Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under the other license options. The other QT software I looked at also don't specify the commercial license, have you found any that do and if so how do they handle this issue? At least qat4-x11 and pulseview. They just have the license header in d/copyright. But IMHO other packagaes are a hint, not necessarily always correct. (This could be also a question for d-legal.) http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/q/qt4-x11/unstable_copyright http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pulseview/unstable_copyright Kind Regards, Bas -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1408344754.14939.31.ca...@edoras.loewenhoehle.ip
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl I think the WTFPL short name should keep the version number, WTFPL-2 was better IMHO. The text of the QT license exception is still missing the LGPL exception text. I suggest at least the changes included in the attached patch. Since the license text of the QT commercial license is not known, and appears to be specific to each commercial licensee (because you need to contact them first, it's likely part of the contract negotiation), I would drop the QT_COMMERICAL license option too and just use: License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Done and uploaded to debian mentors. regards Jaromir Mikes
Re: Build-depending on non-free package
Hi Ole, On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: And, the question remains: how do I effectively shall maintain such a package without burding a heavy load to my sponsor and possibly to other people (porters)? I am willing to do my job here, but I see myself quite slowed down by the combination of some very ineffective procedures ... https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd Hope this helps Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140818074601.gg5...@an3as.eu
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 21:11 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Ok, review complete. When below things are fixed, I will upload it. -- tobi d/copyright: (beside the already discussed things) - Files-Excluded not needed - Whats the copyright of the gpx examples? - src/cursors not documented d/dirs not needed, you can remove it. wrap-and-sort (please over the complete directory. Just run it from the root package directory.) e.g d/control will look much better afterwards) d/rules: - please remove the last line (the commented line gunzuip ... ) - the mv is not required: You can use the -O option of wget; also not that get-orig-source should get the tarball and leaves it in the current directory. (Policy 4.9), so the ../ in the mv is not right. d/clean + d/rules - please clean the generated icons in e.g d/clean and rebuild them during build. (there is such a nice script for doing this in the src :)) General rule: If there is a source, use it during build. E.g also compass.png should be regenerated. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Build-depending on non-free package
On 2014-08-18 09:46 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Ole, On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: And, the question remains: how do I effectively shall maintain such a package without burding a heavy load to my sponsor and possibly to other people (porters)? I am willing to do my job here, but I see myself quite slowed down by the combination of some very ineffective procedures ... https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd Hope this helps Do you suggest that Ole should move his package from contrib to non-free? Otherwise I don't see how this could help. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oavi5ik8@turtle.gmx.de
Re: Build-depending on non-free package
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: And, the question remains: how do I effectively shall maintain such a package without burding a heavy load to my sponsor and possibly to other people (porters)? I am willing to do my job here, but I see myself quite slowed down by the combination of some very ineffective procedures ... https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd Hope this helps The problem here is, that wcslib-contrib cannot be built automatically by buildd since the buildd (for contrib packages) does not install non-free packages (which is pgplot5 in my case). My question here is whether the non-free buildd would do so (which is what I interpret from [1]) -- if yes, I'd like to know why a similar procedure cannot be switched on for contrib packages build-require non-free. The hell goes on here even further: Since I am non a DD yet, I have to ask for access to porter boxes every time I want to rebuild the packages, so that I even can't automatize the build process on ports myself, which involves always have a dozen people to decide whether I should gain access. Even if I would get access and could build the packages, I could not upload them myself. Although I got DM rights (thanks to Steffen), I am not allowed to do binary-only uploads for whatever reason. And as I understood Jakub Wilk [2], he can (or shall) not use packages I that I built before to just upload them. So, all I can do here is to put all the load to Steffen or another DD willing to do the job, and to repeat this every time the package changes. This sound for me like an abuse of the sponsoring process, which originally was designed to help newbies getting knowledge about the Debian procedures. And this all since contrib packages with non-free dependencies cannot be built automatically at the moment [3] since two years. I am just looking for a solution for this problem... Best regards Ole [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/08/msg00338.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/08/msg00343.html [3] https://bugs.debian.org/690282#20 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4um43wc@news.ole.ath.cx
RFS: java-comment-preprocessor/5.3.3
Hello, I packaged java-comment-preprocessor, which is a dependency for Saxon-HE 9.5.1.1. The ITP is 757093 (it also has a link to repo). The package is otherwise ready to be uploaded to NEW, but I need help with d/watch. I sent email about it to debian-java [1], but no response. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2014/07/msg00036.html Regards, Eugene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAPqGMfJ=pa539_bzkbukyhseirabbr9srqxuwy9zxyqiq_o...@mail.gmail.com
Fwd: Re: RFS: java-comment-preprocessor/5.3.3
Forwarding to debian-mentors as I forgot to earlier. Original Message Subject: Re: RFS: java-comment-preprocessor/5.3.3 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:37:26 +0100 From: Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk To: Eugene Zhukov jevgeni...@gmail.com CC: debian-j...@lists.debian.org Hi Eugene, On 18/08/14 09:52, Eugene Zhukov wrote: Hello, I packaged java-comment-preprocessor, which is a dependency for Saxon-HE 9.5.1.1. The ITP is 757093 (it also has a link to repo). The package is otherwise ready to be uploaded to NEW, but I need help with d/watch. I sent email about it to debian-java [1], but no response. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2014/07/msg00036.html Quoted from [1] above: I have d/watch which looks like: version=3 https://code.google.com/p/java-comment-preprocessor/source/list?name=5.3.3 (.+)\.tar\.gz This won't work anyway... as it will always retrieve 5.3.3, which defeats the object of debian/watch which is to show when a new upstream release is available. When I run uscan I get: [...] https://java-comment-preprocessor.googlecode.com/archive/5.3.3.tar.gz failed: 500 Can't connect to java-comment-preprocessor.googlecode.com:443 However wget https://java-comment-preprocessor.googlecode.com/archive/5.3.3.tar.gz works just fine. What do I miss? The problem is https://java-comment-preprocessor.googlecode.com/archive doesn't actually exist, it's obviously being silently redirected in the background... and I can see no way to get a list of tags from a Google code project that uses mercurial. Looking at [2] they suggest using the downloads, which upstream have sort of used... but haven't made a release for 5.3.3 [3]. My suggestion would be to contact upstream and see if they are prepared to make a source package available via the download mechanism. Hope that helps, Daniel [2] https://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch#Google_Code [3] https://code.google.com/p/java-comment-preprocessor/downloads/list?can=1 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: java-comment-preprocessor/5.3.3
Hi Eugene, On 18/08/14 12:39, Eugene Zhukov wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk wrote: [...] My suggestion would be to contact upstream and see if they are prepared to make a source package available via the download mechanism. Unfortunately that is not possible because of [1]. Are you sure there is no way to get a list of tags from a Google Code project that uses mercurial? Ack... I wasn't aware of that... Talk about crippling the service! I have looked all over the Google Code interface and can't find a suitable list anywhere. To me this is a fundamental flaw in their service, when you compare it with GitHub or BitBucket(which supports mercurial as well, should upstream want any suggestions). I guess I need to ask upstream to move downloads to Google Drive or elsewhere then. It would indeed seem that way unfortunately :/ Regards Daniel Lintott signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#753893: RFS: rapid-photo-downloader/0.4.10-2 [ITA]
2014-08-18 2:14 GMT-03:00 Jörg Frings-Fürst deb...@jff-webhosting.net: Hola Eriberto, Hi! Please, check all files, years, licenses and authors. Done. - Change years - Remove file entrys of non-existing files - Reorder sections A very good work. However, the rapid/ValidatedEntry.py is using a MIT license. As tip, when you see a unknown license, put some lines in Google. I am witing this last fix to upload. Cheers, Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJcZBh70DFr1DpinhGyo=et-xbmzjapqkeuwv40ub74...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: java-comment-preprocessor/5.3.3
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk wrote: [...] My suggestion would be to contact upstream and see if they are prepared to make a source package available via the download mechanism. Unfortunately that is not possible because of [1]. Are you sure there is no way to get a list of tags from a Google Code project that uses mercurial? I guess I need to ask upstream to move downloads to Google Drive or elsewhere then. [1] http://google-opensource.blogspot.se/2013/05/a-change-to-google-code-download-service.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAPqGMfKXzhZubmQtWbmo8FuD+au+pAE71+w9TAn=pk7_6yt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Build-depending on non-free package
Hi Ole, On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:07:31AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: And, the question remains: how do I effectively shall maintain such a package without burding a heavy load to my sponsor and possibly to other people (porters)? I am willing to do my job here, but I see myself quite slowed down by the combination of some very ineffective procedures ... https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#non-free-buildd Hope this helps The problem here is, that wcslib-contrib cannot be built automatically by buildd since the buildd (for contrib packages) does not install non-free packages (which is pgplot5 in my case). My question here is whether the non-free buildd would do so (which is what I interpret from [1]) -- if yes, I'd like to know why a similar procedure cannot be switched on for contrib packages build-require non-free. When I gave my hint I surely assumed that non-free-buildd would work for contrib as well (anything else would make no sense to me). The hell goes on here even further: Since I am non a DD yet, I have to ask for access to porter boxes every time I want to rebuild the packages, so that I even can't automatize the build process on ports myself, which involves always have a dozen people to decide whether I should gain access. Even if I would get access and could build the packages, I could not upload them myself. Although I got DM rights (thanks to Steffen), I am not allowed to do binary-only uploads for whatever reason. And as I understood Jakub Wilk [2], he can (or shall) not use packages I that I built before to just upload them. I stick to my very *personal* rule: Either a package is auto-buildable on different architectures or it exists only on the architecture I'm building on. I consider my spare time to valuable to hunt behind non-free software. So, all I can do here is to put all the load to Steffen or another DD willing to do the job, and to repeat this every time the package changes. This sound for me like an abuse of the sponsoring process, I agree to the latter (see above) :-) which originally was designed to help newbies getting knowledge about the Debian procedures. And this all since contrib packages with non-free dependencies cannot be built automatically at the moment [3] since two years. Uh. :-( I am just looking for a solution for this problem... [3] was new to me and I do not see any sensible solution since I'm even to lazy to understand the underlying problem. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/08/msg00338.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/08/msg00343.html [3] https://bugs.debian.org/690282#20 -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140818121141.ge15...@an3as.eu
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/18/2014 08:52 AM, Tobias Frost wrote: Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. ** ** In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional ** rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception ** version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. ** ** GNU General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. QT projects include the LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files as referred to in the header, but these are not included in qmapshack as they are in QT projects. The LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files included in QT projects are verbatim copies of the licenses as published by the FSF which includes or (at your option) any later version. The QT code included in qmapshack is taken from the QT examples, and the license applied to that include or (at your option) any later version: https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/demos-textedit-textedit-cpp.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/licensing.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/gpl.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/lgpl.html Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under the other license options. Leaving out the commercial licensing option is not ideal indeed. I suggest to include the license header in the d/copyright as a comment and keep the individual license specifications as they are now: Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On 08/18/2014 14:11, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: [...] The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. No, the only place where later is mentioned in the GPL-3 is section 14 (Revised Versions of this License) which only applies when the program explicitly states that later versions may be used. The word later also appear in the How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs part of the GPL, but that just explains how authors can use the license, it's not part of the GPL terms and condition. There's even a END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS marker above it. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f1f19f.8030...@debian.org
Bug#753893: RFS: rapid-photo-downloader/0.4.10-2 [ITA]
Hi Eriberto, Am Montag, den 18.08.2014, 08:53 -0300 schrieb Eriberto: 2014-08-18 2:14 GMT-03:00 Jörg Frings-Fürst deb...@jff-webhosting.net: Hola Eriberto, Hi! Please, check all files, years, licenses and authors. Done. - Change years - Remove file entrys of non-existing files - Reorder sections A very good work. However, the rapid/ValidatedEntry.py is using a MIT license. As tip, when you see a unknown license, put some lines in Google. Sorry, thats is my error. I have checked only the license text and not the tag. Done - change d/copyright license of rapid/ValidatedEntry.py to Expat. - add d/changelog entry about this I am witing this last fix to upload. Its uploaded to mentors[1] and git. Cheers, Eriberto Thanks, -- pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8 EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E pgp Key: BE581B6E CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56 Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54526 Niederkail Threema: SYR8SJXB IRC: j_...@freenode.net j_...@oftc.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#758523: RFS: gestioip/3.0.26+dfsg0-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gestioip * Package name: gestioip Version : 3.0.26+dfsg0-1 Upstream Author : Marc Uebel cont...@gestioip.net * URL : http://www.gestioip.net * License : GPL-3+ Section : admin It builds those binary packages: gestioip - Web-based IP address management software libgestioip-perl - Core Perl module for GestioIP IPAM To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gestioip Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gestioip/gestioip_3.0.26+dfsg0-1.dsc Please, note that this is our first package for a web app, also first package for a perl app. Regards, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140818123709.29185.41987.report...@r2d2.cica.es
Bug#753893: marked as done (RFS: rapid-photo-downloader/0.4.10-2 [ITA])
Your message dated Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:52:52 -0300 with message-id cap+dxjdjcmwd9g4tggmlkog9xvorns5wb-6y4r9blkbtf0n...@mail.gmail.com and subject line Re: Bug#753893: RFS: rapid-photo-downloader/0.4.10-2 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #753893, regarding RFS: rapid-photo-downloader/0.4.10-2 [ITA] 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.) -- 753893: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753893 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package rapid-photo-downloader * Package name: rapid-photo-downloader Version : 0.4.10-2 Upstream Author : Damon Lynch damonly...@gmail.com * URL : http://damonlynch.net/rapid * License : GPL-2+ Section : graphics It builds those binary packages: rapid-photo-downloader - Photo downloader (importer) from cameras, memory cards other devi To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/rapid-photo-downloader Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rapid-photo-downloader/rapid-photo-downloader_0.4.10-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: * add debian/source/options * add upstream changelog * change debian/compat to 9 * New maintainer ( Closes: #753568 ) Regards, Jörg Frings-Fürst -- pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8 EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E pgp Key: BE581B6E CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56 Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54526 Niederkail Threema: SYR8SJXB IRC: j_...@freenode.net j_...@oftc.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Uploaded. Thanks for your work. Regards, Eriberto---End Message---
Bug#748613: RFS: gimagereader/2.93-1 [ITP]
tags 748613 moreinfo thanks Hi Philip, I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has some Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian Regards, Eriberto 2014-05-18 18:08 GMT-03:00 Philip Rinn ri...@inventati.org: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gimagereader * Package name: gimagereader Version : 2.93-1 Upstream Author : Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/manisandro/gImageReader * License : GPL-3+ Section : graphics It builds those binary packages: gimagereader - Graphical GTK front-end to tesseract-ocr To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gimagereader Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gimagereader/gimagereader_2.93-1.dsc There is also a git repository in collab-maint: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/gimagereader.git;a=summary More information about gimagereader can be obtained from https://github.com/manisandro/gImageReader. Regards, Philip Rinn -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (550, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing-updates'), (450, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.13-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518210805.29848.15599.reportbug@debian.samsung.router -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjdxdctk6mwxeunkqu94f0sxsrdm64kj_64gkf+eb7r...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#744823: RFS: gnuais/0.3.0-1 [ITP]
tags 744823 moreinfo thanks Hi Ruben, I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has some Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian Regards, Eriberto 2014-04-14 20:52 GMT-03:00 ruben.undh...@gmail.com: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnuais * Package name: gnuais Version : 0.3.0-1 Upstream Author : Ruben Undheim ruben.undh...@gmail.com * URL : http://gnuais.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2.0 Section : hamradio It builds those binary packages: gnuais - GNU Automatic Identification System receiver gnuais-dbg - GNU Automatic Identification System receiver gnuaisgui - GUI for GNU Automatic Identification System receiver gnuaisgui-dbg - GUI for GNU Automatic Identification System receiver To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gnuais Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnuais/gnuais_0.3.0-1.dsc More information about gnuais can be obtained from https://github.com/rubund/gnuais/ and http://gnuais.sourceforge.net/. Changes since the last upload: .. new package Regards, Ruben Undheim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140414235227.18738.53383.reportbug@miniserver.granittvegen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJcAqLSg_rPGji0MzntTWRr4a=6qgybl9mepcg79mm0...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
tags 742077 moreinfo thanks Hi Johannes, I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has several Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian Regards, Eriberto 2014-03-18 19:38 GMT-03:00 Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package vcmi Package name: vcmi Version : 0.95-1 Upstream Author : Micha³ Urbañczyk imp...@gmail.com and others URL : http://forum.vcmi.eu/portal.php License : GPL2+ Section : games It builds those binary packages: vcmi - Rewrite of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine cmi-dbg - Debug symbols for vcmi package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/vcmi Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/vcmi/vcmi_0.95-1.dsc VCMI is a free implementation of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine as well as a platform for mods. VCMI is a turn-based strategy game where the player controls a number of heroes commanding an army of creatures. It extends the original capabilities of the game by supporting maps of any size, greater display resolutions. I'm also working on a project which allows to easily replace the proprietary graphics of the original game by a free version at https://github.com/josch/lodextract More information is available in the respective ITP bug#741640 which includes some discussion on the debian-devel-games list. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140318223806.12867.34343.reportbug@hoothoot -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjdtb3xybokaordx2hj3aq4jqsq2fytv+8rt-tbol-d...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#742309: RFS: libvarnam/3.1.3-1
tags 742309 moreinfo thanks Hi Navaneeth, I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has several Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian Regards, Eriberto 2014-03-23 3:00 GMT-03:00 Eric L. ewl+debian+nospam2...@lavar.de: Hi, the issue is that the first line of the description (the short description) doesn't give any information, it just paraphrases the package name and version (I know that libvarnam/3.1.3-1 is a library and that it's about Varnam with a 3). Something else: the mentor page is full of lintian warnings, you will have to fix those before any DD (I'm not one BTW) will sponsor your package. You may ask specific questions on the list on how to fix a specific one but in general the linked descriptions are quite helpful. Cheers, Eric On 23 March 2014 06:00:35 CET, Navaneeth.K.N navaneet...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Eric, Thanks for checking out the project. Where should I improve the project description? The debain control files has proper description about the project. Where else should I change? Thanks On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Eric L. ewl+debian+nospam2...@lavar.de wrote: Hi, I would recommend to improve the short description. The homepage states cross platform transliterator for Indian languages which sounds more informative to me. Eric On 22 March 2014 07:18:18 CET, Navaneeth K N navaneet...@gmail.com wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Package: sponsorship-requ ests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libvarnam * Package name: libvarnam Version : 3.1.3-1 Upstream Author : Navaneeth K N navaneet...@gmail.com * URL : http://varnamproject.com * License : MIT Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libvarnam - Varnam 3 shared library libvarnam-dev - Varnam 3 development files varnamc- Commandline interface to libvarnam To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libvarnam Alternatively, one can do wnload the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libv/libvarnam/libvarnam_3.1.3-1.dsc More information about libvarnam can be obtained from http://www.varnamproject.com. Changes since the last upload: libvarnam (3.1.3-1) stable; urgency=low * varnam_init_from_lang will make the suggestions directory * Fixed varnam_init_from_lang() to set errors correctly * Adding MultiArch directories to varnamc search path * Added uninstall target * MultiArch support to the build system * Added manpages for varnamc Regards, Navaneeth K N -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers saucy-updates APT policy: (500, 'saucy-updates'), (500, 'saucy-security'), (500, 's aucy'), (100, 'saucy-backports') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.11.0-18-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash I'm on debian-java, java maintainers, vdr maintainers and debian-mentors; no need to CC me on these lists. Thanks! I'm on debian-java, java maintainers, vdr maintainers and debian-mentors; no need to CC me on these lists. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjd5mcs7waf1rc7zdcgps4rwmh0s3tmmdbbob6wkhet...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-18 16:55:20) I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has several Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. which Lintian messages are you referring to? There is one pedantic warning 'debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature' which I cannot fulfill because upstream does not use gpg. There is 'binary-without-manpage' which I could fulfill but that would be a very empty man page because the game does not have any commandline options. There is 'hardening-no-fortify-functions' which is a false positive. And there is 'spelling-error-in-binary' which is a false positive as well. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140818154752.14069.17190@hoothoot
Bug#758538: RFS: pysdl2/0.9.3+dfsg1-1 [ITP] -- Python wrapper around SDL2 using ctypes
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pysdl2 * Package name: pysdl2 Version : 0.9.3+dfsg1-1 Upstream Author : Marcus von Appen mar...@sysfault.org * URL : https://bitbucket.org/marcusva/py-sdl2 * License : CC0 or ZLIB Section : python It builds those binary packages: pysdl2-doc - Python bindings to the SDL2 C-library - documentation python-sdl2 - Python bindings to the SDL2 C-library (Python 2 build) python3-sdl2 - Python bindings to the SDL2 C-library (Python 3 build) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pysdl2 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pysdl2/pysdl2_0.9.3+dfsg1-1.dsc More information about PySDL2 can be obtained from https://bitbucket.org/marcusva/py-sdl2 . Changes since the last upload: Regards, Victor Fayvel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/trinity-53a5254d-0056-4d14-90de-854ef630209a-1408378848790@3capp-webde-bs19
Bug#748613: RFS: gimagereader/2.93-1 [ITP]
Hi Eriberto, thanks for looking at my package. I added a man page now and corrected the capitalization error in description. I use hardening build flags but I don't know why no fortified libc functions are used - do you have an idea? If you want to review my package you also need gtkspellmm[1] for which I'm waiting for a review to get it sponsored. Thanks for your effort. Best, Philip [1] http://mentors.debian.net/package/gtkspellmm On 18.08.2014 16:23, Eriberto Mota wrote: tags 748613 moreinfo thanks Hi Philip, I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has some Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian Regards, Eriberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#683120: marked as done (RFS: yadifa/1.0.3-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:35:37 -0300 with message-id CAP+dXJeOG3PC=5deucpmhjgk_fg4hzz1fmk6tdo-4gmhbrx...@mail.gmail.com and subject line Re: RFS: yadifa/1.0.3-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #683120, regarding RFS: yadifa/1.0.3-1 [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.) -- 683120: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683120 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package yadifa-1.0.1-1 * Package name: yadifa-1.0.1-1 Version : 2116-1 Upstream Author : yadifa.eu * URL : yadifa.eu * License : BSD Section : net It builds those binary packages: yadifa-1.0.1 - lightweight authoritative Name Server w DNSSEC capabilities To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/yadifa-1.0.1-1 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yadifa-1.0.1-1/yadifa-1.0.1-1_2116-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://yadifa.eu. Changes since the last upload: initial upload ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Hi, I am closing this bug because your package doesn't exist in mentors.debian.org. Feel free to upload the package and reopen this bug. Thanks, Eriberto---End Message---
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 14:11 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/18/2014 08:52 AM, Tobias Frost wrote: Hi Sebastiaan, On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a or later on their GPL option? I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the licenses as published by the FSF which contain the or later part. Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT projects contain or (at your option) any later version. No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text here; LICENSE.GPL begins with Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the or later option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file, we have to read on. Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The files in question do *NOT* have the any later version specified, so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have only GPL-3 as option. As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to say other packages using QT do it this way. Looking at http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html (looks like the source of the file), and on http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any or later option too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the artifact) The license header in the artifact doesn't state the or later, but refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. ** ** In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional ** rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception ** version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. ** ** GNU General Public License Usage ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by the FSF include or (at your option) any later version GPL-3+ applies. QT projects include the LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files as referred to in the header, but these are not included in qmapshack as they are in QT projects. The LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files included in QT projects are verbatim copies of the licenses as published by the FSF which includes or (at your option) any later version. The QT code included in qmapshack is taken from the QT examples, and the license applied to that include or (at your option) any later version: https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/demos-textedit-textedit-cpp.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/licensing.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/gpl.html https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/lgpl.html The artefact fails to state the option explictly. As Ansgar already replied, this is necessary to apply the or later option. Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable. I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the commercial license. Thats not the point. The message is There is a third license option available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or contact us Details on the license are not necessary and the don't impact the use under
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 09:02 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: Od: Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl I think the WTFPL short name should keep the version number, WTFPL-2 was better IMHO. The text of the QT license exception is still missing the LGPL exception text. I suggest at least the changes included in the attached patch. Since the license text of the QT commercial license is not known, and appears to be specific to each commercial licensee (because you need to contact them first, it's likely part of the contract negotiation), I would drop the QT_COMMERICAL license option too and just use: License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Done and uploaded to debian mentors. Well, there were lots of discussion regarding this... So if you wonder what to use now, I (still) think that you should use this: (or like; I didn't make it beautiful, like identation... The Exception license is taken from here: https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/raw/bfa0be8a1bf68200f1ba9deff4a9215ee066:LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt) License: QT-Commercial or GPL-3.0 or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 License: QT-Commercial Commercial License Usage Licensees holding valid commercial Qt licenses may use this file in accordance with the commercial license agreement provided with the Software or, alternatively, in accordance with the terms contained in a written agreement between you and Digia. For licensing terms and conditions see http://qt.digia.com/licensing. For further information use the contact form at http://qt.digia.com/contact-us. License: LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the packaging of this file. Please review the following information to ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. . In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. . Digia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1 As an additional permission to the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1, the object code form of a work that uses the Library may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may distribute such object code under terms of your choice, provided that: (i) the header files of the Library have not been modified; and (ii) the incorporated material is limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts, accessors, macros, inline functions and templates; and (iii) you comply with the terms of Section 6 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1. . Moreover, you may apply this exception to a modified version of the Library, provided that such modification does not involve copying material from the Library into the modified Library's header files unless such material is limited to (i) numerical parameters; (ii) data structure layouts; (iii) accessors; and (iv) small macros, templates and inline functions of five lines or less in length. . Furthermore, you are not required to apply this additional permission to a modified version of the Library. -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#748613: RFS: gimagereader/2.93-1 [ITP]
Hi Philip,
In gimagereader, please:
1. Fix this Linitian message: desktop-entry-lacks-keywords-entry
2. Create a VCS to control your /debian versions. You can use github
or other. So, add the Vcs-Browser and Vcs-{Git|Svn|Cvs} to d/control.
3. d/control: please, in long description, put one or two lines
explaining what is tesseract. Use punctuation in phrases.
4. d/copyright:
- Change from '2009-2013, Canonical Ltd' to 'Copyright (C)
2009-2013 Canonical Ltd., by Robert Ancell
robert.anc...@canonical.com'.
- Use GPL-3+ in debian/*. Your package is a derivative work and
GPL3 is incompatible with GPL2. [1]
- You need write the license using the FSF rules [2]. An example here[3].
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
[3]
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/g/gconjugue/unstable_copyright
5. d/docs: you must install the documents that are useful to final
users. So, remove AUTHORS. It must be put in d/copyright only.
6. d/rules:
- Comment the verbose line.
- Add 'export V=1' to show all compiler flags. If you want read
about it, $ man blhc.
The lintian shows a message about hardening. But, for the first time
in my life, i think that it is a false positive. The flags are in
Makefile and 'blhc --all' doesn't show warnings.
7. d/watch: to allow downloads, point to 'releases' instead 'tags'.
Thanks for your work.
Cheers,
Eriberto
2014-08-18 13:45 GMT-03:00 Philip Rinn ri...@inventati.org:
Hi Eriberto,
thanks for looking at my package. I added a man page now and corrected the
capitalization error in description. I use hardening build flags but I don't
know
why no fortified libc functions are used - do you have an idea?
If you want to review my package you also need gtkspellmm[1] for which I'm
waiting
for a review to get it sponsored.
Thanks for your effort.
Best,
Philip
[1] http://mentors.debian.net/package/gtkspellmm
On 18.08.2014 16:23, Eriberto Mota wrote:
tags 748613 moreinfo
thanks
Hi Philip,
I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has some Lintian messages.
IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing
all possible messages.
PS: to improve your Lintian, please, see http://bit.ly/lintian
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJd8bksuw4LcFtBodkwepwbSqa5WBb114zHpB=typqy...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#757176: RFS: xombrero/2:1.6.3-1 -- Minimalist's web browser
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 06:58:15PM -0300, Eriberto wrote: 2014-08-17 17:27 GMT-03:00 Luis Henriques hen...@camandro.org: Hi Eriberto, Hi!!! On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 08:32:55PM -0300, Eriberto wrote: Hi Luis, Sorry for my delay and congratulations for your work. I agree with your considerations. Again, thanks a *lot* for reviewing my xombrero package! You are welcome. :-) For example, in your example above, I would interpret it as having file 'xombrero.css' copyrighted by all those authors, even if the real copyright owner is only Josh Rickmar; the same is true for the xombrero.1 file: the only copyright owners are Marco Peereboom, Jason McIntyre and Josh Rickmar. My debian/copyright contains more detailed information, that allows to know exactly who owns the copyright for each file individually. Of course I do group some of the files, but the copyrights are so different between different files that I decided not to use the 'Files: *' pattern (although I use the 'Files: debian/*' pattern). If you and I write a book, our names will be put on the cover without a distinction. So, when three people write a program, all are upstreams. So, is uncommon separate the upstreams. A split in several paragraphs will make the maintaining of this package hard. I can upload your package. However, I never saw it and, maybe, the FTP-Master can reject. (your package will be NEW because it doesn't exist on Debian) Please, read these itens: 1. Item Copyright in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#fields 2. Example 4 in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#fields A conclusion: I understand your idea but it is no usual. Ok, got it and I'm convinced :-) Thanks for your patience. Anyway, I'm OK following the approach you're suggesting -- I just want to confirm that my understanding is correct and this is exactly what you want me to do. snip I have two doubts: Where you saw that the files style.css, *.png, tordisabled.ico and torenabled.ico are using the CC-BY-SA license? The license for the style.css is mentioned in the xombrero website (https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero). Ok. It is a common problem with CC, GPL and others. From CC site[1]: You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. So, the license needs to be put inside the tarball. If not, you can't refer to this license and, consequently, the png will use the same license of the main source code. OK, that makes sense perfect. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't afford spending any more time with the xombrero package at the moment. And having to deal with upstream to fix this particular issue isn't something particularly interesting (it hasn't been particularly... pleasant to deal with the xombrero developers in the past ;-) ). Anyway, if someone else volunteers to fix the remaining issues with the xombrero package, I'm more than happy to share what I've at the moment. Again, thanks a lot for your reviews Eriberto! Cheers, -- Luis [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Regarding the tor icons, they are reused from the tor project and the terms and license we're taken from the project website (https://www.torproject.org/). The same problem. The upstream failed when reused a code and didn't describe the original license and credits (copyright notice). Consequently: he can be prosecuted and you can't put a not explicit license in d/copyright. Finally, the *png files licenses were confirmed in private emails with the xombrero project developers (iirc, when I first packaged xxxterm there was not public mailing list yet). Can you guess what I will say you? Where you found *.xpm files? Ah, this one is generated my me in debian/rules from the xpm files. Ah, ok. They are derivated from *.png. The same problem with the license. Feel free to ask me about my explanation and thaks for your work and interest. Cheers, Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140818205528.ga15...@achilles.my.domain
Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
Od: Tobias Frost t...@debian.org Hello Tobias, thank you for reviewing! Ok, review complete. When below things are fixed, I will upload it. -- tobi d/copyright: (beside the already discussed things) - Files-Excluded not needed - Whats the copyright of the gpx examples? - src/cursors not documented d/dirs not needed, you can remove it. wrap-and-sort (please over the complete directory. Just run it from the root package directory.) e.g d/control will look much better afterwards) d/rules: - please remove the last line (the commented line gunzuip ... ) - the mv is not required: You can use the -O option of wget; also not that get-orig-source should get the tarball and leaves it in the current directory. (Policy 4.9), so the ../ in the mv is not right. d/clean + d/rules - please clean the generated icons in e.g d/clean and rebuild them during build. (there is such a nice script for doing this in the src :)) General rule: If there is a source, use it during build. E.g also compass.png should be regenerated. Except copyright and license for gpx examples everything mentioned here has been fixed. Copyright and license for gpx examples will be fixed with next upstream release. Copyright file has been already added to upstream repo. Until next release will be published maybe you can check in packaging repo if all fixes has been done in right way. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/qmapshack.git best regards mira
RFS Processing Analysis
I've been looking at the RFS process [1]. Some of this was in the debian-mentors list about a year ago, albeit using corrupt data. First the good news: - About 1000 RFS submissions have led to accepted packages since January 2012 - The package acceptance rate has consistently been about 2/3 - About 1/3 of acceptances occur within a week [2][3] The challenge - the RFS user experience degrades quickly after the first couple of days: - 1/2 of all active RFS submissions have no responses, despite a median age of 2 months [4] - 20% of all RFS acceptances happen after 3 months, often much longer than that - For all submissions, sponsorship-requests averages 1 response per RFS-month [5] Also: - For 'rejected' submissions, the first response is typically a drop message with respect to mentors.d.n, at 20 weeks out - The submission rate has been increasing at 40-50% per year The interesting insight is that added monitoring of the debian-mentors mailing list is the wrong way to address the deficiencies - the packages most in need of attention are invisible there. The best way to improve the average user RFS experience is to bypass the list and target neglected submissions more directly. That is not as easy as it could be. The mentors.d.n site shows plenty of information about the backlog, but the main page only goes back a week. The BTS summary shows all open submissions, but sorted somewhat oddly, and showing only the package name and version. Better tools may help. As a proof-of-concept, see the RFS Discovery page [6], which exposes and sorts by comment activity. I find that a better means of finding effective places to respond. mentors.d.n could be a good home for such tools. Should that site, with it's rich structured RFS data representation, grow to subsume BTS as the canonical data source for the RFS process? I used to have a story about one particular active RFS. The submitter never failed to resolve substantive raised issues on the same day, despite delays between comments of weeks, months, and even more than a year. That RFS was recently closed to 'clean the queue'. I suspect that user's opinion of the Debian development process could be improved. 1) http://davesteele.github.io/debian-rfs-stats/ 2) e.g. July 2014 - see 'accepted Packages' http://davesteele.github.io/debian-rfs-stats/getslice.html?start=140417280end=140685120state=open#accepted 3) Where 'acceptance' means that the version submitted, or newer, is present in sid or experimental. 4) http://davesteele.github.io/debian-rfs-stats/commentactivity.html 5) http://davesteele.github.io/debian-rfs-stats/mdbr.html 6) http://davesteele.github.io/debian-rfs-stats/discover.html?field=commentageorder=a -- Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien - Voltaire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOHcdNboSEdkBtS3ZYWaC1bkM=1Nnn+A86nmzLT+hMA9jB=q...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#730445: marked as done (RFS: plsense/0.20-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Tue, 19 Aug 2014 04:24:45 + with message-id e1xjayt-0001tu...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: plsense/0.20-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #730445, regarding RFS: plsense/0.20-1 [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.) -- 730445: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=730445 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist User: debian-de...@debian.or.jp Usertags: debianjp Control: block 728938 by -1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package plsense * Package name: plsense Version : 0.10+git20131030-1 Upstream Author : Hiroaki Otsu * URL : https://github.com/aki2o/plsense * License : Artistic or GPL-1+ Section : perl It builds those binary packages: plsense- Omni Completion Tool for Perl To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/plsense Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/plsense/plsense_0.10+git20131030-1.dsc Regards, KURASHIKI Satoru -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-20-pve (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package plsense has been removed from mentors.---End Message---
