to get packages reviewed and sponsored within 4 days, but is the situation really that bad at the moment? Are there any packages older than one month still waiting for sponsorship? I was going to reply to this and say that my angband-audio package has been waiting for six months (it was uploaded on 27 Feb) - but I went to check on it and I see it has disappeared! I did not receive any email about this - are old packages deleted from m.d.n after a certain time? Not to worry, I'll re-upload it and make another RFS. No moaning from me btw - I am sure there are many more RFSs than there are sponsors. I just wish it wasn't so hard to reach DM. CC -- 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/4e6535ed.3060...@gmail.com
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:51:47 +0100 Michael Tautschnig wrote: I'm all for tracking RFS in some more formal way, it would quite a bit reduce the load on my inbox (which I'm currently using for tracking). There is one fundamental difference, however, to, e.g, the release team: there is no *team*. Who are they in case of sponsoring? Well, perhaps its time to formalize that? Let's make mentors a .org and get the DPL to do some official appointments. I'm willing to volunteer for that (I'm only a DM now, but I've run into enough limitations with my DM status lately that I'm starting to feel like I should really be going for DD now). Who else is willing to volunteer? What makes the situation worse is that the number of people filing RFS is unbounded, this process is open to everyone (don't get me wrong, this is a good thing in general). I agree, this is a very good thing. I'm hoping this approach will make supporting so many people a more tractable thing. I don't think technical infrastructure alone will solve those problems. In fact, mentors.debian.net would already have all the necessary infrastructure: packages are uploaded there and hence tracked. It is possible to leave comments, and maybe this whole RFS business should just move over to mentors.debian.net. Yes, the new infrastructure really is an improvement, but it does have some issues, which of course may be easily fixable with the current framework. For example, discussion on the mentor's package pages isn't reproduced on the mentors ML and vice versa; as would be done with a BTS package and associated mailing list. There is no email-based option to the web interface. Also, aestetically, the new mentors system reproduces functionality already available via the bug system. Finally, and maybe this is because the oldness only goes back to July now, there isn't really as sense of what's old and thus a candidate to close out; and even so it's not possible to close out other's packages (with an option to reopen) like on the BTS. Also, a very useful thing (I think) would be reportbug integration. Thus submitters would be able to reference their existing ITP submission and not have to re-enter the same information in their RFS (this duplication has always irked me about the mentors process). Oh, and with all this moaning about RFS not being dealt with in a timely manner: true, we don't manage to get packages reviewed and sponsored within 4 days, but is the situation really that bad at the moment? I'm not trying to bemoan the situation; just trying to be proactive and thoughtful about finding ways to make it better. Are there any packages older than one month still waiting for sponsorship? You can see all of the packages currently in limbo at [0]; although it's not currently possible to select only those older than a month (although that too could probably be implemented relatively easily with the new expo framework). I for example have a set of old packages awaiting further review [1]. Admittedly a lot of those are back in my court to fix some issues, and its my fault for forgetting about them; although I feel like I would be less inclined to do that if they were tracked as bugs and tagged with moreinfo (although then again something similar could be implemented on mentors), and with someone poking me every now and then saying this is really old and you haven't worked on it, so we're going to close it. So, anway it boils down to the fact that the BTS already has all of these wonderful features, and mentors could get them, but if they're already available why go though the duplicative process? If I could choose, my approach would be to go the BTS route and better integrate the mentors pages with that and vice versa. Best wishes, Mike [0] http://mentors.debian.net/packages/index [1] http://mentors.debian.net/packages/uploader/michael.s.gilbert%40gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110905164959.82ca09ae.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011, Michael Gilbert wrote: I was wondering if there were any thoughts on setting up a mentors.debian.net pseudo-package [1]? The real question is whether a number of people who are responding to RFS are willing to participate in a pseudopackage like that. I personally don't have a problem with creating one (I expect it would have debian-mentors@lists.debian.org as its maintainer, with mentors.debian.org as the pseudopackage name) if there is significant buy-in from people doing sponsoring that this would assist them in finding and tracking packages that they are interested in sponsoring. Don Armstrong BTW: there's no need to keep me CC'ed, as I'm subscribed to -mentors (and in general, ow...@bugs.debian.org is the right role address to e-mail for these things.) -- It was a very familiar voice. [...] It was a voice you could have used to open a bottle of whine. -- Terry Pratchett _The Last Continent_ p270 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- 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/20110905205146.gn10...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Becoming DM [was: Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs]
Hi, [...] No moaning from me btw - I am sure there are many more RFSs than there are sponsors. I just wish it wasn't so hard to reach DM. [...] Could you please be more precise about that last bit? What exactly is hard about becoming DM? I really wish more people applied for DM. Sponsoring the same package more than a few times makes little sense in most cases (there are exceptions, and I for one are regularly sponsoring at least one such exception). Best, Michael pgpYNApHKtMWq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
Hi, [...] This is not a new idea: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2002/08/msg00262.html Thanks a lot for the pointer, indeed this is an interesting read (well, the technical part of that). [...] I can't talk to debexpo using my MUA. This is a big no-go for me. Fully agreed. [...] I'll continue in another subthread, just wanted to note those bits here. Best, Michael pgpnFqr7gxeM6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packaging php app/scripts
06.09.2011 00:44, kuLa пишет: Hi all, I have simple app in php and would like to package it. Source is in git (2 branches; upstream and debian, gbp.conf is pointing into these branches). I used dh_make to debianised package, relevant packages has been edited. When running git buildpackage final deb package is containing only docs in usr/share/doc/[package] dir (dh_installdocs i surnning as meant). When I'm trying to override_dh_install with dh_install --sourcedir=src I'm still having: cp: cannot stat `debian/tmp/src/index.php': No such file or directory My whole php app code is in src directory, so all files from this dir should be copied into package and they aren't. But package_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz created during build process is containing all files I need. Can anybody point me what should I change to achieve my goal? Thx for any help in advance. Would be nice if you show all files in ./debian (and its content) -- 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/4e653d0c.5090...@gmail.com
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello everyone, as I see this discussion going on, I think I should inform you about some things going on on mentors.d.n right now: * Asheesh and we are steadily improving features on Debexpo (the software behind mentors.d.n). Its not finished yet, and misses some features we would like to add. * I was thinking to implement a debian-mentors - Debexpo bridge to import comments made on the mailing list to Expo. There are some stub functions available, if you are interested have a look to our devel branch [1]. This is something to come in future. Basically I will grab RFS comments made on the mailing list, and import them to the package history on Debexpo. More advanced plans include to keep track of the entire package history. If someone else is willing to assist me here: any help is appreciated. That would not change the workflow for MUA fans out there. * As a result on the dc11 sponsorship BoF, I think, one of the most useful additions to Expo would be sponsor metrics [2]. I prepared a newsletter together with David Bremner which is in the pipeline and we will probably send it out very soon, as I get my stuff on Expo regarding that done. * Lucas Nussbaum made a very interesting proposal to make a social peer-to-peer review platform out of Debexpo. Basically his idea was to have some karma / teams. Have a look to [3][4] get the idea. * Debexpo did not lose packages being uploaded to the old Mentors infrastructure before we switched. For technical reasons we don't have the precise upload date and/or package description available. So I gave those uploads a random legacy upload date. Besides they are fully functional. * We need more contributors to Debexpo. We have a lot of (wishlist) bugs. Let me hear if anyone is interested to step in. On 05.09.2011 23:09, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Could you please be more precise about that last bit? What exactly is hard about becoming DM? The fact, you won't find sponsors easily which makes it pretty hard to find someone who advocates you. Here is more to come on the newsletter I announced above. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debexpo/debexpo.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/devel [2] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsNet#Metrics [3] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313252group_id=100127atid=413115 [4] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313253group_id=100127atid=413115 - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOZT6pAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtxAcQAKuPnlmV+XSNuUUtXDeHWZ72 pNnoh3iURW7u8a+Cgtz7q8Oi+Y/WDl+X1MbQRQWs/F1tmm0W7aG8k42DHT2sOFFn 85aG+Rh3qlzjsEW98ahw0VtYo00Lm3BA2OdxWNnxlL3RgYeeh/JF54oqCvuLAypo Sh5UFw910Mz0F/7PuN6Obma3cVL82OShUE/lNDitvKZi1OXQ6+9ZFd5YIMd7mDYM jo2IWbwG80+qiM4q/pQDj1jUAs+H4esYHw51Ji3JiHa5AFU1/pQb8CoENlZsuntr mImwrmxwvHzL2wPtW3SdVIhPix/5Z+Bif4t1/C8NR+pzXEhkE0hIfMDEbdK3UcQa NrS6nizpcRG6LkIru79guOfRZZiXOCSEV4RrGyv745jH9L7KZiNhjYJMn/1E4Th4 LG9ilK6QrM7r/cdxd7Vl7tgh45jI5RXJQeAvXom4tZWuuS5gfMJnEPk3lkrOTAz0 XeGUzAblbOcoyvod40MrStEhQ11JgH48hRE3zjk+w8xFCVJOoPV0BVROGrFpy6DR usERHjSvnNErzVMqcEtIYHULEGT/EBr4ViMUtcG4r9yoC7eijasc7Z4ICb+vUgFJ UlACoaQcQlrjDXqsvr8jceG1qI3gQWz4BVc4IKgr+RWivBeggnR31xeBQZTC5Gcc LMD9K/nv3lQbFNpwky2U =skHm -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/4e653eaa.7080...@toell.net
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
Le Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:46:11PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org, 2011-09-05, 20:51: I've noticed that the release team has a lot of success addressing their issues in a rather timely manner. I think that this success comes from the fact that they treat all of the items they need to accomplish as bugs [0]. So, as requests get old, they notice that and do something about it (or they just close it out if the submitter isn't responsive). This is not a new idea: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2002/08/msg00262.html And http://wiki.debian.org/PackageReview :) By the way, I find it also a bit strange that while a lot of developement in Debian is now done in version control systems, the paradigm of sponsoring is still centered on source packages instead of checkouts… This may also be one reason why some RFS take some time to be transformed in uploads. 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/20110905231257.ga6...@merveille.plessy.net
RFS: django-autoslug
Dear mentors ( padawans) , First of all, as it's my initial post here ; so I just wanted to say Hi to you all, I hope we'll happy-hack together :-). I'll mainly work with Python packaging, as it's a language I know well, love fairly. I use some nice pieces of python software missing just the deb packaging to hit the full awesomeness rank, sounds like a mission for me :-) I am looking for a sponsor for my package django-autoslug. * Package name : django-autoslug Version : 1.4.1-1 Upstream Author: Andy Mikhailenko a...@neithere.net * URL: http://bitbucket.org/neithere/django-autoslug/ * License: LGPL-3 Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-django-autoslug - Automated slug field for Django. To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/django-autoslug Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-autoslug/django-autoslug_1.4.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I tried to stick to naming used with other django apps in debian. My goal is to package snowy (http://live.gnome.org/Snowy ), a notes sync server. But first, I'll package its missing dependencies, which is a good thing cause packaging a django project seems a bit difficult for a first Debian package. So, python-django-autoslug is normaly the first of a serie of packages. By the way, it's my first ever package submited to Debian, so it certainly contains some begginer-errors… Best regards, -- Jocelyn Delalande Blog (fr) http://hackriculture.fr Home http://crapouillou.net/~jocelyn IRC JocelynD /OFTC -- 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/4e655f3f.60...@hackriculture.fr
Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 22:46:11 +0200 Jakub Wilk wrote: This is not a new idea: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2002/08/msg00262.html After reading through that old discussion, I conclude that the highly confrontational approach chosen by Raphael at that time lead to people basically tuning him out, and eventually leading to the death of the idea. That's unfortunate since that pursuit eliminated the BTS as a solution for the past 9 years, which could have greatly improved the mentors situation a long time ago. Anyway that's all in the past, and not worth worrying about anymore :) So, the two quantified issues back then were that RFS bugs would be large in number and that there would be BTS spam on the mentors ML. Given that there are over 600,000 debian bugs now, I don't thing the large number argument holds water any more. As for BTS spam, I've followed the debian-release ML for a long time, and have had no problem basically ignoring it. So I think the quantifiable/technical opposition doesn't really exist anymore; although some of the personalities that originally opposed the idea are still around. Also, while I'm thinking about it, there really good benefits of reportbug integration. For example, scripts could be built to automatically CC the relevant teams (i.e. games, java, etc.). I see this is also part of the debexpo plan [0]. Also, for example I help with the security team, and it would be helpful to have a Security NMU category that CC's the security team. Also, an RC NMU category could be created for RFSs fixing release-critical bugs (this would help newbies contribute to the release process). And of course the BTS has MUA integration (also in the debexpo plan). So, I feel like I could update reportbugs' debbugs.py script relatively quickly to be able to support these things (given some free time, which I should be able to find in the next couple weeks). So, anyway, I'll plan on looking into that. [0] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313253group_id=100127atid=413115 Best wishes, Mike -- 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/20110905200304.bc515ba7.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
