Bug#879720: RFS: runescape/0.2-1 -- Multiplayer online game set in a fantasy world
tags 879720 fixed-upstream thanks Hi, Using mktemp command to temporary directory in script (src/runescape.sh). See more details here[1]. version: 0.2 * Fixed desktop file * Added initial file transfer progress bar * Replaced command line to create temporary directory * Makefile version updated to 0.2 * Removed official icon in format (xpm) * Added official icon in format (png) size 256 pixels debian/changelog: runescape (0.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release * Switch to compat level 10 * debian/control: + Changed homepage link + Bump debhelper compat to 10 + Declare compliance with Debian Policy: 4.1.1 * Fixed d/upstream/metadata * Fixed d/watch * Updated d/copyright * Added autopkgtest * Changed icon format and fixed bug in desktop file (Closes: Bug#866227) * Replaced command line to create temporary directory (Closes: Bug#879784) [1] - https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/runescape.git Thanks! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#879720: RFS: runescape/0.2-1 [QA] -- Multiplayer online game set in a fantasy world
bts tag 879720 +confirmed Em sáb, 2017-10-28 às 10:44 +0200, Tobias Frost escreveu: > #866227 - ok now. You might also mark it pending though on the BTS Sorry, it's my first time that I'm checking something pending, if I'm doing it wrong, correct me or let me know how I do it correctly. I answered this BTS #866227 > #879784 > Looking at the package at mentors, I do not see a change in the package that > adresses this. The diff from the last version only changes d/changelog and > (whitespace change) to d/runescape.8 Strange, because I made changes to the date in the "month / year" part and removed my email from the "author". In addition to removing the blanks had in 'd/runescape.6' > Looking at the comment / BTS: No, this is not how it should be fixed. > Please make a safe temporary directory or at least ensure that it does > not exist before you try to create it and bail out with an error if so. > You can use your PID or the help of mktemp to do the first. > > It is not a valid argument that this behaviour has been the same already > in the first version. I changed the line with the 'mktemp' command as suggested. Thanks! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#880049: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.13.3-1~bpo9+1 [continuing to update the bpo]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my bpo of "btrfs-progs". I skipped 4.12-1 because it had a lintian BCP-78 (non DFSG) error; this was resolved upstream during the 4.13.x cycle. Please upload to delayed to give Axel Burri time to resolve #878926 "Btrbk (>=0.26.0) bpo needed for users of stretch-backports). Summary: btrfs-progs changed subvolume list format breaking btrck's parsing, but I'm not sure how many of btrbk's 129 users (popcon installed) are using stretch-backports. * Package name: btrfs-progs Version : 4.13.3-1~bpo9+1 Upstream Author : linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org * URL : http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ * License : GPL-2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities btrfs-progs-udeb - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (udeb) (udeb) btrfs-tools - transitional dummy package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfs-progs Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.13.3-1~bpo9+1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ Changes since the last upload: btrfs-progs (4.13.3-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium * Rebuild for stretch-backports. -- Nicholas D Steeves Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:43:07 -0400 btrfs-progs (4.13.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Dimitri John Ledkov ] * New upstream release. * Add breaks against incompatible btrbk. Closes: #872836 * Use noawait trigger variant, updating initramfs is optional, and doesn't relly matter when it happens, as long as it does, eventually. [ Nicholas D Steeves ] * Add copyright for tests/sha.h tests/sha224-256.c tests/sha-private.h * Drop dh-autoreconf from build-depends, because it's automatic now. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:15:37 +0100 btrfs-progs (4.12-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Dimitri John Ledkov ] * New upstream release. * Update watch file to v4. [ Nicholas D Steeves ] * Override dh_auto_clean to work around upstream bug where make clean cannot be run before ./configure * Drop btrfs-convert (Closes: #824895, #854489) * Update Source, because Chris Mason's branch hasn't been updated since v4.4 * 4.6.1-1 did not fix package license Btrfs-progs is explicitly GPL2 and not GPL2+. * Update copyright for new locations of: radix-tree.c and radix-tree.h * d/control: add whitespace (cosmetic fix) * Switch to debhelper 10 and automatically generated -dbgsym package -- Dimitri John Ledkov Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:18:39 +0100 btrfs-progs (4.9.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Dimitri John Ledkov ] * New upstream release Closes: #849353, #817806, #854915, #845473 * Use dh addon for bash completion (--with bash-completion) * Suggest duperemove Closes: #703169 [ Hideki Yamane ] * debian/control - add Build-Depends: bash-completion to use dh_bash-completion * debian/rules - call dh_bash-completion * add debian/btrfs-progs.bash-completion Closes: #840302, #800790. [ Helmut Grohne ] * Fix FTCBFS: cross.patch: Indirect pkg-config invocations through $PKG_CONFIG and autoreconf (Closes: #845816) -- Dimitri John Ledkov Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:45:42 + Regards, Nicholas D Steeves
ZFS packaging
Hello, I'd like to help out the ZFS packaging team. I've cloned the alioth git and done some work to get the most recent release building [1] [2]. I also incorporated some suggestions made by the current maintainer [3]. I've been trying to communicate with the current maintainers, but they're very busy and have not replied in the last few weeks. Would it be possible to have someone look over the changes I've made and/or make suggestions as to how I could get these changes incorporated into Debian? Thanks, Antonio Russo [1] https://github.com/aerusso/pkg-zfsonlinux-zfs [2] https://github.com/aerusso/pkg-zfsonlinux-spl [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871619
Re: source package upload fail? Bug - #859130 ITP: lina -- iso- Forth interpreter
Albert van der Horst schreef op 2017-10-23 15:12: Concerns: Debian Bug report logs - #859130 ITP: lina -- iso-compliant Forth interpreter and compiler Gianfranco Costamagna schreef op 2017-10-10 08:15: Hello, At last I have a debian archive for lina that is generated using proper procedures (debhelper, quilt etc.) from the (upstream) source package: can you please upload to mentors.debian.org and open an RFS bug? Thanks again for guiding me. I presume you mean mentors.debian.net. I've done that: I understand that the work flow between ITP and RFS is: (0. Have a package developed) 1. Have a PGP and an account on debian.mentors.net 2. Build and sign the package using official tools like debhelper 3. Upload it to debian.mentors.net using dput. 4 . This solves the ITP . Now file an RFS that is supposedly presented as a template. 5. Expect a lot of comment. Solve those issues. Repeat step 2 3 and 5 until there is no more comment or the package is accepted, solving the RFS. I've completed step 3 for lina. How long do I have to wait after uploading? It has been several days now. If it somehow failed to upload can I just retry, or would that make things worse? Sorry to have bothered you. All answers are in https://mentors.debian.net/qa G. Groetjes Albert -- Suffering is the prerogative of the strong, the weak -- perish. Albert van der Horst
Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > As an aside, I find it very weird to close a RFS due to > the inactivity of would-be sponsors: from the packager's > side, it feels like a double punishment (getting ignored, > then getting your RFS closed because you got ignored)... Even if you haven't got a sponsor yet, RFS submitters should still be maintaining the packages as they would if they were in the archive. That means updating to new upstreams, fixing any review comments, checking with new versions of lintian, running static analysis tools and fixing issues etc. Those updates should prevent you from ever hitting the inactivity timeout on mentors. If you really have nothing to do, you could still bump the changelog and RFS every now and then, while also spending some more time looking for sponsors. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Bug#862115: Bug #862115: RFS: lr/0.4-1 [ITP] -- list files, recursively
Control: retitle -1 Re: RFS: lr/1.0-1 [ITP] -- list files, recursively I updated the package to the latest upstream version and uploaded it to alioth and mentors.d.n. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > X-Debbugs-CC: ba...@quantz.debian.org > > Hi, > > I reopened those 2 RFSes, as Bart closed them over the > packages not being on mentors.d.n anymore (due to a 20 > days timeout). > > I will reupload them momentarily, but as mentionned > in the previous emails they are available anyhow on > > https://nicolas.braud-santoni.eu/tmp/deb/ > > > As an aside, I find it very weird to close a RFS due to > the inactivity of would-be sponsors: from the packager's > side, it feels like a double punishment (getting ignored, > then getting your RFS closed because you got ignored)... > > > Best, > > nicoo signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#862114: RFS: xe/0.6.1-1 [ITP] -- simple xargs and apply replacement
Control: retitle -1 RFS: xe/0.9-1 [ITP] -- simple alternative to xargs and apply I just updated the package to the latest upstream version. The updated package should be on mentors.d.n. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > X-Debbugs-CC: ba...@quantz.debian.org > > Hi, > > I reopened those 2 RFSes, as Bart closed them over the > packages not being on mentors.d.n anymore (due to a 20 > days timeout). > > I will reupload them momentarily, but as mentionned > in the previous emails they are available anyhow on > > https://nicolas.braud-santoni.eu/tmp/deb/ > > > As an aside, I find it very weird to close a RFS due to > the inactivity of would-be sponsors: from the packager's > side, it feels like a double punishment (getting ignored, > then getting your RFS closed because you got ignored)... > > > Best, > > nicoo signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#880007: RFS: brightnessctl/0.3-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "brightnessctl" * Package name: brightnessctl Version : 0.3-1 Upstream Author : Mykyta Holuakha * URL : https://github.com/Hummer12007/brightnessctl * License : Expat Section : misc It builds those binary packages: brightness-udev - Control backlight brightness - udev rules brightnessctl - Control backlight brightness The udev rules simply enable non-root users (in the video and input groups) to control the brightness of backlights and LEDs, and brightnessctl is a very simple tool that is more user-friendly than writing to /sys. To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/brightnessctl Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/brightnessctl/brightnessctl_0.3-1.dsc Best, nicoo signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)
X-Debbugs-CC: ba...@quantz.debian.org Hi, I reopened those 2 RFSes, as Bart closed them over the packages not being on mentors.d.n anymore (due to a 20 days timeout). I will reupload them momentarily, but as mentionned in the previous emails they are available anyhow on https://nicolas.braud-santoni.eu/tmp/deb/ As an aside, I find it very weird to close a RFS due to the inactivity of would-be sponsors: from the packager's side, it feels like a double punishment (getting ignored, then getting your RFS closed because you got ignored)... Best, nicoo signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#879720: RFS: runescape/0.2-1 [QA] -- Multiplayer online game set in a fantasy world
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 08:26:21PM -0200, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > Em qui, 2017-10-26 às 19:58 +0200, Tobias Frost escreveu: > > Ok, but you need to close the bug in the changelog then. > > See > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-b > > ugfix > > Thanks a lot for the help. :) > > > What's about the bug I filed? (#879784) > > I do not see it has been adressed... > > Package in 'mentors.d.n'[1] are with bugs closed. (#866227) and (#879784) #866227 - ok now. You might also mark it pending though on the BTS #879784 Looking at the package at mentors, I do not see a change in the package that adresses this. The diff from the last version only changes d/changelog and (whitespace change) to d/runescape.8 Looking at the comment / BTS: No, this is not how it should be fixed. Please make a safe temporary directory or at least ensure that it does not exist before you try to create it and bail out with an error if so. You can use your PID or the help of mktemp to do the first. It is not a valid argument that this behaviour has been the same already in the first version. -- tobi > [1] - https://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape > > Thanks! > > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ - https://wiki.debian.org/coringao > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 > ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780
