Bug#710473: RFS: bats/0.2.0-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package bats * Package name: bats Version : 0.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Sam Stephenson sstephen...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/sstephenson/bats * License : MIT Section : devel It builds those binary packages: bats - Bash Automated Testing System To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/bats Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bats/bats_0.2.0-1.dsc More information about bats can be obtained from https://github.com/sstephenson/bats. Changes since the last upload: * Initial release (Closes: #709135) * Added a simple manpage. * Fixed install.sh to respect DESTDIR and use install Regards, Grzegorz Niewisiewicz -- 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/CAMzt_qdu29ycU-k3VmJesOtwpZYZ=srsnfvykyy47e8saiq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to avoid all arch notice in dpkg-buildpackage.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:38:30PM -0400, linux at iocellnetworks wrote: I am working on the debian package for 7.0 ndas. I would like to have it build without comment, notice or error. I use the instructions here Where? Sorry. These are the build instructions: https://github.com/iocellnetworks/ndas4linux/wiki/How-to-build,-install-and-remove-.deb-ndas-packages These are not instructions how to write a debian package, they tell about building an existing one, using code that you didn't write or even read. There are some notices left though in the dh_ commands. example: dh_builddeb: You asked that all arch in(dep) packages be built, but there are none of that type Can any of y'all point me to the place those are specified so I can have it build those, or bypass? Mostly impossible to tell without seeing your debian/rules. Rules on this build are here: https://github.com/iocellnetworks/ndas4linux/blob/master/3.2.0/platform/linux/tarball-tag/debian/rules # This version is for a hypothetical package that can build a kernel # modules # architecture-dependant package via make-kpkg, as well as an # architecture-independent module source package, and other packages # either dep/indep for things like common files or userspace components # needed for the kernel modules. It's fine that this generic code for a hypothetical package generates some harmless warnings. If you are calling programs with -i while not having any arch-indep packages then you should not do that Maybe this is where to start? The architecture in the control file says all. I changed the one for the modules to amd64, when I am building on the 64Bit version. I got the notice in either case. Please don't do things you don't understand to fix problems that do not exist. If you really want to fix those warnings you need to understand how does this debian/rules work and what causes the warnings, and then fix them. (it's also not a good idea to blindly copy-paste code from some instructions on the web without understanding what does that code do). I do run the code, almost as it was from the beginning. I did not write it, but I also do not know what it does, since I have not much experience. Then you don't need to fix those warnings. -- 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/20130531065850.ga30...@wrar.name
Bug#710103: The mentor package URL changed as well
Hi everyone, Since I am not sure if there is a way of editing the original bug description, just wanted to inform that since the source package name changed, also the URLs are different. More information about the package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-evdev Source package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-evdev/python-evdev_0.3.3-1.dsc Thanks and sorry for the confusion! Best regards, -- Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com www.canonical.com www.ubuntu.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/51a86cd4.5000...@ubuntu.com
Re: Bug#710248: RFS: fitsverify/4.16 [ITP] -- FITS File Format-Verification Tool
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thibaut, Am 29.05.2013 14:38, schrieb Thibaut Paumard: I don't think the FTP master will let the package in with just this short notice (so short that I missed it despite looking for it). Maybe they would be OK if you reproduced said e-mail in full. I have included the E-mail confirmation into the copyright file and re-uploaded it to mentor.debian.net. But the best would of course be to get upstream to just add a copyright notice at the beginning of each source file plus a copy of the applicable license and release a new tarball. It should be about 15 minutes of their time, well spent. I have asked upstream, but he refused to do this on a short term. Instead he recommended that I could inserting the License.txt myself (what I basically did by creating the debian/copyright file). So I would guess it is completely OK to insert the package into Debian. Best regards Ole -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqHlOAAoJEHEVr9B3ENz3SAMQAMjR8PyheSLf5KzcCnYTWNmh X6GaYmMSZBSH29DZyYflu5M4gts0JdpWoowf2ntkR4dTAnOR0a9ssM4BNzcxubQc 0cZud2F0SmUL+eztky7xFjp4lfS6qvQuIioVw8dCARIOqjB+RoJvH1a4kppJeu/J 5JGXzCxX7m8iBmYI0mhwRME0EqIF94ig83PJ2XqmRjD9IGZjGNRXNUM+iCVXyHtz A0mRwp/fWGHrNqA/JLZtBo5bnHlSxRPvCTFogd7vne5wZwnlnN5KZ4BKlztr9BMm +1Y//iauig+m5S0fKy2jESuhXmgiN1r2BBWAIYXFseKi1v5zB11AvWgRvGoXSYwI gqcX6+LR4yRK5J2ujULlReVhyc71l604FD2Eh4vCySSEObZNtGmUelHEnXgR6RyY SmaOD/yPyepRfdKSue8RtqagzoMIeVnW6kjaMOyHL66u966xcZze8K4+ml1WyQoN JmQ3ewf/vt+hVH6bd7nhs3lKSe/hPYni3A4zopDP13V3ApQt0KxM/tbsaotrj7Ny hBhKKggkZQ0ByH2LB7AvO+c/zaRfYXlaMULETNry+qtEIMwpCuQzzHQMAns5ft4O JuWhj2NB8m+JerjvvJ/n8jEC46swYPRkGybUNSbjlPRSaRGHeQ20VsnOwBD2Rkkk Qq19sAofiIg2E9gwlTos =T9MX -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/51a8794f.4000...@liska.ath.cx
Bug#710103: RFS: python-evdev/0.3.3-1 -- [ITP] python bindings for the generic input event interface
Hi everyone, First of all, I apologize to attaching the same information to a single bug twice, but I was not aware that the subject of a bug reply matters. I'm re-sending this one so that the RFS string is in the subject so that this information reaches the mentors list as well (thanks Thibaut!). Since I am not sure if there is a way of editing the original bug description, just wanted to inform that since the source package name changed, also the URLs to the package details are different. More information about the package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-evdev Source package: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-evdev/python-evdev_0.3.3-1.dsc Thanks and sorry for the confusion! Best regards, -- Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com www.canonical.com www.ubuntu.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/51a883c5.1040...@ubuntu.com
Bug#710017: marked as done (RFS: distcc/3.2~rc1-2 [RC] -- simple distributed compiler)
Your message dated Fri, 31 May 2013 19:52:33 +0800 with message-id can3vere5fvgi1okvkuu+u1a55dik96lzfmtjmjncgrxjtbn...@mail.gmail.com and subject line Re: Bug#710017: RFS: distcc/3.2~rc1-2 [RC] -- simple distributed compiler has caused the Debian Bug report #710017, regarding RFS: distcc/3.2~rc1-2 [RC] -- simple distributed compiler 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.) -- 710017: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=710017 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package distcc Package name: distcc Version : 3.2~rc1-2 Upstream Author : Martin Pool m...@samba.org URL : http://code.google.com/p/distcc/ License : GPL-2+ Section : devel It builds those binary packages: distcc - simple distributed compiler client and server distcc-pump - pump mode for distcc a distributed compiler client and server distccmon-gnome - GTK+ monitor for distcc a distributed client and server The previous upload included many upstream changes to fix longstanding issues in the test suite. Some unexpected problems remained that were exposed by buildd failures on most architectures. This upload strives to address the cause of these failures. To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/distcc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/distcc/distcc_3.2~rc1-2.dsc distcc (3.2~rc1-2) experimental; urgency=low [ Daniel Hartwig ] * do not run tests in parallel * debian/patches: - 12_test-debian.patch: NoDetachDaemon_Case is broken and leaves an orphaned process; disabled to keep buildd happy (Closes: #709169) - 14_test-reliability.patch: improve reliability of tests Regards Subject: From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com --text follows this line-- ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 27 May 2013 22:09, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package distcc Package name: distcc Version : 3.2~rc1-2 Upstream Author : Martin Pool m...@samba.org URL : http://code.google.com/p/distcc/ License : GPL-2+ Section : devel This is now in experimental.---End Message---
Aw: Wanting to maintain Debian packages
Hello, I had always been hoping to maintain some useful debian packages. Now that I've successfully revived some abandoned debian packages, my confident is gaining and want to pick up more. I took a look at the orphaned package list, to my biggest surprise, there are a *lot* of packages that I think useful are now orphaned [1]. Perform the work, in parallel reply to the bug report that you are prepared to take the packaging, also mention that you are seeking a sponsor. Is it OK for me to take over the ownership for all of them? What should I do? I would go one by one, carried by your respective personal interest in the individual package and your respective success in finding a sponsor. Thank you for investment of your time and energy! If you find the time, consider writing up somewhere on wiki.debian.org on how to use those packages. This may attract additional users and future maintainers. Steffen -- 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/trinity-f0090389-769f-40bb-b697-bdddb0f356c3-1370004562164@3capp-gmx-bs51
Bug#710103: The mentor package URL changed as well
Hi Łukasz! Yes, you (or anyone) can change the bug title. You should send a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org, without subject, and put into the body: retitle #710103 provides bindings to the generic input event interface You musn't initiate the description using the package name or an article[1]. To know about others commands to BTS, please see Mailservers' reference card[2]. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-descriptions [2] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-refcard Have a nice day! Regards, Eriberto - Brazil 2013/5/31 Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak lukasz.zemc...@canonical.com: Since I am not sure if there is a way of editing the original bug description, just wanted to inform that since the source package name changed, also the URLs are different. -- 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/CAP+dXJd8nnnzm+NSC4nJUb4=AP2XBdUFyZ13+MHqFb_yhU=w=g...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to avoid all arch notice in dpkg-buildpackage.
Hi and thanks again. On 05/31/2013 02:58 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:38:30PM -0400, linux at iocellnetworks wrote: I am working on the debian package for 7.0 ndas. I would like to have it build without comment, notice or error. I use the instructions here Where? Sorry. These are the build instructions: https://github.com/iocellnetworks/ndas4linux/wiki/How-to-build,-install-and-remove-.deb-ndas-packages These are not instructions how to write a debian package, they tell about building an existing one, using code that you didn't write or even read. Actually, I've been reading it quite a while, but surely not understanding it well. That is why and am looking for help on the subject. There are some notices left though in the dh_ commands. example: dh_builddeb: You asked that all arch in(dep) packages be built, but there are none of that type Can any of y'all point me to the place those are specified so I can have it build those, or bypass? Mostly impossible to tell without seeing your debian/rules. Rules on this build are here: https://github.com/iocellnetworks/ndas4linux/blob/master/3.2.0/platform/linux/tarball-tag/debian/rules # This version is for a hypothetical package that can build a kernel # modules # architecture-dependant package via make-kpkg, as well as an # architecture-independent module source package, and other packages # either dep/indep for things like common files or userspace components # needed for the kernel modules. It's fine that this generic code for a hypothetical package generates some harmless warnings. I guess it is still a hypothetical package, relative to distribution through Debian. But it has worked for quite some time. If the warnings are harmless, that is fine too. If you are calling programs with -i while not having any arch-indep packages then you should not do that Maybe this is where to start? The architecture in the control file says all. I changed the one for the modules to amd64, when I am building on the 64Bit version. I got the notice in either case. Please don't do things you don't understand to fix problems that do not exist. If you really want to fix those warnings you need to understand how does this debian/rules work and what causes the warnings, and then fix them. To understand how debian/rules works, and get on my way to a clean, acceptable package creation is why I am writing for help. (it's also not a good idea to blindly copy-paste code from some instructions on the web without understanding what does that code do). I do run the code, almost as it was from the beginning. I did not write it, but I also do not know what it does, since I have not much experience. Then you don't need to fix those warnings. When I looked around to learn what they mean, I found a post from a mentor instructing a mentee to solve those warnings before submitting a package. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/06/msg00155.html So, I figured I would ask how to solve the warnings. -- 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/51a8bfe0.8060...@iocellnetworks.com
Re: How to avoid all arch notice in dpkg-buildpackage.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:21:04AM -0400, linux at iocellnetworks wrote: To understand how debian/rules works, and get on my way to a clean, acceptable package creation is why I am writing for help. You probably need to start with creating a simple package from scratch following some tutorial, not by trying to understand some 3rd-party package which quality wasn't checked by anyone. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid all arch notice in dpkg-buildpackage.
On 05/31/2013 03:49 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:21:04AM -0400, linux at iocellnetworks wrote: To understand how debian/rules works, and get on my way to a clean, acceptable package creation is why I am writing for help. You probably need to start with creating a simple package from scratch following some tutorial, not by trying to understand some 3rd-party package which quality wasn't checked by anyone. Thanks for the advice. Now I see that I have to figure this out myself, so I'll see what I can do. I guess I had my hopes a little bit high when I wrote to the list. I was hoping for something more along the lines of a mentor as described on Wikipedia: "... the personal name Mentor has been adopted in English as a term meaning someone who imparts wisdom to and shares knowledge with a less experienced colleague." Back to googling and tuting for now. -- 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/51a94fe2.5010...@iocellnetworks.com
