Bug#1013424: marked as done (RFS: isochron/0.9~rc4-1 [ITP] -- Tool for Time Sensitive Networking testing)
Your message dated Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:13:23 +0200 with message-id <6ab4e7cb-1372-030b-9714-99983191e...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#1013424: RFS: isochron/0.9~rc4-1 [ITP] -- Tool for Time Sensitive Networking testing has caused the Debian Bug report #1013424, regarding RFS: isochron/0.9~rc4-1 [ITP] -- Tool for Time Sensitive Networking testing 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.) -- 1013424: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013424 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 "isochron": * Package name: isochron Version : 0.9~rc4-1 Upstream Author : Vladimir Oltean * URL : https://github.com/vladimiroltean/isochron * License : GPL-2 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/vladimiroltean/isochron Section : utils The source builds the following binary packages: isochron - Tool for Time Sensitive Networking testing To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/isochron/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/isochron/isochron_0.9~rc4-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: isochron (0.9~rc4-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release (Closes: #1010396) Please excuse me for the mistakes I may have made. Specifically, Lintian says that "Bug #1010396 does not belong to this package", yet that ITP was created by me while the project indeed had the "tsn-scripts" name: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010396 I renamed the upstream project to the more specific "isochron" name (which matches the name of the main binary) as part of the source code preparation for acceptance into Debian. I did not close the original ITP and open a new one, but left it as-is. I am looking forward to receiving feedback. Regards, -- Vladimir Oltean --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- I have uploaded the package to the archive. Thanks for your contribution!--- End Message ---
Re: Automated uploading of packages?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:25:05PM +0200, David Given wrote: > At first glance this seems a bit problematic, as it would require uploading > packages which haven't been reviewed by a human. I'd be relying on the > automation to spot any potential problems. But, if the packaging's not > changing --- which should be detectable --- I'm not sure that a human > review adds much value. Ideally, though I have no idea how often this happens in practice, you should actually test your package manually before uploading it. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Automated uploading of packages?
I have a compiler suite --- the Amsterdam Compiler Kit --- which I'm thinking of packaging. Trouble is, it's a bit of a moving target as it doesn't have releases and there's a slow trickle of activity making changes. I could do a packaging for it and get it reviewed and uploaded, but then I'd have to do it again basically every month. This seems like a lot of work. What I'd much rather do is to get it packaged and reviewed *once*, and then set up automation which periodically compiles and uploads new versions from the git repository. At first glance this seems a bit problematic, as it would require uploading packages which haven't been reviewed by a human. I'd be relying on the automation to spot any potential problems. But, if the packaging's not changing --- which should be detectable --- I'm not sure that a human review adds much value. The codebase is huge and it'd be just as easy to slip something nefarious through a human review as it would with automated reviews. So, is there any way in which this could be done? Has anyone worked on tooling for it that they can point me at? Realistically it'd make the difference between getting this into Debian and having the .deb files distributed via PPA or as manual sideloads...
Bug#1015248: RFS: scid/1:4.7.4+dfsg1-1 -- chess database with play and training functionality
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "scid": * Package name: scid Version : 1:4.7.4+dfsg1-1 Upstream Author : Fulvio Benini * URL : http://scid.sf.net * License : GPL-2.0, Tklib * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/josgalo-guest/scid Section : games The source builds the following binary packages: scid - chess database with play and training functionality scid-data - data files for scid, the chess database application To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/scid/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scid/scid_4.7.4+dfsg1-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: scid (1:4.7.4+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream version. * debian/control: - Bump to Standards-Version 4.6.1. No changes required. * debain/copyright: - Update upstream and debian package copyright years. * debian/patches: - 02_uninitialized-memory-access.patch. Remove patch applied upstream. - 01_Makefile.conf.diff. Refresh patch. * debian/rules: - Remove 'OPTIMIZE' option as it gets the same value from default. P.D: I know that three days ago a new upstream version (4.8) came out but I couldn't test it and I prefer to upload this tested version before packing the most recent. Thanks and regards, pgpPVp6xkaieb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#1015247: RFS: phalanx/25-1 -- Chess playing program
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "phalanx": * Package name: phalanx Version : 25-1 Upstream Author : Dusan Dobes * URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/phalanx * License : GPL-2.0+, public-domain * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/josgalo-guest/phalanx Section : games The source builds the following binary packages: phalanx - Chess playing program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/phalanx/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/phalanx/phalanx_25-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: phalanx (25-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream version. * debian/compat: Remove file. * debian/copyright: Update copyright year and my e-mail. * debian/control: - Bump to Standards-Version 4.6.1. No changes required. - Change maintainer's e-mail. - Set Vcs* fields to Salsa. - Upgrade to debhelper compat 13. * debian/install: Book files should install to phalanx dir as they're only usable with the program. * debian/menu: Remove as menu system is deprecated (Policy >= 3.9.8). * debian/patches: - 03_makefile_DEFINES.diff: Refresh and renamed it to 01_makefile.patch - 04_PG_setboard_command.diff: Remove, applied upstream. - 05_PG_version-string.diff, 10_hardening-string-literal_search.diff, 12_hardening-string-literal_io.diff, 14_hardening-string-literal_book.diff, 16_hardening-pointer-sign_bcreate: Remove, not needed anymore. - 16_hardening-unused-but-set_endgame, 17_bcreate, 20_fix_linker_problem: Not applicable. - 02_dereference_pointer.patch: Add to fix not dereferenced pointer. (Closes: #1001069). Thanks to Michael Soyka. * debian/rules: - Add override_dh_auto_install to overwrite install dir. - Remove unnecessary dh argument. * debian/watch: - Upgrade to version 4 and handle latest version (XXV). Thanks and regards, pgpIaECZUJJUl.pgp Description: PGP signature
