Bug#989682: RFS: libexplain/1.4.D001-11 [QA] [RC] -- library of system-call-specific strerror repl - development files
> > The unblock request is bug #989681 [0], not confirmed yet. > Unblock request was approved earlier today. Håvard
Bug#981982: RFS: codelite/15.0+dfsg-1 [QA] -- Powerful and lightweight IDE
Hi Tobi, Many thanks for your review. >(Note: Due to the freeze, an upload to unstable is currently out of scope. You >might either want to wait for bullseye's release or target experimental for >now) I know. The new release and RFS preceded the freeze, but didn't attract a sponsor in time. I'll wait for bullseye. >Thanks for the updated package… >Some questions though: >- d/control: > - I see in the diff >- that you start Depend: on clangd and clang-format. >Is codelite _really_ depending as in Policy-Depends on it? It's long enough ago that I can't remember, but I'll check. > (there are some *arch-dependent* Build-Depends on clang stugg that seems to >be in contradiction… as the Depends are not arch-depenent this does not fit >somehow…) >- note this change is not documented in d/changelog, thats why I had to > guess: PLEASE document the _whys_ of your changes to help the sponsor out > until they improve in reading your mind… ;-) Sorry, that was an oversight. >nitpick: > - d/copyright does not need all those extra blank lines :) > >PS: You know the package is orphaned :) Could we talk you into adopting it? >(Its okay if you decline, but TIA for considering!) I know, and 40 or 50 years ago I'd have jumped at the chance. But codelite really deserves a long term maintainer, and that excludes me. >Tagging moreinfo because of the questions above (clang and freeze) >Remove the tag when you think the package is ready for a second review… Will do. Thanks again. Regards, David
Bug#989682: RFS: libexplain/1.4.D001-11 [QA] [RC] -- library of system-call-specific strerror repl - development files
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libexplain": * Package name: libexplain Version : 1.4.D001-11 Upstream Author : Peter Miller * URL : http://libexplain.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-3+, LGPL-3+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libexplain Section : devel It builds those binary packages: explain - utility to explain system call errors libexplain-doc - library of system-call-specific strerror repl - documentation libexplain51 - library of system-call-specific strerror repl libexplain-dev - library of system-call-specific strerror repl - development files To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libexplain/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libe/libexplain/libexplain_1.4.D001-11.dsc Changes since the last upload: libexplain (1.4.D001-11) unstable; urgency=medium . * QA upload. * d/control: Add libacl1-dev as dependency Closes: #962342 The unblock request is bug #989681 [0], not confirmed yet. Regards, Håvard [0] https://bugs.debian.org/989681
Bug#960710: RFS: adios2/2.6.0-1 [ITP] -- ADIOS2 Adaptable IO system for simulations
Control: tags -1 moreinfo (tagging as there was no reply)
Bug#960336: RFS: gtkorvo-libenet/1.3.15-1 [ITP] -- Georgia Tech fork of libenet
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Kyle, I'm currently looking over (old) RFS bugs… And this one is very old :( Sorry for that … So, before looking into it, can you confirm that you still interested in maintaining this library? Other than that, I prefer to sponsor only based on .dsc-files, preferable uploaded to mentors.debian.net, as this is a (IMHO) more concise defintion about exactly what to sponsor and selfish /me has also some automation in place for mentos… So I'd take a look at libatl after you confirmed and have some .dsc for me :) Just remove the moreinfo tag when ready and I will take a look :) -- Cheers, tobi
Bug#960312: RFS: libffs/1.7.0-1 [ITP] -- Data communication library
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Kyle, I'm currently looking over (old) RFS bugs… And this one is very old :( Sorry for that … So, before looking into it, can you confirm that you still interested in maintaining this library? Other than that, I prefer to sponsor only based on .dsc-files, preferable uploaded to mentors.debian.net, as this is a (IMHO) more concise defintion about exactly what to sponsor and selfish /me has also some automation in place for mentos… So I'd take a look at libatl after you confirmed and have some .dsc for me :) Just remove the moreinfo tag when ready and I will take a look :) -- Cheers, tobi
Bug#960059: RFS: libdill/2.4.2-1 [ITP] -- Just-in-time code generation library
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Kyle, I'm currently looking over (old) RFS bugs… And this one is very old :( Sorry for that … So, before looking into it, can you confirm that you still interested in maintaining this library? Other than that, I prefer to sponsor only based on .dsc-files, preferable uploaded to mentors.debian.net, as this is a (IMHO) more concise defintion about exactly what to sponsor and selfish /me has also some automation in place for mentos… So I'd offer take a look at this library after you confirmed and have some .dsc for me :) Just remove the moreinfo tag when ready and I will take a look :) -- Cheers, tobi (recycling the text from 960049)
Bug#982977: Your RFS bugs.
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Thomas, basically the same remarks I gave for #987996 apply to this packages as well: - You need to close the ITP bugs (and file them if you haven't) - Intial uploads only have one entry in the changelog (closing the ITP.) - The mentor pages might some hints that some stuff needs fixing (at least on a few packages are lintian _errors_, for example) Note: I saw at least one possible false positive for one lintian _warning_) I'm tagging the RFS moreinfo as they need some fixes before it makes sense to review in depth. please remove the tag once the issues are fixed and there is something to review. Cheers, -- tobi
Bug#874305: RFS: mitlm/0.4.2-1 -- MIT Language Modeling toolkit
Control: close -1 As this bug is now more than two years old since last interaction, I'm closing it. (the link in the RFS is 404 also, so there is nothing to sponsor atm. Feel free to reopen if there is something to be sponsored and I missed it. -- tobi
Bug#983713: Bug#983712: RFS: lebiniou/3.55.0-1 -- user-friendly, powerful music visualization / VJing tool
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 10:26:22PM +0200, Olivier Girondel wrote: > On 6/9/21 8:48 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > Hi Tobias, > > Well this RFS is 4 months old, so yes it's a little late for it to reach > bullseye :) (As this RFS was filed after the soft freeze deadline, it would not have reached bullseye. [1]) > We're about to relase 3.60 soon anyway, so depending on bullseye's release > date (do you have some idea btw ?) Well, the release date is traditionally "When it's ready(tm)" :). Said that, for a datapoint, [1] says the full-freeze is planned for early July… ( So maaayyb August? ing) > it might be possible that I close these RFS. You shouldn not close this RFS if you intend to have 3.60 soon; you would then need to reopen it, as one should "recycle" a RFS until it has been sponsored (to keep history, previous reviews, keep your spot in the queue [2], etc…) > Question: in case 3.55 and 3.56 never make it in Debian, should I remove the > entries from d/changelog ? I've seen both: removal and keeping… So you decide for yourself; if you keep the unreleased, mark them as UNRELEASED though. (my personal bikeshed color is to remove the unreleased ones and have the entries in the eventually uploaded version only;) [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html [2] Disclaimer: I _usually_ take a look at the older open RFS first, but it is not FIFO. YMWV. -- tobi
