Bug#839758: RFS (on ITP): node-source-map-support -- Fixes stack traces for files with source maps

2016-10-04 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna 
Hi,

>   I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-source-map-support"


done!

G.

Bug#839758: RFS (on ITP): node-source-map-support -- Fixes stack traces for files with source maps

2016-10-04 Thread Julien Puydt 

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-source-map-support"

 * Package name: node-source-map-support
   Version : 0.4.3+ds-1
   Upstream Author : Evan Wallace
 * URL : https://github.com/evanw/node-source-map-support
 * License : Expat
   Section : web

  It builds those binary packages:

node-source-map-support - Fixes stack traces for files with source maps

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


  https://mentors.debian.net/package/node-source-map-support

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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/node-source-map-support/node-source-map-support_0.4.3+ds-1.dsc


  It is also available within the Debian Javascript Maintainers repository:
Vcs-Git: 
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-source-map-support.git 

 Vcs-Browser: 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-source-map-support.git


  It is a dep of rollup, which is a new build-dep of the last 
es6-promise upstream.


 Cheers,

Snark on #debian-js

Bug#839739: marked as done (RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy)

2016-10-04 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:37:50 + (UTC)
with message-id <1260540918.3131379.1475591870...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#839739: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- 
lightweight and secure socks5 proxy
has caused the Debian Bug report #839739,
regarding RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- lightweight and secure socks5 
proxy
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.)


-- 
839739: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839739
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: sponsorship-requests
severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershim...@gmail.com, max.c...@gmail.com, 073p...@gmail.com

Dear mentors,

I have DM upload access of package "shadowsocks-libev", but since
there's a library soname version up, so I am looking for a sponsor for
it.

There's no other package in the archive depends on this library, so I
think there's no need to proceed the library transition.

 * Package name: shadowsocks-libev
   Version : 2.5.3+ds-1
   Upstream Author : Max Lv 
 * URL : https://www.shadowsocks.org
 * License : GPL-3+
   Section : net

It builds those binary packages:

 libshadowsocks-dev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (development files)
 libshadowsocks2 - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (shared library)
 shadowsocks-libev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/shadowsocks-libev

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shadowsocks-libev/shadowsocks-libev_2.5.3+ds-1.dsc

or you can use git-buildpackage to build:
  gbp clone --pristine-tar
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git
  git checkout mentors
  gbp buildpackage -uc -us --git-ignore-branch --git-pristine-tar

Changes since the last upload:

  * Update to upstream v2.5.3
- Remove patches merged by upstream: 0003
- Update patch 0001 0002: make it appliable to this version
- Update debian/copyright: remove .github/, add newly appended files
  * debian/control:
- Update based on upstream's change
- Add Replaces and Breaks for lib version up
  * debian/maint-tools/:
- Add two script to make life easier for new upstream release

I pushed my changes to git repo:
  
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git/log/?h=mentors

Thank you!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

>Thanks for your review!



uploading shortly :)


G.--- End Message ---

Bug#839696: -- Python parser for the CommonMark Markdown spec

2016-10-04 Thread Dmitry Shachnev 
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo

Hi Jerome,

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:37:07PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Hello Dmitry, thanks for your reply.
>
> It was not really deprecated but rather moved. Whatever, the main issue is 
> that the RTD
> version breaks compatibility with the version previously developed by Bibek 
> Kafle
> and Roland Shoemake [A]. The real target here is the Python package 
> recommonmark
> which depends on this very version; recommonmark has moved to RTD as well, 
> but the
> broken issue has not been fixed yet. The suffix bkrs was appended for this 
> purposed.
> All this stuff is exposed in debian/README.Debian .

OK, that explains it. I was lazy and did not look for README.Debian.

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#839739: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

2016-10-04 Thread Roger Shimizu 
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna
 wrote:
> Hi
>
>>I have DM upload access of package "shadowsocks-libev", but since
>>there's a library soname version up, so I am looking for a sponsor for
>>it.
>
> --- shadowsocks-libev-2.4.8+ds/m4/pcre.m4   1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 
> +0100
> +++ shadowsocks-libev-2.5.3+ds/m4/pcre.m4   2016-09-25 18:42:43.0 
> +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
> +dnl  -*- autoconf -*-
> +dnl Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> +dnl contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>
>
>
> other stuff LGTM

Dear Gianfranco,

Thanks for your review!

Added license for m4/ folder, and pushed to mentors2 branch.
(previous mentors branch is removed)
so you can use git-buildpackage to build:
  gbp clone --pristine-tar
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git
  git checkout mentors2
  gbp buildpackage -uc -us --git-ignore-branch --git-pristine-tar

Updated deb packages are uploaded to mentors already.
Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#838939: RFS: devtodo/0.1.20-6.1 [NMU]

2016-10-04 Thread Fernando Seiti Furusato 
Hi Gianfranco!


On 09/28/2016 11:42 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I would expect some changes more if you want
>
>
> (note: they are usually out of an NMU scope, but with a maintainer mostly 
> MIA, and a package
> RC buggy since 3 years, I think some work might be nice).

I think I will stick with nmu this time around, because I'm afraid I am
a little busy lately :/

> other stuff is good
> (I suggest you to run meld on build log files and debdiff on built deb files 
> to see if changes are good or not
> other than by testing the package :p )

One thing I noticed here was the bash-completion file which is not being
packaged for some reason.
Is that expected?

>
> Of course if you don't want, or you are out of time, I can sponsor it as-is, 
> maybe with a revert of the
> std-version bump (or a mention in changelog, even if policy forbids changes 
> of it for NMUs)

I will look into that and reupload.

Thank you!

-- 
Fernando Seiti Furusato
IBM Linux Technology Center




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#839696: -- Python parser for the CommonMark Markdown spec

2016-10-04 Thread Jerome BENOIT 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hello Dmitry, thanks for your reply.

On 04/10/16 14:07, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> tags 839696 +moreinfo
> thanks
> 
> Hi Jerome,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:23:54PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> I am looking for sponsorship for the Debian package commonmark-bkrs [0,1].
>> This package brings the Python package commonmark[-bkrs] to Debian on behalf
>> of the Debian Python Modules Team.
>>
>> [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838943
>> [1] 
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/commonmark-bkrs.git
> 
> The upstream page of commonmark-bkrs [1] says that it is deprecated in favour
> of CommonMark-py by ReadTheDocs team [2].

It was not really deprecated but rather moved. Whatever, the main issue is that 
the RTD
version breaks compatibility with the version previously developed by Bibek 
Kafle
and Roland Shoemake [A]. The real target here is the Python package recommonmark
which depends on this very version; recommonmark has moved to RTD as well, but 
the
broken issue has not been fixed yet. The suffix bkrs was appended for this 
purposed.
All this stuff is exposed in debian/README.Debian .


> 
> I would prefer that you packaged the new version instead.

I would prefer too, but we (the Dedian Sage Team) really needs recommonmark
to step forward in the packaging of Sage. I also think that Jupyter enthusiasts
may appreciate it.


Thanks,
Jerome

> 
> [1]: https://github.com/rolandshoemaker/CommonMark-py
> [2]: https://github.com/rtfd/CommonMark-py
> 
[A] https://github.com/rtfd/recommonmark/issues/24

> --
> Dmitry Shachnev
> 

- -- 
Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calcu...@rezozer.net
AE28 AE15 710D FF1D 87E5  A762 3F92 19A6 7F36 C68B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=
=mT3d
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Bug#839696: Fwd: Bug#839696: RFS: commonmark-bkrs -- Python parser for the CommonMark Markdown spec

2016-10-04 Thread Dmitry Shachnev 
tags 839696 +moreinfo
thanks

Hi Jerome,

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:23:54PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> I am looking for sponsorship for the Debian package commonmark-bkrs [0,1].
> This package brings the Python package commonmark[-bkrs] to Debian on behalf
> of the Debian Python Modules Team.
>
> [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838943
> [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/commonmark-bkrs.git

The upstream page of commonmark-bkrs [1] says that it is deprecated in favour
of CommonMark-py by ReadTheDocs team [2].

I would prefer that you packaged the new version instead.

[1]: https://github.com/rolandshoemaker/CommonMark-py
[2]: https://github.com/rtfd/CommonMark-py

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#839739: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

2016-10-04 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna 
Hi

>I have DM upload access of package "shadowsocks-libev", but since
>there's a library soname version up, so I am looking for a sponsor for
>it.



--- shadowsocks-libev-2.4.8+ds/m4/pcre.m4   1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 
+0100
+++ shadowsocks-libev-2.5.3+ds/m4/pcre.m4   2016-09-25 18:42:43.0 
+0200
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+dnl  -*- autoconf -*-
+dnl Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+dnl contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with



other stuff LGTM

G.

Bug#839739: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.5.3+ds-1 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

2016-10-04 Thread Roger Shimizu 
package: sponsorship-requests
severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershim...@gmail.com, max.c...@gmail.com, 073p...@gmail.com

Dear mentors,

I have DM upload access of package "shadowsocks-libev", but since
there's a library soname version up, so I am looking for a sponsor for
it.

There's no other package in the archive depends on this library, so I
think there's no need to proceed the library transition.

 * Package name: shadowsocks-libev
   Version : 2.5.3+ds-1
   Upstream Author : Max Lv 
 * URL : https://www.shadowsocks.org
 * License : GPL-3+
   Section : net

It builds those binary packages:

 libshadowsocks-dev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (development files)
 libshadowsocks2 - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (shared library)
 shadowsocks-libev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/shadowsocks-libev

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shadowsocks-libev/shadowsocks-libev_2.5.3+ds-1.dsc

or you can use git-buildpackage to build:
  gbp clone --pristine-tar
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git
  git checkout mentors
  gbp buildpackage -uc -us --git-ignore-branch --git-pristine-tar

Changes since the last upload:

  * Update to upstream v2.5.3
- Remove patches merged by upstream: 0003
- Update patch 0001 0002: make it appliable to this version
- Update debian/copyright: remove .github/, add newly appended files
  * debian/control:
- Update based on upstream's change
- Add Replaces and Breaks for lib version up
  * debian/maint-tools/:
- Add two script to make life easier for new upstream release

I pushed my changes to git repo:
  
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git/log/?h=mentors

Thank you!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#839725: uptimed: 0.4.0+git20150923.6b22106-1 [ITA]

2016-10-04 Thread gustavo panizzo 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Hello

I'm looking for an sponsor of my package uptimed,
I want to adopt this package after it was orphaned by the previous
maintainer #830765

uptimed is an old package (in debian since '99) it has many bugs open,
I fixed some bugs but others I wasn't able to reproduce them,
so my plan is to upload to experimental
and contact the reporters to see if they/I can reproduce the bugs then fix
them.

I want to upload to experimental to check if it builds reproducibly in all 
Debian architectures.
Be aware that I'll request another upload latter for unstable.

debian/rules and packaging in general was polished, modernized, and uploaded
to collab-maint

this is the changelog

uptimed (1:0.4.0+git20150923.6b22106-1) experimental; urgency=medium

  * New maintainer, thanks Thibaut Varene for your previous
work (Closes: #830765)
  * Packaging is now maintained in collab-maint using a git repo
  * Packaging an snapshot from upstream
  * Packaging using git tags instead of tarballs
  * Change dh compat to level 9. No changes were needed
  * Build depend on debhelper 9 and dh-autoreconf
  * Update Homepage field on debian/control (Closes: #806456)
  * Handle missing /etc/uptimed.conf (Closes: #680419)
  * Simplify uptimed init.d script, restart unconditionally on uptimed
postinst
  * Match the location of the $PIDFILE in the init script and the daemon
configuration (Closes: #336922) (LP: #482629)
  * Create /run/uptimed via a tmpfile on systemd systems
  * Change the default interval to save the database from 300 to 3600 seconds
  * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8. No changes were needed
  * Override 2 lintian warnings (unused-debconf-template)
  * Remove perl dependency on libuptimed0 and libuptimed-dev, perl-base is
enough
  * Change watch file to look at github
  * Update uptimed's service file, to start after the time is in sync,
it still may fail if systemd-timesyncd.service is not in use
  * Update uptimed's service to provide uptimed's documentation
  * More modern debian/rules
  * Print a warning on debconf when reducing MAX_RECORDS (Closes: #573232)
  * Add pristine-tar to git repo

 -- gustavo panizzo   Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:58:19 +0800


git repo can be found here

git.debian.org:/git/collab-maint/uptimed.git

built package can be found on mentors
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/uptimed/uptimed_0.4.0+git20150923.6b22106-1.dsc


thanks!

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Bug#830788: RFS: ifstat/1.1-9

2016-10-04 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna 
Hi,


>It's using it indirectly for the crypto support. I've added the

>Build-Depends to make the use more explicit and asked the upstream
>author to add the linking exception for ssl. He agreed about adding it

>but I don't know when that will officially happen.


so, closing this RFS until the NMU is merged and the other points are addressed?

G.

Bug#830788: RFS: ifstat/1.1-9

2016-10-04 Thread Goswin von Brederlow 
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Hi Goswin,
> 
> Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 15:44 +0200 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> 
> > Package: sponsorship-requests
> > Severity: normal
> > 
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ifstat"
> > 
> >  Package name: ifstat
> >  Version : 1.1-9
> >  Upstream Author : Gal Roualland 
> >  URL : http://gael.roualland.free.fr/ifstat/
> >  License : GPL
> >  Section : net
> > 
> > It builds those binary packages:
> > 
> > ifstat- InterFace STATistics Monitoring
> > libifstat-dev - Ifstat Development Files
> > 
> > To access further information about this package, please visit the
> > following URL:
> > 
> > https://mentors.debian.net/package/ifstat
> > 
> > 
> > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this
> > command:
> > 
> >   dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ifstat/ifstat
> > _1.1-9.dsc
> > 
> > More information about hello can be obtained from https://www.example
> > .com.
> > 
> > Changes since the last upload:
> > 
> > ifstat (1.1-9) unstable; urgency=low
> > 
> >   * Update to debhelper version 9 (Closes: #817499, #828348).
> >   * Add multiarch support.
> >   * Fix bandwidth spelling in manpage (Closes: #617336).
> >   * Use dpkg-buildflags for hardening.
> > 
> >  -- Goswin von Brederlow   Mon, 11 Jul 2016
> > 12:03:29 +0200
> > 
> > 
> > The changes are purely packaging (except the spelling) related and a
> > straight
> > update from the old rules file to dh. It blocks some transitions so
> > it's
> > mildly important to get uploaded soon.
> > 
> > Regards,
> >  Goswin von Brederlow
> > 
> 
> any news on your package?
> 
> What I also noticed is that you have added a B-D on libssl-dev,
> but I cannot find any reference that the source is actually using it.
> Using Openssl on GPL'ed code without explicit license grant would be
> bad... Can you expand?
> 
> (Note that I did a NMU on the current version in sid to fix only the
> compat level 4 bug)
> 
> -- 
> tobi

It's using it indirectly for the crypto support. I've added the
Build-Depends to make the use more explicit and asked the upstream
author to add the linking exception for ssl. He agreed about adding it
but I don't know when that will officially happen.

MfG
Goswin