Re: Best Location for Vim 8.2 Plugins?
El Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:56:30 +0200 Sebastian Ramacher escribió: > On 2021-09-05 15:19:33 +1000, Jai Flack wrote: > > Hello, > > > > What's the best place to put bundled Vim plugins now that vim82 has a > > new package system? From the documentation, > > /usr/share/vim/vim82/pack/ is the global directory for such plugins > > (and I have confirmed it works correctly) however, Lintian complains > > about the location. > > > > Should I still place them according to how vim-plugin-manager > > expects? > > Based on what the (neo)vim maintainer has done with vim-scripts, > vim-plugin-manager is being phased out. I haven't seen any efforts to > coordinate a transition to vim's packaging system, but I suppose > looking at vim-scripts is a good starting point on how to install > plugins for both vim and neovim. > > Cheers Indeed, the preferred way is now to use dh-vim-addon[1] to package vim plugins. A couple of recent examples I have been involved with using it can be found at vim-solarized[2], and vim-toml[3], as reference. 1: https://salsa.debian.org/vim-team/dh-vim-addon 2: https://salsa.debian.org/vim-team/vim-solarized 3: https://salsa.debian.org/vim-team/vim-toml -Marco pgpxtyc0vWEj0.pgp Description: Firma digital OpenPGP
Bug#995645: Joining the Debian Let's Encrypt Team
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:44 PM Linus Vanas wrote: > I'm now hoping for the package and myself to be accepted into the > Debian Let's Encrypt Team. Hello Linus -- welcome to the team! We'd love to have you maintain the dns-standalone plugin as part of the Let's Encrypt team. I've forked your packaging into the team repo so it has a formal place to live (https://salsa.debian.org/letsencrypt-team/certbot/certbot-dns-standalone) and granted you maintainer permissions on the repo. Jeroen has helped get your package up to snuff (thanks jcfp!), but there are a couple of things specific to the way we've been packaging modules for certbot that would be good to bring into alignment. First, take a peek at the way we manage dependencies in some of the other DNS plugins (certbot-dns-cloudflare is a good example, https://salsa.debian.org/letsencrypt-team/certbot/certbot-dns-cloudflare/-/blob/master/debian/control). We switched to using a virtual package ABI structure to help deal with breaking version changes around the time of the 1.0 release. dh-python can get a bit confused about install-time dependencies if there's not also a dep on the python3 library, so we put the abi packages as both build-dependencies and actual dependencies of the package. (You don't need to have a dependency on the acme ABI if your certbot dependency requires the same version). It looks like upstream's tests are bogus, so no sense in supporting those -- you did the right thing there. The only other thing is that we've been using pristine-tar. All you need to do for that is pass the `--pristine-tar` flag to gbp-import-orig when you import the new versions. Because reimporting it can be annoying, and git and pristine-tar can be... fiddly when you didn't start with it, so I took care of this version for you already. jcfp, do you want to close the loop and do the upload, since you've been working with Linus so far? Happy either way! Sincerely, -- Harlan Lieberman-Berg ~hlieberman
Bug#995993: marked as done (RFS: zydis/3.1.0-1 [ITP] -- fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library)
Your message dated Tue, 12 Oct 2021 22:41:06 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#995993: RFS: zydis/3.1.0-1 [ITP] -- fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library has caused the Debian Bug report #995993, regarding RFS: zydis/3.1.0-1 [ITP] -- fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library 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.) -- 995993: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995993 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zydis": * Package name: zydis Version : 3.1.0-1 Upstream Author : zyantific * URL : https://zydis.re * License : Expat Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libzydis-dev - fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library - development libzydis3.1 - fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/zydis/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zydis/zydis_3.1.0-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: zydis (3.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release. Closes: #995921 Regards, - -- Andrea Pappacoda -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iIoEARYIADIWIQRm3vFSgpkMIZnvqAGooSioqxzuSQUCYWHGABQcYW5kcmVhQHBh cHBhY29kYS5pdAAKCRCooSioqxzuSWmMAQCPNODE2jzrDOrHuJengmbyDEVYgjGm o2a0Mnej8iPqFwEAiXiqePle70zr/zCiObIH+uV1jlrgjuPhOYRW4CmoJAo= =fMxW -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 06:40:33PM +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote: > * Package name: zydis >Version : 3.1.0-1 > libzydis-dev - fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library - > development > libzydis3.1 - fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler library > zydis (3.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* Initial release. Closes: #995921 Looks good, uploaded to NEW. There's an issue in the long desc that would be nice to fix in -2: > [...] It supports all x86 and AMD64 instructions and extensions [...] which is a lie. I don't see Sapphire Rapids stuff, for example. The desc should limit that claim to something like: "supports all x86 instructions and extensions up to Molasses Rapids/Intel and Hubris Ridge/AMD". Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Polexit is brewing? Let's skip that smelly Polsha and reactivate ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the Free City of Danzig and/or reapply to the Hansa. ⠈⠳⣄--- End Message ---
Bug#996199: RFS: filezilla/3.56.0-1 [Team] -- Full-featured graphical FTP/FTPS/SFTP client
Control: tags -1 +moreinfo On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:35:32AM +0100, Philip Wyett wrote: > * Package name: filezilla >Version : 3.56.0-1 > filezilla (3.56.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Team upload >* New upstream version 3.56.0 >* Update libgnutls28-dev Build-Depends to >= 3.7.0 > > Note: This will need libfilezilla21 (0.34.0-1) to be processed via new queue > before upload. Then this RFS is not actionable yet; please remove "moreinfo" once the situation changes. I see there are DLLs bundled within the source tarball. While both of them are freely licensed, I see no entry for the NSIS project (UAC.dll) in the copyright file -- and the other one (nsis_appid.dll) requires MSVC to recompile. I don't see a need to remove them, but could you please at least document their provenience? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Polexit is brewing? Let's skip that smelly Polsha and reactivate ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the Free City of Danzig and/or reapply to the Hansa. ⠈⠳⣄
Bug#995645: RFS: python-certbot-dns-standalone/1.0.3-1 [ITP] -- Standalone DNS plugin for Certbot with an integrated DSN server
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:56:27 +0300 Linus Vanas wrote: > I did CC this RFS to the team email but I don't know how to contact > them otherwise. The package however seems to naturally belong under > the team. I agree; many if not all certbot packages are already maintained there. I don't know of any mailing list or irc hideout for that team, so probably best you try contacting the owners directly to bring the package under the team umbrella. I'll hold off the upload for the time being. pgpRZBBctL0EQ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Uscan with gitlab and user provided tarball
Hi, the upstream of one of my packages recently moved from sourceforge to Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/aroffringa/wsclean He uses git submodules, and this makes the automatically created tarball incomplete. For my convenience, he created (and hopefully will continue so) a manual asset, which is linked on the Releases page https://gitlab.com/aroffringa/wsclean/-/releases/ Unfortunately, the file URL does not have a canonical name, as seen on the HTML snippet: https://gitlab.com/aroffringa/wsclean/-/package_files/15813079/download"; class="…"> … wsclean-v3.0.tar.bz2 This HTML is also generated by a script, so not directly downloadable. Since Gitlab is one of the standard providers, there may be a good solution to get the correct tarball? Or is there a better way for upstream to provide a complete tarball than the one chosen here? Best regards Ole
Re: Reproducible builds erroneous ticks
Hi! On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 06:41:19PM -0700, Matthew Fernandez wrote: > I was reviewing one of my own packages on the QA page¹ and was > surprised to notice it gets full marks for CI/Rep. “Surprised? Isn’t > that a good thing?” you say. It’s surprising because I’ve been > tracking an upstream bug that I *know* makes this package’s build > not-reproducible. Clicking into the Rep tick mark, I note it’s indeed > flagged as not-reproducible. Is the tick mark a mistake? Or am I just > wanting to judge my own package more harshly than CI judges it? Can you share more details on the bug you know of? Is it related to build paths? Varying build paths is not done for builds outside of unstable, and the reproducible builds website exports its data based on testing instead. The reason is simply because varying build paths causes still way too many unreproducibility that most single maintainers can do nothing about (they really require toolchain-wide changes that are slowly happening), which is way they are "hidden" from the default view you see in DDPO. -- 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#995645: RFS: python-certbot-dns-standalone/1.0.3-1 [ITP] -- Standalone DNS plugin for Certbot with an integrated DSN server
Jeroen Ploemen kirjoitti 12.10.2021 klo 11.35: One other thing though: the maintainer is set to the Let's Encrypt team, but their git repo [1] isn't used nor do you appear to be a member [2]. Care to elaborate? Are you in contact with the team? I did CC this RFS to the team email but I don't know how to contact them otherwise. The package however seems to naturally belong under the team. Linus Vanas
Bug#995645: RFS: python-certbot-dns-standalone/1.0.3-1 [ITP] -- Standalone DNS plugin for Certbot with an integrated DSN server
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:08:16 +0300 Linus Vanas wrote: > Lintian in unstable is unhappy due to #995490, but otherwise the > package should be clean now. That look like a lintian issue more than anything else, best to wait until the dust settles. One other thing though: the maintainer is set to the Let's Encrypt team, but their git repo [1] isn't used nor do you appear to be a member [2]. Care to elaborate? Are you in contact with the team? [1] https://salsa.debian.org/letsencrypt-team [2] https://salsa.debian.org/groups/letsencrypt-team/-/group_members pgp1odj0UGLOP.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#996199: RFS: filezilla/3.56.0-1 [Team] -- Full-featured graphical FTP/FTPS/SFTP client
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "filezilla": * Package name: filezilla Version : 3.56.0-1 Upstream Author : Tim Kosse * URL : https://filezilla-project.org/ * License : CC0-1.0, MIT, BSD-like, GPL-2+, permissive * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/filezilla Section : net It builds those binary packages: filezilla - Full-featured graphical FTP/FTPS/SFTP client filezilla-common - Architecture independent files for filezilla To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/filezilla/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/filezilla/filezilla_3.56.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: filezilla (3.56.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Team upload * New upstream version 3.56.0 * Update libgnutls28-dev Build-Depends to >= 3.7.0 Note: This will need libfilezilla21 (0.34.0-1) to be processed via new queue before upload. Regards Phil -- *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** WWW: https://kathenas.org Twitter: @kathenasorg IRC: kathenas GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#996198: RFS: libfilezilla/0.34.0-1 [Team] -- build high-performing platform-independent programs (runtime lib)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libfilezilla": * Package name: libfilezilla Version : 0.34.0-1 Upstream Author : Tim Kosse * URL : https://lib.filezilla-project.org/ * License : GPL-2+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libfilezilla Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libfilezilla-dev - build high-performing platform-independent programs (development) libfilezilla21 - build high-performing platform-independent programs (runtime lib) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libfilezilla/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libf/libfilezilla/libfilezilla_0.34.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: libfilezilla (0.34.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Team upload * New upstream version 0.34.0 * Update libgnutls28-dev Build-Depends to >= 3.7.0 * Soname bump rename package to libfilezilla21 Regards Phil -- *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** WWW: https://kathenas.org Twitter: @kathenasorg IRC: kathenas GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
