Re: RFS: dwm (Adapted package)
Hello Michael, On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote: Hm. So I become curious and looked into its homepage -- http://dwm.suckless.org/ . And there, there's one interesting note: Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions. There are some distributions that provide binary packages though. Maybe there should be no binaries really? :) Yes dwm is configured in config.h before compilation but things we can configure are bare minimum like fonts terminal command and keyboard shortcuts. Currently this package builds default config and one alternative called dwm-web. When I asked previous maintainer what this binary was for, he told its used here http://webconverger.org so I left as it is. We can provide different alternative dwm package with different config.h file there has been discussion on this [1] [2]. But I think after this I think first maintainer Orphaned this package. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=493819 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=557429 Best Regards -- Vasudev Kamath http://vasudevkamath.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/vasudevkamath -- 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/CAK+NOPXtKnuysEFd=T1BEhX8VJ=xTKwoFuenA�xr0fxlg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: debian/rules override_dh_auto_build-indep
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:25:27AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2011-11-10 08:20, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: I have been trying to split indep operations from the rest on the activiz.net package, see: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med/trunk/packages/activiz.net/trunk/debian/rules?view=markup However the -indep rules are still being called on the buildd machine: Eg: http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=activiz.netarch=s390xver=5.6.1-2stamp=1320869304 [...] Am I missing something here ? This is one of the real issue behind the optional build-arch/build-indep targets; since they are optional dpkg-buildpackage/buildds do not use them. Therefore, you cannot rely on them as a maintainer (yet). [...] Agreed with all Niels comments. Your source package is fine; the issue is that dpkg-buildpackage (run by sbuild on the buildds) calls: debian/rules build debian/rules binary-arch when it should be running debian/rules build-arch debian/rules binary-arch I wrote a patch to fix this some time back, and it was discussed by the TC months ago. I guess it needs chasing up to get it applied. Once that's done, it will Just Work. buildd can make the decision to run build-indep, I am ok with it. What I am not ok with, is when buildd are setup to run build-indep rules, but do not respect B-D-I ! That does not make any sense for me. It doesn't make any sense because it /is/ broken, but we are trying to rectify this. Hopefully for the next Debian stable release, we'll have a sane situation. I've also got a separate dpkg patch to introduce Build-Depends-Arch, so you will then be able to use Build-Depends for generic depends e.g. debhelper, and move the arch- and indep-specific deps into their own place. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. -- 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/2011094829.gv28...@codelibre.net
Re: RFS: stumpwm
Hi David, David Banks amoe...@gmail.com writes: Hi Desmond, On 07/11/11 18:05, Desmond O. Chang wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package stumpwm. I am not a DD so I can't upload your package. However I am a stumpwm user, except I have been using the upstream git version until now because I initially had trouble using the Debian package and didn't have the time to troubleshoot. Technically the package looks fine, it builds cleanly in a sid chroot. Lintian has one pedantic warning: P: stumpwm: copyright-refers-to-symlink-license usr/share/common-licenses/GPL You may want to change that to GPL-2. You might want to use DEP-3 for patches. Consider updating your DEP-5 formatting: Format-Specification - Format Upstream-Source - Source Upstream-Maintainer - Upstream-Contact And you need to expand the short name for the license GPL-3+. I will rewrite debian/* in some future releases. I faced some problems in using the package. Initially, both clisp and sbcl would complain about Component 'stumpwm' not found. I eventually found out that I needed a symlink: /usr/share/common-lisp/systems/stumpwm.asd - /usr/share/common-lisp/source/stumpwm/stumpwm.asd I presume the package was meant to set this link up itself, but for some reason it didn't. I installed it using 'dpkg -i' after building it with 'debuild'. Once I had set up the symlink, I was able to load and use stumpwm successfully with both SBCL and CLISP. This is a bug of cl-asdf. See #647544. Stumpwm doesn't create the symlink because ASDF2 searches *.asd in /usr/share/common-lisp/source/ by default. In 2:2.018-1, due to #647544, cl-asdf searches in /usr/common-lisp/source/, which doesn't exist. Certainly you can make a symlink in /usr/share/common-lisp/systems/, but this won't fix #647544. The reason why it works is the file '/etc/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/01-common-lisp-controller.conf'. $ cat /etc/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/01-common-lisp-controller.conf (:directory #p/usr/share/common-lisp/systems/) If you have a user-level config file like this, ASDF will not find stumpwm even the symlink exists: $ cat ~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf ;; -*- mode: lisp -*- (:source-registry (:default-registry) (:ignore-inherited-configuration)) I would give you some more detailed feedback on using the package, but at the moment I am using stumpwm with GNOME 3 (in fallback mode) and my configuration -- which is pretty fragile -- was broken. I believe this is because upstream git defaults to compiling an SBCL image as a binary, which has a marginally faster startup time. Because the packaged version of stumpwm loads slightly slower, GNOME is (most times!) able to load its panel first, causing Stumpwm to load on top of it, which breaks the ability to use the GNOME panel. [Suggestions welcome, I don't consider this a bug in the stump package because using stump with the GNOME panel seems to be quite a bizarre and non-recommended configuration. I have been meaning to migrate away from it but didn't get the time.] I never use gnome so I don't know how to solve it. But I find this on the mailing list: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.stumpwm.devel/1424/ If it doesn't help, you can post your problem to the mailing list. Thanks, Des -- 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/d2178d15-f9af-42ed-98f0-cb375e36a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ITS: scrotwm (already in Debian)
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:13:04PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: [1] Strictly speaking the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS from should overrule the upstream ones if there are conflicts. Fixing that is left as an exercise to the reader. ;) Can’t think of a way of doing that without patching the Makefile. But then again, patching the Makefile is no big deal. If you are going to send a patch upstream anyway, you might as well make it possible to insert user *FLAGS after the upstream flags. ;) I ended up doing just that: I’ve introduced a MAINT_* version of all the variables, and changed the build rules so that the MAINT_* version is used just before the user–settable version. I’ve also noticed that the makefile snippet exporting the hardening build flags takes care of enabling optimization and handling DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt itself, which is nice. I will talk to upstream about enabling optimization by default. The updated package is up on mentors.debian.net, let me know what you think of it. Cheers. PS: No need to CC me, I’m subscribed to the list. -- Andrea Bolognani e...@kiyuko.org Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: php-pecl-http - extended HTTP support for php5
Hi, On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:53:44 PM Peter Pentchev wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my new package php-pecl-http. I am not a Debian Developer, so I cannot upload/sponsor, but I would like to vote +1 for that packge :-). I've looked over it and found a few things: * The get-orig-source target is really strange. ** It only works from the debian/ directory ** It removes some files without -f that simply aren't there ** It appears to repackage the source tar * I couldn't get your debian/watch file to work, this one works: http://pecl.php.net/package/pecl_http \ /get/pecl_http-([\d\.]*).tgz debian * Consider using a machine readable debian/copyright file. Doc is here: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ and an example of a file I recently wrote: http://git.fsinf.at/apt/restauth/blobs/master/python- mimeparse-0.1.3/debian/copyright greetings, Mati -- me on twitter: @mathiasertl | soup: http://soup.er.tl I only read plain-text mail! I prefer signed/encrypted mail! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: couriergrey
Dear mentors, On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 04:40:13PM +0100, Marco Balmer wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package couriergrey. * Package name: couriergrey Version : 0.2.2-1 Upstream Author : Matthias Wimmer m...@tthias.eu * URL : http://couriergrey.com * License : GPL-3 Section : net This version was successfully built in a clean chroot (unstable): dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/couriergrey/couriergrey_0.3.0.1-1.dsc Lintian shows: I: couriergrey: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/courier/filters/couriergrey Lenght Length Upstream author is informed about this. :) I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me or give me remarks. Thank you, Kind regards, Marco Balmer signature.asc Description: GnuPG Signature
RFS: shedskin
Dear mentors, (This is just a notification about another release of the package to the mentors site. This release of the package fixes a few things helpfully pointed out by Jakub Wilk. Unless people regard it as a redundant course of action, I also intend to contact the debian-python list to try and find a sponsor.) I am looking for a sponsor for my package shedskin. * Package name: shedskin Version : 0.9-1 Upstream Author : Mark Dufour mark.duf...@gmail.com * URL : http://shedskin.googlecode.com/ * License : GPL-3+ Section : python It builds those binary packages: shedskin - Python-to-C++ compiler designed to speed up Python programs To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/shedskin Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x \ http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shedskin/shedskin_0.9-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Paul Boddie -- 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/20112032.38375.p...@boddie.org.uk
RFS: ttysnoop
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor of the package ttysnoop. Package name: ttysnoop Version : 0.12d-5 Upstream Author : Carl Declerck URL : extinct License : GPL Section : admin It builds a single binary package: ttysnoop - allows you to spy on telnet+serial connections Access to information on this package is available at http://mentors.debian.net/package/ttysnoop A direct download of the deposited package is possible by the call dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttysnoop/ttysnoop_0.12d-5.dsc The present update achieves full support for GNU/kFreeBSD, which was the intended goal at this time. Best regards, Mats Erik Andersson, DM -- 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/2011220317.gb24...@mea.homelinux.org
Re: ITS: scrotwm (already in Debian)
On 2011-11-11 11:22, Andrea Bolognani wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:13:04PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi [...] If you are going to send a patch upstream anyway, you might as well make it possible to insert user *FLAGS after the upstream flags. ;) I ended up doing just that: I’ve introduced a MAINT_* version of all the variables, and changed the build rules so that the MAINT_* version is used just before the user–settable version. I’ve also noticed that the makefile snippet exporting the hardening build flags takes care of enabling optimization and handling DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt itself, which is nice. Indeed, unfortunately it comes at the price of a version Build-Depends on dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~). You may be able to ditch it by using -include in d/rules, but then you have to handle noopt manually in case dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~) is not available I will talk to upstream about enabling optimization by default. :) The updated package is up on mentors.debian.net, let me know what you think of it. Cheers. PS: No need to CC me, I’m subscribed to the list. Besides the issue mentioned above, it looks okay. I can add the B-D on dpkg-dev if you want (It will save you an upload to mentors). ~Niels -- 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/4ebdad74.90...@thykier.net
Re: ITS: scrotwm (already in Debian)
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:19:16AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: I’ve also noticed that the makefile snippet exporting the hardening build flags takes care of enabling optimization and handling DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt itself, which is nice. Indeed, unfortunately it comes at the price of a version Build-Depends on dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~). You may be able to ditch it by using -include in d/rules, but then you have to handle noopt manually in case dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~) is not available How did I miss that? Great catch! A fixed package is available, as usual, from mentors.debian.net. Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani e...@kiyuko.org Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ITS: scrotwm (already in Debian)
On 2011-11-12 01:16, Andrea Bolognani wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:19:16AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: I’ve also noticed that the makefile snippet exporting the hardening build flags takes care of enabling optimization and handling DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt itself, which is nice. Indeed, unfortunately it comes at the price of a version Build-Depends on dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~). You may be able to ditch it by using -include in d/rules, but then you have to handle noopt manually in case dpkg-dev (= 1.16.1~) is not available How did I miss that? Great catch! A fixed package is available, as usual, from mentors.debian.net. Cheers. Uploaded, thanks for your contribution. :) ~Niels -- 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/4ebe24d8.9090...@thykier.net
