Bug#807627: marked as done (RFS: taskd/1.1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP])

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:32:51 +0100
with message-id <1451215971.28247.2.ca...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#807627: RFS: taskd/1.1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #807627,
regarding RFS: taskd/1.1.0+dfsg-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.)


-- 
807627: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807627
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "taskd"

* Package name: taskd
  Version : 1.1.0+dfsg-1
  Upstream Author : Paul Beckingham 
* URL : http://taskwarrior.org
* License : MIT
  Section : utils

It builds those binary packages:

  taskd - Synchronisation server for taskwarrior

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

 http://mentors.debian.net/package/taskd

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/taskd/taskd_1.1.0+dfsg-1.dsc

Note: This is the first upload of taskd package (ITP).

Thanks in advance, cheers,

Seb


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Am Sonntag, den 27.12.2015, 11:06 +0100 schrieb Sebastien Badia:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:23:47AM (+0100), Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Package's fine, only two smalls things to fix:
> > -> d/copyright The comment for Files-Excluded should use the
> > 
> 
> Just fixed,
Hi Seb,

The fix is not what I had in mind :) I corrected it, pushed it to the
repositroy and uploaded it..(I also set tags)

Thanks for your contribution!

Tobi

> Seb--- End Message ---

Bug#809085: RFS: sxiv/1.3.2-1

[Jakub Wilk]

* Daniel Echeverry , 2015-12-26, 23:56:

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sxiv/sxiv_1.3.2-1.dsc


Typo in the patch name: behaivor -> behavior

You might want to add the Bugs-Debian header to the patch header.

exec/key-handler uses temporary files insecurely.

Lintian says:
X: sxiv: binary-file-built-without-LFS-support usr/bin/sxiv

Now, I doubt sxiv could do anything sensible with >2GB images on a 
32-bit system anyway. But it turns out that you can be bitten by lack on 
LFS support even when all your files are small:

https://lists.debian.org/20150712173723.ga29...@gaara.hadrons.org

sxiv calls stat() in multiple places, so I think you should enable LFS.

--
Jakub Wilk

Bug#807099: RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme Hospital engine reimplementation.

[Alexandre Detiste]

Le samedi 26 décembre 2015, 22:46:05 Markus Koschany a écrit :
> The package looks good to me. Please add the missing license of tinyxml
> to debian/copyright. 

Done

> After that I will upload the package.

Thanks, that would be nice to finally close this ITP from 2011.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#807627: RFS: taskd/1.1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

[Tobias Frost]

Hu Seb,

Am Mittwoch, den 23.12.2015, 00:18 +0100 schrieb Sebastien Badia:
> 
(snip)
> Hi here,
> 
> Many thanks Tobias for this review!
> Just fixed all the issues/comments, if you want to re-take a look, it
> would be
> super cool!
> 
> About repack, I just queried to upstream about src/tls/* (GNUTLS
> examples, but
> apparently unused: https://bug.tasktools.org/browse/TD-110), we could
> maybe wait
> an answer, generally Paul answer quickly.
> 
> And for config file I finally decided to ship a generated config file
> in order
> to avoid init questions, let me know what do you think about.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Seb

Package's fine, only two smalls things to fix:
-> d/copyright The comment for Files-Excluded should use the Comment:
Tag
-> please run dch -r "" to update d/changelog dates. (It has you name
in it -- Refer to Policy §4.4; dch -r "" should make sure, though)

Thanks!
tobi


 

Bug#807627: RFS: taskd/1.1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

[Sebastien Badia]

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:23:47AM (+0100), Tobias Frost wrote:
> Package's fine, only two smalls things to fix:
> -> d/copyright The comment for Files-Excluded should use the Comment:
> Tag
> -> please run dch -r "" to update d/changelog dates. (It has you name
> in it -- Refer to Policy §4.4; dch -r "" should make sure, though)

Hi!

Thanks Tobias!

Just fixed,

Seb


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#807099: RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme Hospital engine reimplementation.

[Markus Koschany]

Am 27.12.2015 um 09:35 schrieb Alexandre Detiste:
> Le samedi 26 décembre 2015, 22:46:05 Markus Koschany a écrit :
>> The package looks good to me. Please add the missing license of tinyxml
>> to debian/copyright. 
> 
> Done

Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution.

Markus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#807099: marked as done (RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme Hospital engine reimplementation.)

[Markus Koschany]

Control: reopen -1

The package will close this bug report automatically when it enters the
archive. Please keep this bug report open until until corsix-th got
accepted.

Thanks,

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#809085: RFS: sxiv/1.3.2-1

[Daniel Echeverry]

Hi Jakub

2015-12-27 6:41 GMT-05:00 Jakub Wilk :
> * Daniel Echeverry , 2015-12-26, 23:56:
>>
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sxiv/sxiv_1.3.2-1.dsc
>
>
> Typo in the patch name: behaivor -> behavior

Fixed!

>
> You might want to add the Bugs-Debian header to the patch header.
>

Fixed!

> exec/key-handler uses temporary files insecurely.
>

Could you give me some info about  this? I am confused, please point
me out to some useful url, thanks

> Lintian says:
> X: sxiv: binary-file-built-without-LFS-support usr/bin/sxiv
>
> Now, I doubt sxiv could do anything sensible with >2GB images on a 32-bit
> system anyway. But it turns out that you can be bitten by lack on LFS
> support even when all your files are small:
> https://lists.debian.org/20150712173723.ga29...@gaara.hadrons.org
>
> sxiv calls stat() in multiple places, so I think you should enable LFS.

Fixed!

>
> --
> Jakub Wilk
>

Thank for you review!

Regards

-- 
Daniel Echeverry
http://wiki.debian.org/DanielEcheverry
Linux user: #477840
Debian user
Software libre

Bug#807099: marked as done (RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme Hospital engine reimplementation.)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:33:22 +
with message-id <20151227203322.ga7...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#807099: RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme 
Hospital engine reimplementation.
has caused the Debian Bug report #807099,
regarding RFS: corsix-th/0.50-1 ITP 610087 - A Theme Hospital engine 
reimplementation.
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.)


-- 
807099: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807099
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "corsix-th":

 * Package name: corsix-th
   Version : 0.50-1
   Upstream Author : Peter "Corsix" Cawley
 * URL : https://github.com/CorsixTH/CorsixTH/
 * License : GPL-3
   Section : contrib/games

  It builds those binary packages:

corsix-th - the engine
corsix-th-data - platform independant the Lua Scripts

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URLs:

  http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/corsix-th.git/

I didn't succeeded into creating the source package.

The binary package ("debuild -us -uc -b") is fine though
and is a 1:1 replacement for the one from GetDeb.

(this package _does_ work fine too, even if
FrankenDebian is a bad idea; that's why
I'm packaging this)

dpkg-source: info: using source format '3.0 (quilt)'
dpkg-source: info: building corsix-th using existing ./corsix-
th_0.50.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are:
 corsix-th/CMakeCache.txt
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/3.3.2/CMakeCCompiler.cmake
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/3.3.2/CMakeCXXCompiler.cmake
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/3.3.2/CMakeSystem.cmake
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/3.3.2/CompilerIdC/CMakeCCompilerId.c
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/3.3.2/CompilerIdCXX/CMakeCXXCompilerId.cpp
 corsix-th/CMakeFiles/CMakeDirectoryInformation.cmake



  Changes since the last upload:

  - Initial release


  Regards,
  Alexandre Detiste



-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (450, 'unstable'), (400, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.2.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/6 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_BE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_BE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 09:17:05PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution.

Thus, closing.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

how to delete those packaging warnings

[mudongliang]

Hi all,
   I try to package a software bcloud, but I got many warnings that I want to 
delete. But I search little response from google. So I ask in this mailing list.
   The warning is shown in the following url:
https://github.com/mudongliang/DebPackaging/blob/master/README.md
   

|W: bcloud source: changelog-should-mention-nmu W: bcloud source: 
source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 3.8.2-1 W: bcloud source: 
missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gplv3 (paragraph at line 5) W: 
bcloud source: invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright gplv3 (paragraph at line 5) 
W: bcloud: new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: bcloud: 
duplicate-changelog-files usr/share/doc/bcloud/HISTORY.gz 
usr/share/doc/bcloud/changelog.gz W: bcloud: extra-license-file 
usr/share/doc/bcloud/LICENSE.gz W: bcloud: binary-without-manpage 
usr/bin/bcloud-gui|


Thanks in advance.
- mudongliang

Re: how to delete those packaging warnings

[Mechtilde]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hello,

here you can find all Tags

https://lintian.debian.org/tags-all.html

Click on it and you find their description

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 27.12.2015 um 15:25 schrieb mudongliang:
> Hi all, I try to package a software bcloud, but I got many warnings
> that I want to delete. But I search little response from google. So
> I ask in this mailing list. The warning is shown in the following
> url: 
> https://github.com/mudongliang/DebPackaging/blob/master/README.md
> 
> 
> |W: bcloud source: changelog-should-mention-nmu W: bcloud source:
> source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 3.8.2-1 W: bcloud source:
> missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gplv3 (paragraph at
> line 5) W: bcloud source: invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright
> gplv3 (paragraph at line 5) W: bcloud:
> new-package-should-close-itp-bug W: bcloud:
> duplicate-changelog-files usr/share/doc/bcloud/HISTORY.gz
> usr/share/doc/bcloud/changelog.gz W: bcloud: extra-license-file
> usr/share/doc/bcloud/LICENSE.gz W: bcloud: binary-without-manpage
> usr/bin/bcloud-gui|
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance. - mudongliang
> 
> 

- -- 
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=wSjX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: how to delete those packaging warnings

[hpfn]

Hi,

> Hi all,
>I try to package a software bcloud, but I got many warnings that I want to 
> delete. But I search little response from google. So I ask in this mailing 
> list.
>The warning is shown in the following url:
> https://github.com/mudongliang/DebPackaging/blob/master/README.md
>
> 

Use lintian-info --tags message to get infos
about the warnnings.

Ex: lintian-info --tags invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright

Let's see if I can help a little more.

If you put your name on debian/control these
are fixed. You will sign the package, so a gpg
key is needed.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Maintainer

W: bcloud source: changelog-should-mention-nmu 
W: bcloud source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 3.8.2-1 

It is necessary to put the text of the license in the
debian/copyright.
W: bcloud source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gplv3 (paragraph 
at line 5) 

Use GPL-3. Check if is GPL-3+ (any later version at the end
of first paragraph)
W: bcloud source: invalid-short-name-in-dep5-copyright gplv3 (paragraph at line 
5)

It seems is a new package. You should open a ITP bug
'intent to package'. And put the number you receive
by email in debian/changelog.
W: bcloud: new-package-should-close-itp-bug

W: bcloud: duplicate-changelog-files usr/share/doc/bcloud/HISTORY.gz 
usr/share/doc/bcloud/changelog.gz 

debian/copyright take care of this. The file is not
needed.
W: bcloud: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/bcloud/LICENSE.gz 

Write a manpage for bcloud-gui. txt2man can help.
W: bcloud: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/bcloud-gui

Have fun.


regards,
-- 
Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto (hpfn)

Bug#807432: RFS: python-jellyfish/0.5.1-1 [ITP]

[Nicholas Breen]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:44:01PM +0100, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-jellyfish"
> 
> * Package name: python-jellyfish
>   Version : 0.5.1-1
>   Upstream Author : James Turk 
> * URL : https://github.com/jamesturk/jellyfish
> * License : BSD-2-clause
>   Section : python

Hi Diego,

I believe the package also needs Build-Depends on libpython-all-dev and
libpython3-all-dev, or the C extensions fail (nonfatally) to compile in a clean
chroot environment.

Unfortunately, the tests also fail - it appears that pytest is not successfully
picking up any tests to run:

[...]
I: pybuild base:184: cd 
/tmp/buildd/python-jellyfish-0.5.1/.pybuild/pythonX.Y_2.7/build; python2.7 -m 
pytest 
= test session starts ==
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.11, pytest-2.8.5, py-1.4.31, pluggy-0.3.1
rootdir: /tmp/buildd/python-jellyfish-0.5.1, inifile: 
collected 0 items

= no tests ran in 0.00 seconds =
E: pybuild pybuild:274: test: plugin distutils failed with: exit code=5: cd 
/tmp/buildd/python-jellyfish-0.5.1/.pybuild/pythonX.Y_2.7/build; python2.7 -m 
pytest 
[...]



-- 
Nicholas Breen
nbr...@debian.org

Re: Source tarball update/fix

[Ben Finney]

Sergio Durigan Junior  writes:

> After reading the policy and having a brief chat with Paul Tagliamonte
> on #debian-devel, the apparent solution would be to rename the source
> tarball.  Today, it is named "midori_0.5.11.orig.tar.bz2".  My decision
> was to rename it to "midori_0.5.11~ds1.orig.tar.bz2".  I tried doing
> that, and my upload got rejected again, because "midori_0.5.11~ds1-1 is
> newer than midori_0.5.11-2" (which is the latest version on testing).

The problem is you've used the special-meaning “~” separator. That has
the special meaning that anything with a ‘~foo’ suffix is *earlier* than
without that suffix.

Don't use the “~” separator unless you know why. (That special meaning
is very useful when upstream's real version strings are ordered in some
non-alphanumeric way; especially, when they make version strings that
they intend to precede a later version that is truncated; e.g.
“1.2.3.beta1” will precede “1.2.3”. So we can modify upstream's version
string to “1.2.3~beta1” which will then order as intended.)

If you want a suffix indicating “later than 0.5.11”, a conventional
separator to use is “+”. So, “0.5.11+ds1”.

> This whole mistake made me learn a thing or two about the internals, but
> now I think it is time to ask for some help.  Is there any way I can fix
> the original problem?

Since you have not yet assigned a “later than 0.5.11” version string,
that option is still open to you: just use “0.5.11+ds1” for the upstream
version string.

-- 
 \   “You can never entirely stop being what you once were. That's |
  `\   why it's important to be the right person today, and not put it |
_o__) off until tomorrow.” —Larry Wall |
Ben Finney

Source tarball update/fix

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

Hi,

When I had my first Debian package accepted (Midori, last year), somehow
the source tarball (.orig.tar.bz2) file got changed during the upload by
my sponsor.  I do not really know what happened (I remember checking
everything over and over, and the pristine-tar branch on the repository
*is* correct), but now it is time to fix it.

After reading the policy and having a brief chat with Paul Tagliamonte
on #debian-devel, the apparent solution would be to rename the source
tarball.  Today, it is named "midori_0.5.11.orig.tar.bz2".  My decision
was to rename it to "midori_0.5.11~ds1.orig.tar.bz2".  I tried doing
that, and my upload got rejected again, because "midori_0.5.11~ds1-1 is
newer than midori_0.5.11-2" (which is the latest version on testing).

This whole mistake made me learn a thing or two about the internals, but
now I think it is time to ask for some help.  Is there any way I can fix
the original problem?  How does the source tarball need to be named in
order to obey the policy and have the package accepted?  It seems to me
that I am missing something simple here, but I cannot figure out what it
is.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature