Bug#774753: sponsorship-requests: RFS - pu policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5+wheezy2
Hi Werner On 2015-01-07 08:13:48, Werner Detter wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear Maintainer, policyd-weight uses the abusive hosts blocking list which has been shutdown on january 1st, more information can be found on the website of the dnsbl: http://www.ahbl.org/content/last-notice-wildcarding-services-jan-1st The list now replies which a positive response which may lead to false positives. I hereby ask for someone to upload this package to stable? I've already recreated the package for unstable and uploaded it to mentors. Meanwhile I've backported the patch for stable. A debdiff can be found here [1] Let's start with the upload to unstable. Could you please close #774772 in the changelog? Has the stable upload been coordinated with the release team? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#774753: sponsorship-requests: RFS - pu policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5+wheezy2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Sebastian, Let's start with the upload to unstable. Could you please close #774772 in the changelog? I'd prefer closing this report by hand as I've created the packages already this morning. Has the stable upload been coordinated with the release team? I'll take care. Thanks, Werner -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUrS/rAAoJECrSoAS/sh/hpckH/0058O27QgSlDOE3ni9+tydH 9iU8aULqYpVqEuJIyKidjOG7+LJnUmWPKzSFr4dRHAEvmSAKezfd0u2mnJ4ER+A8 qzUQlMJowimOsUVP1s+1fvJ0uwTLfF7+NU+0zKkBk55ytrcLbNa1eo4RDUXW46ii M3R5xxV4p4Eu6cSscGc0IUp80qe0APoT08JsKG3i74v4aHwX1PfODzHyUOaqDzRb 2G/MdTsuxdyUNrAPnwZPzZr4eSY++4PQiRTCGUHSLHuKnaaTLfQhIFwMQOj3sjQf eEubBwzb8u1u8KZt/9lXeVnZarKXHjbJkFDZdqpyZ+JNhkMLRTmmczjzypL8tK8= =swt4 -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: https://lists.debian.org/54ad2feb.10...@aloah-from-hell.de
Bug#773861: Signify - OpenBSD's cryptographic signing tool
Greetings, debian-security! OpenBSD has recently developed a tool called signify for cryptographic signing and verifying. It is extremely lightweight, and produces extremely small signatures. For an idea of how small, note that this is a complete signature: RWSRtYZ5JArIEj7Q2Q5qTHD1c2JCvWAu7z0s0ARhlA4s/ac3lc1T5PLplmq1x/LTRZxl9J27Re/QVnUkU9wp14vN/+3Wnb2Tyw4= It is currently being used to sign not only the releases of OpenBSD (and its forks, Bitrig and LibertyBSD), but also LibreSSL, OpenBSD's fork of the OpenSSL library created after heartbleed. I've packaged signify for Debian, and I'm currently looking for a sponsor. You can download the package with this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/signify-openbsd /signify-openbsd_8-1.dsc The mentors summary page is here: http://mentors.debian.net/package/signify-openbsd More information about signify can be obtained from http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/signify Yours sincerely, Riley Baird -- 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/54ae2908.60...@bitmessage.ch
Re: fbpdf license doubt
First, it have no LICESNSE file, only main source file mention modified BSD. I twice mailed author, but seems that he ignored my request to add full-fledged LICENSE file. Second is that it do not make releases. And third, pure technical problem is that package provides binaries `fbpdf` and `fbpdf2`, functionally identical, but having different dependencies. I am not sure what to do with it. Hmm... modified BSD license typically means the 3-clause BSD license: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_3Clause It would be better if the author had put a LICENSE file, but it doesn't seem like including it in the archive would do any harm. Not making releases isn't important; many packages in Debian don't. Since it's maintained in git, you can just use the git revision number (checksum) as the version. Having two binaries is weird, but it doesn't mean that fbpdf shouldn't be included in Debian. -- 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/54ad9e99.40...@bitmessage.ch
Bug#773992: RFS: xmlrpc-c/1.33.15+svn20141223~2672-1 [ITA]
Hello Paul, Am Montag, den 05.01.2015, 21:55 +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: Hi Jörg, On 30-12-14 21:17, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: first sorry for my late answer. I was i little bit ooo and then the 31C3. No problem. Also sorry I didn't replied sooner. Am Montag, den 29.12.2014, 11:13 +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: On 26-12-14 20:48, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Ironically, upstream just (15 hours ago) seems to have released 1.33.15 as tar ball. I have seen it too. But the download diretory is Xmlrpc-c Super Stable/. I thinks its only a new Super Stable release. Sure, saw that. I guess you want to follow the stable release tree? Yes. And eventually the Advanced release in Experimental. * New debian/patches/200-test_port.diff: - Change port for testing from 8080 to 7890 (Closes: #722503). I am missing some background, either in the bug or in the patch file. Why do you think hard coding 7890 is any better than 8080? And why do you consider this Forwarded: not-needed? Michael suggested to try multiple ports instead of relying on one port and I think upstream should be interested in such a patch. My first opinion was to change nothing. On debian the builds was running in a clean system without network. So there are no changes required. On a build on a normal system port 8080 often be used by proxies or http servers. So I switched the port for the build tests to 7890. I think that the using of multiple ports in this case the coast are to high. In my opinion is the best way to set the port for testing at build time as configure variables (--testport=7890 or so). But this must be discussed with upstream. So have set Forwarded: not-needed. Well, some of this information was/is very welcome in the patch header. Maybe with a link where to the e-mail thread where you started the discussion about it (so that in the far future we can check what actually became of the request). * New debian/patches/005-xmlrpc_example.diff: - Backport from upstream release 1.34.0 (Closes: #524550). If you still want me to upload your current package, could you add a source URL to the DEP5 header? The bts seems to say it should be here: http://sourceforge.net/p/xmlrpc-c/code/2491 but with that commit I don't see any content there. At least mention the proper revision in the headers. Also, the patch seems to fix more than just the bug in the bts. Please document what it is supposed to fix. I have rewriten the patch, so that only the wrong example is removed. Ack. * New missing debian/xmlrpc-c-config.man and debian/xmlrpc.man. You created these files with help2man. I prefer it when you do this at build time, so that the man page stays up-to-date. I think you can tweak the settings of help2man to not add the date and your name. Yes the manfiles was basically made with help2man, but also massive edited. Therefore I don't build them at build time. Then I really suggest you remove the first line of the man page file. Did you send this manpage upstream then? Ideally you should be able to drop this file again once upstream excepts it. Also I suggest to either drop the statement about may be used by others or improve the wording such that you actually really mention a common license name that applies to your work on this man page. Are this ok? This manual page was written by Jörg Frings-Fürst for the Debian project and is licensed under BSD-3. Just wondering (haven't check yet), but you only add symbols files for amd64 and i386. Is this working correctly with the other archs? Or are they going to be more strict as a result? My error. I have differences between amd64 and i386. So I have renamed the symbols file for libxmlrpc-c++8 to *.amd86 and *.i386. I have renamed libxmlrpc-c++8.symbols.amd64 to libxmlrpc-c++8.symbols. Wouldn't it be possible to merge the symbols files so that the common part can still be used (haven't checked the content of the files myself yet). No, the symbols file are different between i386 and the other archs. I think you don't need to add the version to the dpkg-gensymbols call, and if you do, why strip the Debian part of the version? Doesn't dh_makeshlibs call dpkg-gensymbols itself? So if you try to override anything, shouldn't the dpkg-gensymbols calls be BEFORE the dh_makeshlibs call? This doesn't look right to me. Have you seen https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles where it describes a way to create a symbols file that contains as much history as possible? If the symbols file contains versions with the Debian revision lintian displays a error[1]. No dpkg-gensymbols must run manually. Without the separate call no symbol files found. With I can found the diffs in the buildlog. And yes dpgk-gensymbols must be running befor dh_makeshlibs. Changed. Please separate your commits to git to ease review and understanding. ok
fbpdf license doubt
Hello! I personally use fbpdf pdf-viewer. I packaged it for myself, but I have some doubts about including it in Debian Archive. First, it have no LICESNSE file, only main source file mention modified BSD. I twice mailed author, but seems that he ignored my request to add full-fledged LICENSE file. Second is that it do not make releases. And third, pure technical problem is that package provides binaries `fbpdf` and `fbpdf2`, functionally identical, but having different dependencies. I am not sure what to do with it. It is not perfect, but the only sane solution for framebuffer I know, so I would bother with it. Upstream-Name: fbpdf Homepage: http://litcave.rudi.ir Source: http://repo.or.cz/w/fbpdf.git Description: Framebuffer pdf viewer Fbpdf is a framebuffer pdf and djvu viewer. There are three make targets: fbpdf uses mupdf library for rendering pdf, fbpdf2 uses poppler for the same purpose, and fbdjvu uses djvulibre library for rendering djvu files. -- Best regards, Dmitry Bogatov kact...@gnu.org, Free Software supporter, esperantisto and netiquette guardian. GPG: 54B7F00D -- 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/slrnmaqkub.7m2.kact...@self.kaction.name
Bug#774753: sponsorship-requests: RFS - pu policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5+wheezy2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Sebastian, I've created the request for the release team which can be found here: http://bugs.debian.org/774773 But hasn't been confirmed yet, unfortunately. Cheers, Werner -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUraRUAAoJECrSoAS/sh/hBxUH/13ACdzvovbxddZ8LDk/kMJc gf7ploYlJg97GrYmcv95pvI0GhmnMD2csEXr/HdmICymAXplWxkZxx5qY6dgH5yQ 0Va3uIs6zqGEJSME/DbAY/CEtd2i7mgwLr/C0f9AE7eNIbNZ/vuApTWnpcBG29OK VIy8gFHOnw9bTSi33/UCrzbO0T8vfznHZrhYvuwacq5MaaMV3X7A8wTT/M6AUaHk igMAm2CbDcqo0R7UuTYqjsraxcsRhnhQy7mLkmJxnEF4iI8Xeh5U/qQO2kQZjbqJ NHiKylUZ0r0XvEPBtHfy17DiXdQy8Wjiw3ImXfGe5t32EgwpY6DbsaDz3uWiiJY= =+hgs -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: https://lists.debian.org/54ada454.9040...@aloah-from-hell.de
Bug#774753: sponsorship-requests: RFS - pu policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5+wheezy2
Hi Werner On 2015-01-07 22:25:40, Werner Detter wrote: Hi Sebastian, I've created the request for the release team which can be found here: http://bugs.debian.org/774773 But hasn't been confirmed yet, unfortunately. Thanks. If I rember correctly, 7.8 will be released this weekend and the window for 7.8 closed last weekend. I expect you'll get the confirmation after the 7.8 release. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#774805: RFS: mkgmap/0.0.0+svn3393-1~exp1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package mkgmap Package name: mkgmap Version : 0.0.0+svn3393-1~exp1 Upstream Author : Steve Ratcliffe s...@parabola.me.uk URL : http://www.mkgmap.org.uk License : GPL-2+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: mkgmap - Generate Garmin maps from OpenStreetMap data To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/mkgmap Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mkgmap/mkgmap_0.0.0+svn3393-1~exp1.dsc More information about mkgmap can be obtained from http://www.mkgmap.org.uk. Changes since the last upload: * New upstream SVN snapshot. Regards, Bas Couwenberg -- 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/20150107192105.10301.60268.report...@osiris.linuxminded.xs4all.nl
Bug#774753: sponsorship-requests: RFS - pu policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5+wheezy2
On 2015-01-07 14:08:59, Werner Detter wrote: Hi Sebastian, Let's start with the upload to unstable. Could you please close #774772 in the changelog? I'd prefer closing this report by hand as I've created the packages already this morning. Done. Has the stable upload been coordinated with the release team? I'll take care. Let me know once you've got their OK. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature
