Bug#962307: RFS: anymeal/1.0-1 ITA -- Cookbook database for storing recipes
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, Hope you are all up and well. I am looking for a sponsor for my package "anymeal". It was part of Debian until 10 years ago and I finally got around to doing a full overhaul. * Package name: anymeal Version : 1.0-1 Upstream Author : Jan Wedekind * URL : https://wedesoft.github.io/anymeal/ * License : GPL-3+ * Vcs : https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal Section : kde It builds those binary packages: anymeal - Cookbook database for storing recipes To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/anymeal Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/anymeal/anymeal_1.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * new upstream release * dependencies have changed (e.g. using SQLite instead of MySQL) -- Jan Wedekind http://www.wedesoft.de/
Bug#962245: marked as done (RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates)
Your message dated Fri, 5 Jun 2020 23:33:22 +0300 with message-id <20200605203322.GA5590@localhost> and subject line Re: Bug#962245: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates has caused the Debian Bug report #962245, regarding RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates 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.) -- 962245: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962245 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, ** stretch-pu approval and debdiff can be found on: https://bugs.debian.org/962155 I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ca-certificates" * Package name: ca-certificates Version : 20200601~deb9u1 * License : Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ca-certificates (debian-stretch branch) Section : misc It builds those binary packages: ca-certificates - Common CA certificates ca-certificates-udeb - Common CA certificates - udeb To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/ca-certificates Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ca-certificates/ca-certificates_20200601~deb9u1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Rebuild for stretch. * Merge changes from 20200601 - d/control * This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust External Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 * Fix permissions on /usr/local/share/ca-certificates when using symlinks. Closes: #916833 Thank you sponsor! -- Kind regards, Michael Shuler --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 01:39:25PM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: >... > Stretch has an openssl version without `openssl rehash`, but that is not a > large diff. Both stretch & buster will have python->python3 difference from > unstable on the next release, but that's also not a large diff. I hadn't > thought about leaving older compat and standards in unstable, I generally > try to keep lintian pleased.. not a bad idea, if no one minds much. Standards-Version does not really matter, it only says that you have checked the package against some policy version. c_rehash was deprecated but is still in unstable today, delaying the #895075 change would have avoided that diff. stretch has python3 3.5 and buster has python3 3.7. Avoid adding usage of very recent python features and test that it works on buster - python 3.7 compatibility is easier than python 2.7 compatibility. Packages that might be updated this way in stable are special, and it can really help you later when you try to avoid making changes that make it harder to build and run your package on stable. Some people are very eager to request stopping to use some deprecated features or use the latest dh compat, if necessary explain why using something older is important for this package. > Thanks again - I'll update this RFS when #962155 comes back from the > release team. I saw the approval, uploaded. > Michael Thanks Adrian--- End Message ---
Bug#962245: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates
On 6/5/20 10:35 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: Except for keeping debian/NEWS you were actually backporting everything that was possible, this was not a 20161130+nmu1+deb9u2 release that cherry-picked only one or few changes. Given the nature of ca-certificates it was IMHO the correct decision to backport as much as possible, it is just not "backporting as little as possible". Since similar updates to stable releases might happen in the future, I would recommend that you try to get build and runtime dependencies in unstable to a level that allows rebuilding the package in all supported Debian releases. For compatibility with buster this would include staying at dh compat <= 12. "Backporting everything possible" changes are often safest when the only change in the ~deb10u1 source package is the entry in debian/changelog. I uploaded an updated package for 20200601~deb9u1 to mentors and updated #962155 for approval. Backporting the latest changes to stable and oldstable was the essence of a conversation on making that simpler with this package. These uploads get us a lot closer. The branch diffs are not far off now. Stretch has an openssl version without `openssl rehash`, but that is not a large diff. Both stretch & buster will have python->python3 difference from unstable on the next release, but that's also not a large diff. I hadn't thought about leaving older compat and standards in unstable, I generally try to keep lintian pleased.. not a bad idea, if no one minds much. Thanks again - I'll update this RFS when #962155 comes back from the release team. Michael
Bug#962281: RFS: sysbench/1.0.20+ds-1 -- multi-threaded benchmark tool for database systems
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "sysbench" * Package name: sysbench Version : 1.0.20+ds-1 Upstream Author : Alexey Kopytov * URL : https://github.com/akopytov/sysbench * License : GPL-2+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/jcfp-guest/sysbench Section : misc It builds those binary packages: sysbench - multi-threaded benchmark tool for database systems To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/sysbench Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sysbench/sysbench_1.0.20+ds-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release. * Bump Standards-Version to 4.5.0 (from 4.4.1; no further changes). * Bump compat level to 13 (from 12). * Rules: use execute_before instead of overriding dh_auto_build. * Copyright: bump years for upstream and packaging. * Patches: add 06 to prevent git commit hash from becoming part of the program's version string. * Control: restore support for building on armhf, tests no longer hang on that platform. Thanks! pgpqjhrmxhomM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#962294: RFS: btrfs-progs/5.6-1~bpo10+1 -- Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "btrfs-progs" * Package name: btrfs-progs Version : 5.6-1~bpo10+1 Upstream Author : linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org * URL : http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ * License : GPL-2 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/btrfs-progs/tree/debian Section : admin It builds these binary packages: btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities libbtrfs0 - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (runtime library) libbtrfs-dev - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (development headers) libbtrfsutil1 - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (runtime util library) libbtrfsutil-dev - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (util development headers) python3-btrfsutil - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (python3 bindings) btrfs-progs-udeb - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (udeb) 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_5.6-1~bpo10+1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Rebuild for buster-backports. . btrfs-progs (5.6-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release. * Versioned symbols. * Slightly improve long descs. * Drop old -dbgsym migration. * Don't skip scan if modprobe fails (eg. due to built-in). Closes: #956174. . btrfs-progs (5.4.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Declare Breaks: on versions of libgcc-s1 that produce bad initramfs. Closes: #950556. . btrfs-progs (5.4.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release. . btrfs-progs (5.4-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release. . btrfs-progs (5.3.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream point release. * Update symbols -- they're versioned upstream now. . btrfs-progs (5.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release. * Fix FTBFS with new asciidoctor. * Update symbols. Regards, Nicholas
Bug#962245: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:06:28AM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: > On 6/5/20 4:15 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Compared to 20200601 and 20200601~deb10u1 this contains the following > > additional files: > > > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/AddTrust_Low-Value_Services_Root.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Chambers_of_Commerce_Root.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Global_Chambersign_Root.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Certum_Root_CA.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/D-TRUST_Root_CA_3_2013.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/SwissSign_Platinum_CA_-_G2.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_1_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt > > /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_2_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt > > /usr/share/doc/ca-certificates/NEWS.Debian.gz > > > > The additional NEWS.Debian.gz is either correct or harmless, > > the additional certificates are not. > > > > This is due to the backport missing the "Remove email-only roots from > > mozilla trust store" (#721976) change that is in 20200601. > > Great catch, thanks, result of using currentver~debXuY as discussed with > some people for better update recognition, while backporting as little as > possible. Except for keeping debian/NEWS you were actually backporting everything that was possible, this was not a 20161130+nmu1+deb9u2 release that cherry-picked only one or few changes. Given the nature of ca-certificates it was IMHO the correct decision to backport as much as possible, it is just not "backporting as little as possible". Since similar updates to stable releases might happen in the future, I would recommend that you try to get build and runtime dependencies in unstable to a level that allows rebuilding the package in all supported Debian releases. For compatibility with buster this would include staying at dh compat <= 12. "Backporting everything possible" changes are often safest when the only change in the ~deb10u1 source package is the entry in debian/changelog. >... > > Please update the stretch-pu request with that fixed and let me know > > when the corrected debdiff is approved. > > Will do, thank you for the feedback. Thanks for your work on ca-certificates. > Kind regards, > Michael cu Adrian
Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect with QR
thanks Boyuan noted. I am changing Architecture:all and uploaded. with regards. On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:25 PM Boyuan Yang wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:35:07 +0630 "Ko Ko Ye`" > wrote: > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Ko Ko Ye` > > Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM > > Subject: Re: Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect > > > > Have you seen that bartm bot closed your RFS report again? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961899;msg=19 > > It is due to that you removed your package from mentors.debian.net ( > https://mentors.debian.net/package/wifi-qr) and re-add it. When it gets > removed, the bot will detect it and close the bug report automatically. > You are expected to reopen the wrongly-closed bug report. > > Please *DO* *NOT* unnecessarily remove and readd your package on > mentors.debian.net. You can always make a re-upload onto > mentors.debian.net with the same package name and same version name. > The mentors.debian.net site supports such behavior. > (This does not apply to Debian's official archive, though.) > > -- > Regards, > Boyuan Yang > -- with regards *Ko Ko Ye`* +95 97989 22022 +95 94500 22022 +95 9731 47907 kokoye2...@gmail.com kokoye2...@ubuntu.com skype: kokoye2007 jitsi: kokoye2007 http://ubuntu-mm.net http://wiki.ubuntu.com/kokoye2007 http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MyanmarTeam http://loco.ubuntu.com/teams/ubuntu-mm
Bug#961899: Fwd: Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect with QR
Now I believe their's only one issue left: You marked the package to be Architecture:any. However, I do not see any differences for your package across difference hardware architecture. Could you explain the reason of using Architecture:any? If the built package would be exactly the same across all architectures, maybe Architecture:all should be used. After solving this problem, I believe your package should be ready for upload. -- Best, Boyuan Yang 在 2020-06-05星期五的 09:35 +0630，Ko Ko Ye`写道： > > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Ko Ko Ye` > Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect > with QR > To: Boyuan Yang <073p...@gmail.com> > now its available at > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/wifi-qr > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wifi-qr/wifi-qr_0.1-1.dsc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect with QR
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:35:07 +0630 "Ko Ko Ye`" wrote: > -- Forwarded message - > From: Ko Ko Ye` > Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: Bug#961899: RFS: wifi-qr/0.1-1 -- WiFi Share and Connect Have you seen that bartm bot closed your RFS report again? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961899;msg=19 It is due to that you removed your package from mentors.debian.net ( https://mentors.debian.net/package/wifi-qr) and re-add it. When it gets removed, the bot will detect it and close the bug report automatically. You are expected to reopen the wrongly-closed bug report. Please *DO* *NOT* unnecessarily remove and readd your package on mentors.debian.net. You can always make a re-upload onto mentors.debian.net with the same package name and same version name. The mentors.debian.net site supports such behavior. (This does not apply to Debian's official archive, though.) -- Regards, Boyuan Yang signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#962245: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates
On 6/5/20 4:15 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: Compared to 20200601 and 20200601~deb10u1 this contains the following additional files: /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/AddTrust_Low-Value_Services_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Chambers_of_Commerce_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Global_Chambersign_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Certum_Root_CA.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/D-TRUST_Root_CA_3_2013.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/SwissSign_Platinum_CA_-_G2.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_1_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_2_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt /usr/share/doc/ca-certificates/NEWS.Debian.gz The additional NEWS.Debian.gz is either correct or harmless, the additional certificates are not. This is due to the backport missing the "Remove email-only roots from mozilla trust store" (#721976) change that is in 20200601. Great catch, thanks, result of using currentver~debXuY as discussed with some people for better update recognition, while backporting as little as possible. I was diffing 20161130+nmu1+deb9u1 to ca-certificates-20200601~deb9u1, so this is also a good check the other direction. I hadn't removed d/NEWS, which was dropped in later versions. I also had not modified certdata2pem.py from the latest. I will take a look at the changes for #721976 and see if it seems ok, I think the email root removal backport is reasonable. Please update the stretch-pu request with that fixed and let me know when the corrected debdiff is approved. Will do, thank you for the feedback. -- Kind regards, Michael
Bug#962245: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:37:24PM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: >... > Changes since the last upload: > >* Rebuild for stretch. >* Merge changes from 20200601 > - d/control >* This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists > distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust External > Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 >* Fix permissions on /usr/local/share/ca-certificates when using > symlinks. > Closes: #916833 >... Compared to 20200601 and 20200601~deb10u1 this contains the following additional files: /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/AddTrust_Low-Value_Services_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Chambers_of_Commerce_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Camerfirma_Global_Chambersign_Root.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Certum_Root_CA.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/D-TRUST_Root_CA_3_2013.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/SwissSign_Platinum_CA_-_G2.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_1_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Verisign_Class_2_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority_-_G3.crt /usr/share/doc/ca-certificates/NEWS.Debian.gz The additional NEWS.Debian.gz is either correct or harmless, the additional certificates are not. This is due to the backport missing the "Remove email-only roots from mozilla trust store" (#721976) change that is in 20200601. Please update the stretch-pu request with that fixed and let me know when the corrected debdiff is approved. > Kind regards, > Michael Shuler cu Adrian
Bug#962244: marked as done (RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates)
Your message dated Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:55:06 +0300 with message-id <20200605085506.GA24026@localhost> and subject line Re: Bug#962244: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates has caused the Debian Bug report #962244, regarding RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates 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.) -- 962244: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962244 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, ** buster-pu approval and debdiff can be found on: https://bugs.debian.org/962152 I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ca-certificates" * Package name: ca-certificates Version : 20200601~deb10u1 * License : Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ca-certificates (debian-buster branch) Section : misc It builds those binary packages: ca-certificates - Common CA certificates ca-certificates-udeb - Common CA certificates - udeb To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/ca-certificates Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ca-certificates/ca-certificates_20200601~deb10u1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Rebuild for buster. * Merge changes from 20200601 - d/control; set d/gbp.conf branch to debian-buster * This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust External Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 Thank you sponsor! -- Kind regards, Michael Shuler --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:33:00PM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: >... > ** buster-pu approval and debdiff can be found on: >https://bugs.debian.org/962152 >... > Changes since the last upload: > >* Rebuild for buster. >* Merge changes from 20200601 > - d/control; set d/gbp.conf branch to debian-buster >* This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists > distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust External > Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 >... Thanks, uploaded. > Kind regards, > Michael Shuler cu Adrian--- End Message ---
