Bug#857864: RFS: libmseed/2.19.2 [ITP: Bug#851806]

[Pierre Duperray]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear Mentors,

I hopefully already found a sponsor 'Andreas Tille' for this package,
I should have already done this RFS.

It builds those binary packages:

libmseed2, libmseed-dev and libmseed-doc.
It's intended to read/write Seed (basicaly a seismogram file format)

work was reviewed by Ghislain Vaillant and is available here:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/libmseed.git/

Regards,

Pierre

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf

Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 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#857856: RFS: gmrun/0.9.2-2.2 [RC, NMU]

[Lukas Schwaighofer]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for the package "gmrun".

* Package name: gmrun
  Version : 0.9.2-2.2
  Upstream Author : Mihai Bazon 
* URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/gmrun/
* License : GPLv2
  Section : x11

It builds those binary packages:

  gmrun - Featureful CLI-like GTK+ application launcher

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/gmrun


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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gmrun/gmrun_0.9.2-2.2.dsc


The automatic update ("recompiled with PIC") broke the package (because
of API changes in gtk2, it now only produces sgementation faults). The
uploaded package includes the patch extracted from the Fedora project
(provided by Andreas Henriksson) to fix the issue.

There was some discussion if there should be more changes to the package
(standads version, debhelper compatibility level, additional hardening
options) in 
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857065
and we basically agreed to only fix the RC bug and make further changes
to the package in buster (and possibly experimental) only.


Thank you
Lukas Schwaighofer


pgp8T5mHeZ7nS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Sigrok RFSs

[Bdale Garbee]

Andreas Tille  writes:

> BTW, Bdale, by wearing your technical committee hat...

You do recall that I'm not actually on the technical committee any more,
right?  I "timed out" due to the term limits GR at the end of 2015.

Bdale


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#856827: RFS: xfce4-equake-plugin/1.3.8.1-2 [RC]

[Sean Whitton]

Dear Jeroen,

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:04:07PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> I gave it version -2 because I initially had uploaded a -1 version to
> mentors. There were some lintian warnings and I fixed those, that's why I
> bumped the version to -2. If it is a problem I can change it back again,

No, it's fine.  It's just a convention that version numbers are
incremented for uploads to the archive, not uploads to mentors.  Please
try to follow it in the future, just to avoid any confusion.

> I just double checked, when I get the above two version and create a
> debdiff, and then download the debdiff from the unblock request
> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=857118;filename=debdiff_xfce4-equake_v138-1_v1381-2.diff.gz;msg=5)
> and then run a diff between those the files turn out to be exactly the
> same.
> 
> Maybe you checked against the xfce4-equake-plugin_1.3.8.1-1.dsc version in
> mentors? If so, I apologise for the confusion.

That wasn't the problem.  I was failing to pass -p1 to interdiff.  Thank
you for double checking, anyway.

I'd like to see some improvements to your changelog before uploading
this.

- changes to d/copyright not documented

- the last point about avoiding lintian warnings is unnecessarily
  brief.  Please expand it.  There is a convention for std-ver changes:

  * Bump standards version to 3.9.8 (no changes required).

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sigrok RFSs

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Zoltan,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 01:32:36PM +0100, Zoltan Gyarmati wrote:
> Please see my comments inline,

Sure.  What else. :-P
 
> Yes, i would be happy to push my listed git repos to a team VCS, and
> thank you for the
> offering the sponsoration although before we go any further (mainly to
> avoid any duplicated effort)
> i want to see what would be the way we cooperate on this with Aaron and
> the pkg-electronics team.
> As i'm rather new in contributing to Debian itself, i'm a bit lost here
> how to proceed with this,
> so maybe you and/or Dima and/or Bdale could figure out how to do this.

Some teams have developed a team policy that helps newcomers.  I'm not
sure about the pkg-electronics team but reading the Debian Science
policy[3] could give some helpful hints that might be true for other
teams as well.  (Actually the Debian Science policy os not really well
maintained, Debian Med one is better and Debian GIS and Debian Astro are
more current an possibly better structured.  Just do a web search and
read what you consider the most readable one.  Its an open task to merge
those documents and just maintain group specific issues separately but
nobody has taken over this task so far.)

> > New packages can easily go to unstable.  They will not migrate to testing
> > anyway.
> These are not new packages, they have been RFA-d by Uwe (the current
> maintainer)
> a month back see [1].

Ahhh, OK, thank experimental is correct - sorry for the noise.
 
> >>  It seems we nicely teamed up to maintain this,
> >> how should we proceed, should be check the corresponding
> >> RFAs to ITA?
> > Hmmm, I admit I do not understand this question.
>  As these packages are requested for adoption again, see [1] according
> to my understanding on
> the debian mentors docs (see  for example [2]) i (or my mentor/sponsor?)
> have to set it to ITA.

Yes, please set it to ITA:

Kind regards

 Andreas.
 
> >> [1]
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/pulseview
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libsigrok
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-cli
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok
> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libserialport
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852830
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852831
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852832
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852833
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852834
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852835
> 
> [2]
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_make_my_first_package.3F

[3] https://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html 




-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Sigrok RFSs

[Zoltan Gyarmati]

Dear Andreas & All,

Please see my comments inline,

On 03/15/2017 09:28 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Zoltan,
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:35:47AM +0100, Zoltan Gyarmati wrote:
>>> I agree that if there is a pkg-electronics team that is fine for me.
>>> What would be not fine is if this team is not updating the electronics
>>> task of Debian Science.  Please make sure that all relevant packages are
>>> mentioned there!
>> IMHO the pkg-electronics could be indeed a more appropriate place for
>> maintaining
>> these packages, and also, they should be listed on the Debian
>> Science/Electronics task.
> Fine.  BTW, in principle there is most probably room for an own Debian
> Electronics Blend with its own fine grained tasks.  Two years ago Debian
> Astro evolved from Debian Science and it was a great success.  If you
> are interested I could prepare some framework template for electronics.
>
>> I believe that the packages are ready for the first iteration of review,
>> and i also
>> uploaded them to mentors.debian.net, pls find here [1] the aggregated list.
> Well, I admit I take the freedom to sponsor right from team VCS only.
> If you want me to sponsor your packages (which I happily do) just tell
> me via "Sponsoring of Blends" page the Vcs location and the task a
> package belongs to.  My reason for deriving from the established
> sponsoring procedure is to make Blends more popular (which is obviously
> needed :-P)

Yes, i would be happy to push my listed git repos to a team VCS, and
thank you for the
offering the sponsoration although before we go any further (mainly to
avoid any duplicated effort)
i want to see what would be the way we cooperate on this with Aaron and
the pkg-electronics team.
As i'm rather new in contributing to Debian itself, i'm a bit lost here
how to proceed with this,
so maybe you and/or Dima and/or Bdale could figure out how to do this.

>
>> The only issue i became aware of that these packages are released for
>> unstable
>> but they should be uploaded to experimental (due to the stretch freeze),
> New packages can easily go to unstable.  They will not migrate to testing
> anyway.
These are not new packages, they have been RFA-d by Uwe (the current
maintainer)
a month back see [1].

>
>>  It seems we nicely teamed up to maintain this,
>> how should we proceed, should be check the corresponding
>> RFAs to ITA?
> Hmmm, I admit I do not understand this question.
 As these packages are requested for adoption again, see [1] according
to my understanding on
the debian mentors docs (see  for example [2]) i (or my mentor/sponsor?)
have to set it to ITA.

>
> Thanks for your work on the electronics packages
>
>Andreas.
>  
>> [1]
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/pulseview
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libsigrok
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-cli
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libserialport


[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852830
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852831
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852832
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852833
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852834
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852835

[2]
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_make_my_first_package.3F

Zoltan Gyarmati
https://zgyarmati.de





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#832941: RFS: 4pane

[David Hart]

Dear Sean,

>Hopefully a final review (of b74e630):

>- your copyright on debian/ is out-of-date -- you need s/2016/2017/
>By the way, you can merge the '*' and 'debian/*' stanzas.

Done

>- Various stanzas do not include the copyright years, yet these are
>  available in the files.  The Copyright: field is meant to contain the
>  copyright claim as it was stated by the upstream author..

May I ask which tool you used for that? I've found debmake -kk the best I've
tried, but it doesn't check for dates.

I've gone through by hand and added all that I found.

>- Files in .build/ remain, and are not given in d/copyright.

The remaining ones are my own files. Won't they be covered by '*'?

>- Makefile.in is still in the tarball, but it's not in the preferred
>  format for modification, as we've discussed previously.  It has to be
>  removed.

I'll do so, but not yet in case I need to remove any of the following too.

>- Files: bitmaps/iceweasel.png
>  Copyright: Uncertain
>
>Files: bitmaps/kedit.xpm
>Copyright: Unknown
>
>Files: bitmaps/kwrite.xpm
>Copyright: Various
>
>The ftp-masters would be very likely to reject these.  Since you found
>the source repos, surely you can find a name for the copyright fields?

I tried hard, but failed to find definite copyright authors for these and
other bitmaps; I therefore added 'Comment:' fields. In detail:

iceweasel.png:
I'd originally put in the 'Comment' field: "See
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-gb/firefox/addon/iceweasel-branding/ which says:
"Original copyright 2005-2014, Mike Hommey The artwork is copyright Unicko". I
was wrong to suggest CC-BY-SA; I think that is just the license of the add-on
page. The iceweasel-branding package has the same icon:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/plain/src/iceweasel/iceweasel_icon.svg.
That package's d/copyright
(http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/f/firefox-branding-iceweasel/firefox-branding-iceweasel_0.4.0_copyright)
doesn't specify a separate license for the .svg icon. Globally it says: 
"src/iceweasel/* Copyright: 2005-2014, Mike Hommey 
1998-2010, Mozilla Project 2016 Desktopd Project License: MPL-2.0"
so I've changed it to that, minus the 2016 entry as I copied the icon in 2008.

kedit.xpm and kwrite.xpm. I added these icons in 2003 or 4, probably from SuSE
8.2 which I was using at the time. According to
https://github.com/KDE/kde1-kdeutils/commit/fe8e268ff0d795017227f40b6137006a6cbc2e09
these icons were amoung those added to kdeutils in 1999 by Torsten Rahn with
the comment "Painted by the kde-artist team". No copyright is mentioned there.
Though grepping the package shows that some of its constituents, e.g. konsole,
have separate licence files, neither kedit nor kwrite do. kdeutils itself has a
GPL-2 'COPYING' file. It also has a debian; d/copyright says "Copyright: All
programs are either under the GPL or the Artistic License (namely kpanel, kwm,
konsole, kstart)".

I can find no further information about kedit.xpm. If you feel that's
sufficient to specify GPL-2, copyright Torsten Rahn 1999, I'll do so. Otherwise
I don't know what is correct. Should I remove this icon from the package? 

kwrite is still maintained, associated with kate.
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/k/kate/kate_4.8.4-1_copyright,
dated 2012, says about kwrite itself: kwrite/ Copyright: © 2010 Dominik Haumann
 Copyright: © 2001 Christoph Cullmann 
Copyright: © 2001 Joseph Wenninger  Copyright: © 2001 Anders
Lund  License for all components unless stated
otherwise: GNU Library General Public License, version 2 (LGPL-2)

Again I'm happy to use that specific attribution if you consider it will
apply to the xpm too.

I also put 'various' for mate-text-editor.png, gedit.xpm and evince.xpm, for
similar reasons.
mate-text-editor.png:
https://github.com/perberos/mate-text-editor/blob/master/AUTHORS gives 10 names
but doesn't mention the icon specifically.

gedit.xpm:
For gedit itself
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/g/gedit/gedit_3.22.0-2_copyright
lists 30 copyright owners, with various dates. There is no mention of the
icon's creator or specific copyright.

evince.xpm:
http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/e/evince/evince_2.30.3-2+squeeze1_copyright
mentioned 9 authors in 2005. Cloning git.gnome.org/evince makes it clear that
evince itself is GPL-2 but doesn't mention the icon's author or separate
copyright.

bitmaps/include/chardevice.xpm bitmaps/include/blockdevice.xpm:
These are in kde1-kdebase.
https://github.com/KDE/kde1-kdebase/blob/master/COPYING confirms the licence is
GPL-2. https://github.com/KDE/kde1-kdebase/blob/master/AUTHORS says: "Look in
the subdirs to get info about the authors. The package is maintained by Stephan
Kulow " However the xpms aren't in a particular app's subdir,
they're in pics/ together with many others and have no 

Bug#857706: RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-homedecor/0.4.15-1

[Mattia Rizzolo]

Control: owner -1 !
Control: tag -1 moreinfo

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:33:49AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
>   I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-homedecor"

o/

> Vcs-Git:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-homedecor.git

% cat debian/minetest-mod-homedecor.lintian-overrides 
# used by upstream, not by us
minetest-mod-homedecor: script-not-executable 
usr/share/games/minetest/mods/homedecor/homedecor/listnodes.sh

Well, ok, but that's not the point.

If it needs to be execuded it should be +x.  If it does not it shouldn't
have the shebang.  If it is not need at all, it shouldn't be there.
Please send upstream a fix for one of it, and either fix the packaging,
or properly comment the override.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#857705: marked as done (RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:49:45 +0100
with message-id <20170315094944.gsy2ondejdrqd...@mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#857705: RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #857705,
regarding RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-1
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.)


-- 
857705: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857705
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 "minetest-mod-craftguide"

 * Package name: minetest-mod-craftguide
   Version : 1.0-1
   Upstream Author : kilbith
 * URL : https://github.com/minetest-mods/craftguide
 * License : GPL-3
   Section : games

  It builds those binary packages:

minetest-mod-craftguide - Minetest mod providing a crafting guide

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/minetest-mod-craftguide


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

dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minetest-mod-craftguide/minetest-mod-craftguide_1.0-1.dsc

 It is packaged within the Debian Games Team:
Vcs-Git:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-craftguide.git
Vcs-Browser:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/minetest-mod-craftguide.git

 Thanks,

Snark on #debian-games
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:31:20AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
>   I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-craftguide"

o/

> Vcs-Git:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-craftguide.git

.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://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 ---

Bug#857704: marked as done (RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-unifieddyes/0.4.15-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:44:28 +0100
with message-id <20170315094427.lkuwqszrh4u32...@mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#857704: RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-unifieddyes/0.4.15-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #857704,
regarding RFS/ITP: minetest-mod-unifieddyes/0.4.15-1
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.)


-- 
857704: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857704
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 "minetest-mod-unifieddyes"

 * Package name: minetest-mod-unifieddyes
   Version : 0.4.15-1
   Upstream Author : Vanessa Ezekowitz
 * URL : https://github.com/minetest-mods/unifieddyes
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : games

  It builds those binary packages:

minetest-mod-unifieddyes - Minetest mod providing a unified dye
specification

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/minetest-mod-unifieddyes


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

dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minetest-mod-unifieddyes/minetest-mod-unifieddyes_0.4.15-1.dsc

 It is packaged within the Debian Games Team :
Vcs-Git:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-unifieddyes.git
Vcs-Browser:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/minetest-mod-unifieddyes.git

Thanks,

Snark on #debian-games
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:29:10AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote:
>   I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-unifieddyes"

o/

>  It is packaged within the Debian Games Team :
> Vcs-Git:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-unifieddyes.git
> Vcs-Browser:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/minetest-mod-unifieddyes.git

Uploaded!

ps. I find nicer to use /git/ also for Vcs-Browser :)

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://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 ---

Re: Sigrok RFSs

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Zoltan,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:35:47AM +0100, Zoltan Gyarmati wrote:
> > I agree that if there is a pkg-electronics team that is fine for me.
> > What would be not fine is if this team is not updating the electronics
> > task of Debian Science.  Please make sure that all relevant packages are
> > mentioned there!
> 
> IMHO the pkg-electronics could be indeed a more appropriate place for
> maintaining
> these packages, and also, they should be listed on the Debian
> Science/Electronics task.

Fine.  BTW, in principle there is most probably room for an own Debian
Electronics Blend with its own fine grained tasks.  Two years ago Debian
Astro evolved from Debian Science and it was a great success.  If you
are interested I could prepare some framework template for electronics.

> I believe that the packages are ready for the first iteration of review,
> and i also
> uploaded them to mentors.debian.net, pls find here [1] the aggregated list.

Well, I admit I take the freedom to sponsor right from team VCS only.
If you want me to sponsor your packages (which I happily do) just tell
me via "Sponsoring of Blends" page the Vcs location and the task a
package belongs to.  My reason for deriving from the established
sponsoring procedure is to make Blends more popular (which is obviously
needed :-P)

> The only issue i became aware of that these packages are released for
> unstable
> but they should be uploaded to experimental (due to the stretch freeze),

New packages can easily go to unstable.  They will not migrate to testing
anyway.

>  It seems we nicely teamed up to maintain this,
> how should we proceed, should be check the corresponding
> RFAs to ITA?

Hmmm, I admit I do not understand this question.

Thanks for your work on the electronics packages

   Andreas.
 
> [1]
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/pulseview
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libsigrok
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok-cli
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/sigrok
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libserialport

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Sigrok RFSs

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Bdale,

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:33:48PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > What would be not fine is if this team is not updating the electronics
> > task of Debian Science.
> 
> FWIW, I had no idea such a thing even existed.

FWIW, I had no idea that a pkg-electronics team existed. ;-)

Good we talked about it and please make sure that all packages
that are missing on the tasks page[1] are added.  This can be
simply done by

   debcheckout -u your_id debian-science
   cd debian-science
   $EDITOR tasks/electronics
   git commit -a
   git push

Any DD has commit permissions and its not to late for Stretch since an
updated set of metapackages is usually accepted right before the
release.  I'm running a sentinel of potentially uncategorised packages
and I added packages of pkg-electronics now and will send you e-mails
about this in the next round.

BTW, Bdale, by wearing your technical committee hat you should know
about those tasks that were at some point in time displayed at
installation time but now are not any more (#846002).  It looks that
displaying interesting stuff at install time might even help experts.
:-P

Kind regards

  Andreas.

[1] https://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/electronics

-- 
http://fam-tille.de