Re: building debug and release with new style debhelper
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Richard Ulrich wrote: The problem I'm facin is that I don't know how to handle the fact that I want to build debug and release with cmake. I think you should instead drop the debug build, those aren't shipped in Debian usually. That's not really what I want. The packages I'm building (richbool and modassert) are mainly concerned with providing information about failed asserts in debug code. So the debug builds are actually more important than the release ones. Are release builds still necessary then? I'm even considering to make the librichbool-dev package depend on the librichbool-dbg package. Note that -dbg packages usually contain only detached debug symbols, and you seem to build two separate libraries with the same soname but different compilation options and package them into libfoo and libfoo-dbg, is that true? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#697241: marked as done (RFS: libscalar-does-perl/0.11-01-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:23:45 +0200 with message-id 1364981025.4973.1.camel@celpetit and subject line Closing bug: libscalar-does-perl is already uploaded has caused the Debian Bug report #697241, regarding RFS: libscalar-does-perl/0.11-01-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 697241: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697241 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libscalar-does-perl * Package name: libscalar-does-perl Version : 0.11-01-1 Upstream Author : Toby Inkster toby...@cpan.org * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~tobyink/Scalar-Does/ * License : Artistic Section : perl It builds those binary packages: libscalar-does-perl - Like ref() but useful To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libscalar-does-perl Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libs/libscalar-does-perl/libscalar-does-perl_0.11-01-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Initial Release. (Closes: #697236) Regards, Oleg Gashev ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- I'm closing this bug since this package has already been uploaded: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/libscalar-does-perl Regards---End Message---
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
at bottom :- On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Cameron Hart cameron.h...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for promoting my premake 4 RFS Shirish :) I'd also point out that the open source game 0ad uses premake 4 and the Bullet physics library recently moved from cmake to premake 4 (though cmake is still supported for now). On 2 February 2013 01:12, shirish शिरीष shirisha...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Can anybody look and sponsor an ITP done by a gentleman for premake 4 ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696899 If for nothing else, then it's needed to play ToME http://www.te4.org/requirements You also need the following tools: a C compiler (like GNU GCC or mingw for windows) premake4 and on wnpp.debian.net there are quite a few installs by people. http://wnpp.debian.net/?type[]=ITPproject=premakedescription=owner[]=yesowner[]=nocol[]=dustcol[]=typecol[]=descriptioncol[]=installssort=project Looking forward to somebody doing the same. P.S. :- I did check if it's stuck in ftp-master NEW queue or something but no, it's not there. Till l8er. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 -- 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/cadddzrkepfz-6kx-2ycvoaw521rcgq8z9y89advwxx+c1qf...@mail.gmail.com There seems to be no luck on finding RFS for premake, with SDL 2.0 in the archive, that is the only dependancy left before ToME can be asked for packaging. ToME - te4.org Looking forward for some update on this . -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 -- 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/cadddzrn_jehry1djsrtkbd1fgjxptigktspp50vzwdvxmx1...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release • Personally in the prior-to-first-upload stage I think it's better to not have multiple versions for each package revision, i.e., continually create 4.3-1 versions with a single changelog entry, and to use the versions only to distinguish instances of the package uploaded to the main archive. • is the double colon in the rules file some kind of cdbs thing? • the source package contains debian/stamp-makefile-check • rename-changelog.diff: this is the wrong approach to rename a file. Move it in the debian/rules file instead (after dh_installdocs would be run. I don't know much about cdbs so not sure which rule to override) -- 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/20130403104753.GD5048@debian
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote: • is the double colon in the rules file some kind of cdbs thing? I'm curious about that too. I've seen double colons in cdbs debian/rules files before, but I don't understand what having double colons is supposed to do for you... • rename-changelog.diff: this is the wrong approach to rename a file. Move it in the debian/rules file instead (after dh_installdocs would be run. I don't know much about cdbs so not sure which rule to override) You're looking for DEB_INSTALL_CHANGELOGS_ALL := CHANGES.txt (which is already in debian/rules). Incidentally, rename-changelog.diff isn't even listed in the series file; why not just drop it? Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tCu-1hKmc1OcsQcoGtTgFLdtvKmyyAJuzO=qeaqm-5...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release Just for the record, I'm not really sure whether this is true for new packages - I think newborn packages are not considered for testing migration at all, are they? G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org p.penc...@storpool.com PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 This sentence no verb. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
2013/4/3 Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release Just for the record, I'm not really sure whether this is true for new packages - I think newborn packages are not considered for testing migration at all, are they? New packages can be targeted for unstable. I have uploaded many packages in unstable after freeze http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/ruby-delorean/news/20130318T230010Z.html New versions of existing packages, not fixing rc bugs cannot be uploaded to unstable now. -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. -- 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/caoo+evqkoedttsstkf7dxzo75xx07f7+5+bmjedlkfvdak9...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
On 04/03/2013 01:12 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release Just for the record, I'm not really sure whether this is true for new packages - I think newborn packages are not considered for testing migration at all, are they? premake 3.7 is in Wheezy. Are they both needed? Cheers, Tobias -- 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/515c149e.6080...@debian.org
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
On 04/03/2013 01:57 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:27:48PM +0200, Tobias Hansen wrote: On 04/03/2013 01:12 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release Just for the record, I'm not really sure whether this is true for new packages - I think newborn packages are not considered for testing migration at all, are they? premake 3.7 is in Wheezy. Are they both needed? I think the submitter explained that in the first message in the bug log - http://bugs.debian.org/696899#5 :) The only reason why packages in unstable should not be updated is to keep the possibility to do updates of wheezy packages over unstable. New leafish packages in unstable are no problem at all. -- 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/515c1e8b.6020...@debian.org
Bug#696385: RFS: astromenace/1.3.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- hardcore 3D space shooter with spaceship upgrade possibilities
Hi Boris, In the rules file for astromenace data, you list fonts in /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-liberation/, but the files there are symlinks to files in /usr/share/fonts/truetype/liberation/. The symlinks are provided by a compatility package which is not listed in your build-dependencies, so building fails in a clean chroot. Can you fix that? There is a more serious problem. You copy font files which end-up (AFAIU) in gamedata.vfs. You therefore need to abide by the redistribution terms of the license of those fonts. The Debian way of insuring that in a generic manner (for DFSG-free material) would be to list the font packages in Built-Using. This ensures that the user can get the source for whatever ended-up in the binary package. The problem here is that astromenace-data is not in main but in non-free. I'm not sure that the Built-Using mechanism is sufficient to ensure that the source package for the fonts remain in the archive. Can you check that on -devel or -legal? Else I see two solutions: - copy (part of) the font source packages in astromenace-data (I didn't check: if the ttf files are their own source, you only need to copy them and amend debian/copyright); - pack gamedata.vfs on the end-user system to avoid redistribution. Kind regards, Thibaut. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#679049: marked as done (RFS: qpxtool/0.7.1.002-6 [QA] -- CD/DVD quality checker)
Your message dated Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:22:29 + with message-id e1unqsd-0006k6...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: qpxtool/0.7.1.002-6 [QA] -- CD/DVD quality checker has caused the Debian Bug report #679049, regarding RFS: qpxtool/0.7.1.002-6 [QA] -- CD/DVD quality checker to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 679049: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679049 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian...@lists.debian.org Hi, I am looking for a sponsor for the package qpxtool. It builds those binary packages: libqpx-dev - CD/DVD quality checker (development files) libqpx0 - CD/DVD quality checker (shared libraries) pxfw - Plextor firmware updater qpxtool - CD/DVD quality checker To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/qpxtool Direct link for download: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qpxtool/qpxtool_0.7.1.002-6.dsc Changes in the package: qpxtool (0.7.1.002-6) unstable; urgency=low * QA upload. * Bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (was 3.9.2). * Bumped debhelper version to 9 (was 7.0.50~); updated debian/compat. * Added file debian/patches/05-add-hardening-flags-in-compiler-options.patch. * Updated debian/rules: added hardening flags in compiler options. * Changed build dependency from libpng12-dev to libpng-dev. Added file debian/patches/04-fix-build-with-libpng15.patch. Added small hack in debian/rules (see LIBPNG_VER variable). Build with libpng version 1.5.10 was tested successfully. (Closes: #662481, #648127) * Used [kfreebsd-any] instead of hardcoded list of kFreeBSD architectures [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64] in build dependency. (Closes: #634714) * File debian/copyright was updated in according to Copyright format 1.0. * Fixed such lintian warnings and notes: - out-of-date-copyright-format-uri - hardening-no-relro and hardening-no-fortify-functions I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Best regards, Boris ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package qpxtool has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
Bug#704631: RFS: monobristol/0.60.3-2.1 [NMU] [RC]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package monobristol * Package name: monobristol Version : 0.60.3-2.1 Upstream Author : David Horvath d...@dacr.hu * URL : http://dacr.hu/monobristol * License : GPL-3+ Section : sound It builds those binary packages: monobristol - simple GUI for Bristol To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/monobristol Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/monobristol/monobristol_0.60.3-2.1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Non-maintainer upload. * Pass '-I .' to autoreconf to fix the configure generation (Closes: #704558) -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#696899: can anybody sponsor an ITP for premake4 ?
Replying to Jonathan's original message since it covered most things. On 3 April 2013 21:47, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote: A quick look - sorry for the terse feedback. I don't know much about cdbs which limits my ability to review it very well. • the changelog targets unstable, but should target experimental if you want an upload prior to wheezy's release From the discussion in the other messages it sounds like unstable is OK for a new package? • Personally in the prior-to-first-upload stage I think it's better to not have multiple versions for each package revision, i.e., continually create 4.3-1 versions with a single changelog entry, and to use the versions only to distinguish instances of the package uploaded to the main archive. This wasn't all that clear in the docs I read, but what you are saying makes sense. Now the trouble is I'm not sure how to get rid of the 4.3-2 version that's on mentors. I can delete the premake4 mentors page which seems like it's probably the way to go, but makes me slightly nervous. Can anyone advise on how to best remove the 4.3-2 upload? • is the double colon in the rules file some kind of cdbs thing? Yes. I don't know about the internals of cdbs but the build failed without it. • the source package contains debian/stamp-makefile-check I've removed this • rename-changelog.diff: this is the wrong approach to rename a file. Move it in the debian/rules file instead (after dh_installdocs would be run. I don't know much about cdbs so not sure which rule to override) As pointed out by Vincent, this is no longer used. I've removed the file. I haven't uploaded my changes yet, I thought I'd wait and see if anyone can advise me on removing the 4.3-2 version. -- 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/CAEkwfc5hvB3_+TAfzQEsu76H5iiwSzRk+NK27vtcwvNxy=a...@mail.gmail.com
Deleting uploads from mentors
Hi mentors, Last time I uploaded some fixes to my package (http://mentors.debian.net/package/premake4) to mentors I bumped the version number to 4.3-2. I've been advised (see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696899#64) that I shouldn't have done that since the package hasn't been uploaded to unstable yet. That makes sense, but it wasn't entirely clear to me at the time. So I'd like to delete the 4.3-2 upload, the only delete option I can see is to delete the whole package page from http://mentors.debian.net/package/premake4. Is this an OK way to get rid of it, delete the page and then re-upload? Thanks, Cameron -- 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/CAEkwfc7nz+G=d1trvhjaorf5xtu0zyfyog5l3ksqccqmvz9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Deleting uploads from mentors
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Cameron Hart cameron.h...@gmail.com wrote: Hi mentors, Last time I uploaded some fixes to my package (http://mentors.debian.net/package/premake4) to mentors I bumped the version number to 4.3-2. I've been advised (see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696899#64) that I shouldn't have done that since the package hasn't been uploaded to unstable yet. That makes sense, but it wasn't entirely clear to me at the time. So I'd like to delete the 4.3-2 upload, the only delete option I can see is to delete the whole package page from http://mentors.debian.net/package/premake4. Is this an OK way to get rid of it, delete the page and then re-upload? You can just re-upload your package as-is (with the same version, i.e. 4.3-1) and it'll overwrite what you've already uploaded, hence there's no need to delete your old package. Just keep in mind that the official repositories don't work like this though, so don't get used to it. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBw1=khgdbytw4qcvurm_qry97wirz--tb4xztzhpw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: building debug and release with new style debhelper
Am Mittwoch, den 03.04.2013, 09:33 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise: That's not really what I want. The packages I'm building (richbool and modassert) are mainly concerned with providing information about failed asserts in debug code. So the debug builds are actually more important than the release ones. I'm even considering to make the librichbool-dev package depend on the librichbool-dbg package. H. I started mixing in the overrides like below (not working yet). Am I on the right path with that? How about this (untested): %: dh $@ --buildsystem cmake --builddirectory=build-debian-release dh $@ --buildsystem cmake --builddirectory=build-debian-debug override_dh_auto_configure: dh_auto_configure --builddirectory=build-debian-release -- -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=Release dh_auto_configure --builddirectory=build-debian-debug -- -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=Debug I had to add some more overrides, but that got me on the right direction. It looks now a lot cleaner than what I tried previously. Thanks Richard -- 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/1365027211.8940.2.camel@quadulrich
Bug#704643: RFS: pidgin-latex/1.5.0-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pidgin-latex * Package name: pidgin-latex Version : 1.5.0-1 Upstream Author : Benjamin Moll q...@users.sourceforge.net * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pidgin-latex * License : GPL-2+ Section : net It builds those binary packages: pidgin-latex - Pidgin plugin to display LaTeX formulas To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pidgin-latex Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pidgin-latex/pidgin-latex_1.5.0-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://sourceforge.net/projects/pidgin-latex Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release * Updated Standards-Version to 3.9.4 * Bump debhelper compat to 9 * Upstream fixed background color in rendered images (Closes: #699009) * debian/copyright + Updated copyright format * debian/rules + Append CPPFLAGS to CFLAGS Regards, Elías Alejandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130403215423.GA3011@supersonic
Re: building debug and release with new style debhelper
Am Mittwoch, den 03.04.2013, 15:38 +0600 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin: The problem I'm facin is that I don't know how to handle the fact that I want to build debug and release with cmake. I think you should instead drop the debug build, those aren't shipped in Debian usually. That's not really what I want. The packages I'm building (richbool and modassert) are mainly concerned with providing information about failed asserts in debug code. So the debug builds are actually more important than the release ones. Are release builds still necessary then? I would say so. If an application is built in debug, it links the debug libs, and gets all the verbose output. If an application is built in release, it links the release build, which still can have some reporting, but reduced. I'm even considering to make the librichbool-dev package depend on the librichbool-dbg package. Note that -dbg packages usually contain only detached debug symbols, and you seem to build two separate libraries with the same soname but different compilation options and package them into libfoo and libfoo-dbg, is that true? Ok, then I pack the debug lib into the dev package. Rgds Richard -- 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/1365027424.8940.6.camel@quadulrich
Bug#704644: RFS: radiotray/0.7.3-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package radiotray * Package name: radiotray Version : 0.7.3-1 Upstream Author : Carlos Ribeiro carlosmribei...@gmail.com * URL : http://radiotray.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-1+ Section : sound It builds those binary packages: radiotray - online radio streaming player To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/radiotray Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/radiotray/radiotray_0.7.3-1.dsc More information about radiotray can be obtained from http://radiotray.sourceforge.net/ Also: Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/radiotray.git Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/radiotray.git;a=summary Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release (Closes: #703385) * Bump debhelper to 9 * debian/control + Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.4 * debian/copyright + Added new copyright owners Regards, Elías Alejandro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130403220216.GB3011@supersonic
Re: building debug and release with new style debhelper
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:17:04AM +0200, Richard Ulrich wrote: The problem I'm facin is that I don't know how to handle the fact that I want to build debug and release with cmake. I think you should instead drop the debug build, those aren't shipped in Debian usually. That's not really what I want. The packages I'm building (richbool and modassert) are mainly concerned with providing information about failed asserts in debug code. So the debug builds are actually more important than the release ones. Are release builds still necessary then? I would say so. If an application is built in debug, it links the debug libs, and gets all the verbose output. If an application is built in release, it links the release build, which still can have some reporting, but reduced. I'm even considering to make the librichbool-dev package depend on the librichbool-dbg package. Note that -dbg packages usually contain only detached debug symbols, and you seem to build two separate libraries with the same soname but different compilation options and package them into libfoo and libfoo-dbg, is that true? Ok, then I pack the debug lib into the dev package. So there are two shared libs with different sonames? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Unidentified subject!
Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? Thanks for your time. -- Marwan -- 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/20130404025401.GB11424@host
ITP requests to debian-devel vs debian-mentors?
Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? Thanks for your time. -- Marwan -- 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/20130404025959.GC11424@host
Re: Unidentified subject!
Hi Marwan, On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? ITP bug reports are (or at least should) always be cc-ed to debian-devel; they can be filed by both DDs and non-DDs. Typically, package maintainers who are not either DDs or DMs, i.e. do not have upload rights to the Debian archive, will then file a RFS (request for sponsorship) bug report to ask for a DD to review and upload their package; these requests are always filed under the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package and cc-ed to debian-mentors. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBUMcg0yDfq9=-wwmcyajttqtykzgknv1lsm_ylxwj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ITP to debian-devel vs. debian-mentors?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:38:56PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Marwan, On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? ITP bug reports are (or at least should) always be cc-ed to debian-devel; they can be filed by both DDs and non-DDs. Typically, package maintainers who are not either DDs or DMs, i.e. do not have upload rights to the Debian archive, will then file a RFS (request for sponsorship) bug report to ask for a DD to review and upload their package; these requests are always filed under the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package and cc-ed to debian-mentors. Thanks, Vincent. So, you're saying that if I've upload rights, I should file the report against wnpp and cc debian-devel? -- Marwan -- 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/20130404034835.GD11424@host
Re: ITP to debian-devel vs. debian-mentors?
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:38:56PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Marwan, On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? ITP bug reports are (or at least should) always be cc-ed to debian-devel; they can be filed by both DDs and non-DDs. Typically, package maintainers who are not either DDs or DMs, i.e. do not have upload rights to the Debian archive, will then file a RFS (request for sponsorship) bug report to ask for a DD to review and upload their package; these requests are always filed under the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package and cc-ed to debian-mentors. Thanks, Vincent. So, you're saying that if I've upload rights, I should file the report against wnpp and cc debian-devel? Regardless of whether or not you have upload rights, you should file an ITP report against wnpp and cc debian-devel. Also note that I say should instead of must; it's not a requirement for an ITP bug to be filed prior to uploading a new package (it's not mandated by Policy, but dev-ref [1] instead), but it's fairly common practice and there's no reason not to do so. If all this is still confusing to you, just use reportbug; it'll take care of assigning your report to the right package and X-Debbugs-CC-ing it to the right lists. Regards, Vincent [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#newpackage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caczd_taekz5pdzn0byze5cusln493s48rugayufz10wbyvm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ITP to debian-devel vs. debian-mentors?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 09:00:52PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:38:56PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Marwan, On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marwan Tanager marwan.t...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and others to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests. Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests be sent to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests on both lists look pretty similar? ITP bug reports are (or at least should) always be cc-ed to debian-devel; they can be filed by both DDs and non-DDs. Typically, package maintainers who are not either DDs or DMs, i.e. do not have upload rights to the Debian archive, will then file a RFS (request for sponsorship) bug report to ask for a DD to review and upload their package; these requests are always filed under the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package and cc-ed to debian-mentors. Thanks, Vincent. So, you're saying that if I've upload rights, I should file the report against wnpp and cc debian-devel? Regardless of whether or not you have upload rights, you should file an ITP report against wnpp and cc debian-devel. Also note that I say should instead of must; it's not a requirement for an ITP bug to be filed prior to uploading a new package (it's not mandated by Policy, but dev-ref [1] instead), but it's fairly common practice and there's no reason not to do so. Well, now I got it. Thanks. -- Marwan -- 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/20130404042746.GF11424@host
Re: ITP requests to debian-devel vs debian-mentors?
ITP requests go to the wnpp package (and reportbug automatically adds the header X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org). Any additional destinations are a result of the submitter adding more locations to X-Debbugs-CC. http://wiki.debian.org/WNPP http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ RFS requests (subject-tagged as ITA/ITP/RC/etc) go to sponsorship-requests. Bugs filed there go to package-sponsorship-reque...@lists.debian.org. Via some other mechanism (the PTS I think) the non-control messages are forwarded to the debian-mentors list. http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS When you have decided that you want to add a specific piece of software to Debian, check the archive and existing ITPs. Unless there is one already, file an ITP before you start doing work. This is to avoid duplication of effort. If there is an ITP you might want to contact the ITP owner to find out how you can help out. Once you have a package ready and if you don't already have a sponsor, upload to mentors and file an RFS request. Please read this page for more info about the process: http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- 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/CAKTje6FxqY+qx1WUof+JGbpbvPzVh8vuQcC_4RZWGB=bw7e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ITP requests to debian-devel vs debian-mentors?
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:31:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: ITP requests go to the wnpp package (and reportbug automatically adds the header X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org). Any additional destinations are a result of the submitter adding more locations to X-Debbugs-CC. http://wiki.debian.org/WNPP http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ RFS requests (subject-tagged as ITA/ITP/RC/etc) go to sponsorship-requests. Bugs filed there go to package-sponsorship-reque...@lists.debian.org. Via some other mechanism (the PTS I think) the non-control messages are forwarded to the debian-mentors list. http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS When you have decided that you want to add a specific piece of software to Debian, check the archive and existing ITPs. Unless there is one already, file an ITP before you start doing work. This is to avoid duplication of effort. If there is an ITP you might want to contact the ITP owner to find out how you can help out. Once you have a package ready and if you don't already have a sponsor, upload to mentors and file an RFS request. Please read this page for more info about the process: http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers Thanks very much, Paul for the elaboration and the references. Much appreciated. -- Marwan -- 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/20130404043715.GG11424@host
Re: ITP requests to debian-devel vs debian-mentors?
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marwan Tanager wrote: Thanks very much, Paul for the elaboration and the references. Much appreciated. No probs. No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to the list: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- 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/CAKTje6ERWgmt-5U33zC4Qi1j=yrnpn9nhycydj5olxffjyn...@mail.gmail.com
