Bug#1015920: RFS: picklecast/1.0.2 [ITP] -- Screenshare receiver
I've corrected the copyright and changelog files. > What is that adapter-latest.js file in debian/copyright? It's a shim which hides variation in the WebRTC api between browsers. Evan
Bug#1016095: RFS: archlinux-keyring/0~20220713-1 [ITP] -- Arch Linux PGP keyring
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "archlinux-keyring": * Package name: archlinux-keyring Version : 0~20220713-1 Upstream Author : arch-proje...@lists.archlinux.org * URL : https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/archlinux-keyring * License : GPL-3+ * Vcs : https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/archlinux-keyring Section : misc The source builds the following binary packages: archlinux-keyring - Arch Linux PGP keyring To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/archlinux-keyring/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/archlinux-keyring/archlinux-keyring_0~20220713-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: archlinux-keyring (0~20220713-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release. (Closes: #1016094) Regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1015968: RFS: xbase64/3.1.2-14 -- xbase compatible C++ class library
I've submitted a second upload to mentors that:
1. I believe will address libmux.so being used before it is built. I've
tried to reproduce a race condition with make -j12, but I am unsuccessful.
For me, the build always succeeds.
2. I hope the above fix prevents any random reference to an external libmux
or random and unintended reference to libxbase64 or .la files.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:18 PM Stephen Dennis
wrote:
> Could it be a naming collision between the private libmux and an
> official libmux package?
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:13 PM Stephen Dennis
> wrote:
>
>> How can I reproduce what you are seeing? The package doesn't use libtool,
>> and no .la files are produced or included. There should be no reference to
>> libxbase64. I'm not even sure what that is.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:30 PM Adam Borowski
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 04:53:52PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
>>> >Package name: xbase64
>>> >Version : 3.1.2-14
>>>
>>> > xbase64 (3.1.2-14) unstable; urgency=medium
>>> > .
>>> >* Migrate to debhelper-compat 13:
>>> > - debian/control: Add debhelper-compat (= 13).
>>> > - Remove debian/compat.
>>> > - Add usr/bin/xbase64-config into new debian/not-installed.
>>> > - Add usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxbase64.la to
>>> > debian/libxbase64-bin.install.
>>> >* Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.6.1.0 (No changes needed).
>>> >* debian/copyright:
>>> > - Add year 2022 to myself.
>>> >* Disable Link time optimization (Closes: #1015707):
>>> > - debian/rules: Add optimize=-lto to DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS.
>>> >* debian/control: Add Rules-Requires-Root: no.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason you include the .la file? From my experience it being
>>> needed for anything suggests severe borkage, and the Policy concurs:
>>>
>>> # [...] these files normally should not be included in the Debian
>>> package,
>>> # since the information they include is not necessary to link with the
>>> # shared library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional
>>> dependencies
>>> # to other programs or libraries.
>>>
>>> It then says:
>>>
>>> # If the ".la" must be included, it should be included in the
>>> # development ("-dev") package, unless the library will be loaded by
>>> # "libtool"’s "libltdl" library. If it is intended for use with
>>> # "libltdl", the ".la" files must go in the run-time library package.
>>>
>>> libxbase64-bin is neither.
>>>
>>>
>>> Meow!
>>> --
>>> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ You should never, ever, degrade a human being by saying they're
>>> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ a worthless waste of food and air.
>>> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
>>> ⠈⠳⣄ You should also never anthropomorphize spammers and
>>> telemarketers.
>>>
>>>
Bug#1015968: RFS: xbase64/3.1.2-14 -- xbase compatible C++ class library
Could it be a naming collision between the private libmux and an
official libmux package?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:13 PM Stephen Dennis
wrote:
> How can I reproduce what you are seeing? The package doesn't use libtool,
> and no .la files are produced or included. There should be no reference to
> libxbase64. I'm not even sure what that is.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:30 PM Adam Borowski wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 04:53:52PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
>> >Package name: xbase64
>> >Version : 3.1.2-14
>>
>> > xbase64 (3.1.2-14) unstable; urgency=medium
>> > .
>> >* Migrate to debhelper-compat 13:
>> > - debian/control: Add debhelper-compat (= 13).
>> > - Remove debian/compat.
>> > - Add usr/bin/xbase64-config into new debian/not-installed.
>> > - Add usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxbase64.la to
>> > debian/libxbase64-bin.install.
>> >* Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.6.1.0 (No changes needed)
Bug#1015968: RFS: xbase64/3.1.2-14 -- xbase compatible C++ class library
How can I reproduce what you are seeing? The package doesn't use libtool,
and no .la files are produced or included. There should be no reference to
libxbase64. I'm not even sure what that is.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:30 PM Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 04:53:52PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> >Package name: xbase64
> >Version : 3.1.2-14
>
> > xbase64 (3.1.2-14) unstable; urgency=medium
> > .
> >* Migrate to debhelper-compat 13:
> > - debian/control: Add debhelper-compat (= 13).
> > - Remove debian/compat.
> > - Add usr/bin/xbase64-config into new debian/not-installed.
> > - Add usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxbase64.la to
> > debian/libxbase64-bin.install.
> >* Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.6.1.0 (No changes needed).
> >* debian/copyright:
> > - Add year 2022 to myself.
> >* Disable Link time optimization (Closes: #1015707):
> > - debian/rules: Add optimize=-lto to DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS.
> >* debian/control: Add Rules-Requires-Root: no.
>
> Is there a reason you include the .la file? From my experience it being
> needed for anything suggests severe borkage, and the Policy concurs:
>
> # [...] these files normally should not be included in the Debian package,
> # since the information they include is not necessary to link with the
> # shared library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional dependencies
> # to other programs or libraries.
>
> It then says:
>
> # If the ".la" must be included, it should be included in the
> # development ("-dev") package, unless the library will be loaded by
> # "libtool"’s "libltdl" library. If it is intended for use with
> # "libltdl", the ".la" files must go in the run-time library package.
>
> libxbase64-bin is neither.
>
>
> Meow!
> --
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ You should never, ever, degrade a human being by saying they're
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ a worthless waste of food and air.
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
> ⠈⠳⣄ You should also never anthropomorphize spammers and telemarketers.
>
>
Bug#1015968: RFS: xbase64/3.1.2-14 -- xbase compatible C++ class library
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 04:53:52PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
>Package name: xbase64
>Version : 3.1.2-14
> xbase64 (3.1.2-14) unstable; urgency=medium
> .
>* Migrate to debhelper-compat 13:
> - debian/control: Add debhelper-compat (= 13).
> - Remove debian/compat.
> - Add usr/bin/xbase64-config into new debian/not-installed.
> - Add usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxbase64.la to
> debian/libxbase64-bin.install.
>* Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.6.1.0 (No changes needed).
>* debian/copyright:
> - Add year 2022 to myself.
>* Disable Link time optimization (Closes: #1015707):
> - debian/rules: Add optimize=-lto to DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS.
>* debian/control: Add Rules-Requires-Root: no.
Is there a reason you include the .la file? From my experience it being
needed for anything suggests severe borkage, and the Policy concurs:
# [...] these files normally should not be included in the Debian package,
# since the information they include is not necessary to link with the
# shared library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional dependencies
# to other programs or libraries.
It then says:
# If the ".la" must be included, it should be included in the
# development ("-dev") package, unless the library will be loaded by
# "libtool"’s "libltdl" library. If it is intended for use with
# "libltdl", the ".la" files must go in the run-time library package.
libxbase64-bin is neither.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ You should never, ever, degrade a human being by saying they're
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ a worthless waste of food and air.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄ You should also never anthropomorphize spammers and telemarketers.
Bug#1016091: RFS: tinymux/2.12.0.10-1 [RC] -- text-based multi-user virtual world server
I wonder if it is a race condition in the Makefile. libmux.so is built from code in the package. It isn't an external dependency. From the Makefile: MUX_LIBS = -lmux ... all: libmux.so netmux slave stubslave links subdirs ... stubslave: stubslave.o $(CXX) $(ALLCXXFLAGS) -o stubslave stubslave.o -L. $(LIBS) $(MUX_LIBS) $(STUBLIBS) I bet that should be stubslave: stubslave.o libmux.so $(CXX) $(ALLCXXFLAGS) -o stubslave stubslave.o -L. $(LIBS) $(MUX_LIBS) $(STUBLIBS) This has probably been an issue forever, but no one has tried to build it on enough cores, yet. And, likewise, I won't know for certain that it is fixed without someone without enough cores. Stephen On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:03 PM Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:29:03PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote: > > * Package name: tinymux > >Version : 2.12.0.10-1 > > > tinymux (2.12.0.10-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > >* New upstream release > > + fixes ftbfs with GCC-12. (Closes: #1013053) > >* Update Standards-Version in debian/control from 4.0.1 to 4.6.1. > > + Removed build date and number for reproducible build. > >(Closes: #866945) > > Alas, it fails to build: > g++ -std=c++14 -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. > -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -g -O > -DSTUB_SLAVE -o stubslave stubslave.o -L. -lm -lcrypt -lmux > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lmux: No such file or directory > > > Meow! > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Imagine there are bandits in your house, your kid is bleeding out, > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the house is on fire, and seven giant trumpets are playing in the > ⠈⠳⣄ sky. Your cat demands food. The priority should be obvious... >
Bug#1016091: RFS: tinymux/2.12.0.10-1 [RC] -- text-based multi-user virtual world server
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:29:03PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote: > * Package name: tinymux >Version : 2.12.0.10-1 > tinymux (2.12.0.10-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* New upstream release > + fixes ftbfs with GCC-12. (Closes: #1013053) >* Update Standards-Version in debian/control from 4.0.1 to 4.6.1. > + Removed build date and number for reproducible build. >(Closes: #866945) Alas, it fails to build: g++ -std=c++14 -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -g -O -DSTUB_SLAVE -o stubslave stubslave.o -L. -lm -lcrypt -lmux /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lmux: No such file or directory Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Imagine there are bandits in your house, your kid is bleeding out, ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the house is on fire, and seven giant trumpets are playing in the ⠈⠳⣄ sky. Your cat demands food. The priority should be obvious...
Bug#1016091: RFS: tinymux/2.12.0.10-1 [RC] -- text-based multi-user virtual world server
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tinymux": * Package name: tinymux Version : 2.12.0.10-1 Upstream Author : Stephen Dennis * URL : http://www.tinymux.org/ * License : BSD-3-clause, Artistic-1.0 and TinyMUD-revised * Vcs : https://github.com/brazilofmux/tinymux Section : games The source builds the following binary packages: tinymux - text-based multi-user virtual world server To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/tinymux/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tinymux/tinymux_2.12.0.10-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: tinymux (2.12.0.10-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release + fixes ftbfs with GCC-12. (Closes: #1013053) * Update Standards-Version in debian/control from 4.0.1 to 4.6.1. + Removed build date and number for reproducible build. (Closes: #866945) Regards, Stephen Dennis
Bug#1012096: RFS: tractor/3.13-1 [ITP] -- Setup an onion routing proxy
d/control
=
Description should say "through the onion router" instead of "through the onion
proxy".
All of tractor's python3* Depends should be removed because they are contained
in ${python3:Depends}.
The only exception is python3-distutils, which I do not see used in the code.
With this change I expect no more changes on your side for sponsoring this.
Please also push to git with your next update.
Bug#1016086: marked as done (RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-2 [QA] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library)
Your message dated Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:39:51 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-2 [QA] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library has caused the Debian Bug report #1016086, regarding RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-2 [QA] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax 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.) -- 1016086: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1016086 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "raptor2": * Package name: raptor2 Version : 2.0.15-2 Upstream Author : Dave Beckett * URL : https://librdf.org/raptor/ * License : LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2+ or Apache-2.0, public-domain, LGPL-2.1+, GPL-3+ * Vcs : [fill in URL of packaging vcs] Section : devel The source builds the following binary packages: libraptor2-dev - Raptor 2 RDF syntax library development libraries and headers libraptor2-0 - Raptor 2 RDF syntax library raptor2-utils - Raptor 2 RDF parser and serializer utilities libraptor2-doc - Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/raptor2/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/raptor2/raptor2_2.0.15-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: raptor2 (2.0.15-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * QA upload. * Include missing LDFLAGS "-Wl,--default-symver". Fixes the regression in autopkgtest for konclude and libreoffice. I had trouble with running the autopkgtest for libreoffice, but reading the log, it's the same error for both packages. autopkgtest for konclude passes. Regards, Håvard --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the quick fix!--- End Message ---
Bug#1012096: RFS: tractor/3.14-1 [ITP] -- Setup an onion routing proxy
Am 26.07.22 um 20:56 schrieb دانیال بهزادی: I targeted it to experimental and reuploaded the package. What are the instructions for publishing it to unstable and testing? No specific instruction for unstable; just replace experimental with unstable. You do not publish to testing. The package will automatically migrate to testing once it is in unstable and checks all migration boxes.
Bug#1012096: RFS: tractor/3.14-1 [ITP] -- Setup an onion routing proxy
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo I targeted it to experimental and reuploaded the package. What are the instructions for publishing it to unstable and testing? در 26 ژوئیهٔ 2022 16:32:41 (UTC)، Bastian Germann نوشت: >Control: tags -1 moreinfo > >On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 13:58:36 +0430 wrote: >> OK, I removed the 3.13-1 and closed the ITP in 3.14-1 instead. >> Danial Behzadi > >But now you target UNRELEASED. You have to target unstable or experimental >with an ITP. >
Bug#1012096: RFS: tractor/3.14-1 [ITP] -- Setup an onion routing proxy
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 13:58:36 +0430 wrote: OK, I removed the 3.13-1 and closed the ITP in 3.14-1 instead. Danial Behzadi But now you target UNRELEASED. You have to target unstable or experimental with an ITP.
Bug#1016060: marked as done (RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-1 [QA] [RC] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library)
Your message dated Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:30:04 +0200 with message-id <4cea6a5b-7212-8c54-7f41-217e7b96f...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-1 [QA] [RC] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library has caused the Debian Bug report #1016060, regarding RFS: raptor2/2.0.15-1 [QA] [RC] -- Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax 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.) -- 1016060: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1016060 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "raptor2": * Package name: raptor2 Version : 2.0.15-1 Upstream Author : Dave Beckett * URL : https://librdf.org/raptor/ * License : LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2+ or Apache-2.0, public-domain, LGPL-2.1+, GPL-3+ * Vcs : Section : devel The source builds the following binary packages: libraptor2-dev - Raptor 2 RDF syntax library development libraries and headers libraptor2-0 - Raptor 2 RDF syntax library raptor2-utils - Raptor 2 RDF parser and serializer utilities libraptor2-doc - Documentation for the Raptor 2 RDF syntax library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/raptor2/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/raptor2/raptor2_2.0.15-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: raptor2 (2.0.15-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * QA upload. * New upstream release. Closes: #906938 * Set Debian QA as maintainer. See #1012727 * Rebase patches. * d/rules: - Rewrite to use dh-sequencer. * d/control: - Bump debhelper to 13. Closes: #965792 - Drop dh-autoreconf, quilt and cdbs as build dependencies. Add pkg-config and libglib2.0-dev as build dependencies. - Apply libraptor2-doc multi-arch: same. - Document Rules-Requires-Root. - Use secure URI for homepage. - Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1 - Remove version constraints on packages, no longer needed. - Remove breaks in package libraptor2-0. * d/watch: - Bump to version 4. - Change to secure URI. * Migrate to dbgsym packages. * Upstream patch to use pkg-config, to find xslt library. Closes: #948873 Thanks to Hugh McMaster for patch. * Add d/not-installed. * Change d/*.install, install files generated at buildtime. * Drop *.doc-base file. * Remove end-of-line whitespace in d/changelog. * Fix typo in patch description. * Add lintian-overrides for 'source-is-missing' *.html files. * wrap-and-sort -at * d/copyright: Convert to machine-readable format. The source tarball includes some html files. These generate lintian errors. I have overridden some of them, but not all. I can repack the source and remove all html files if it's preferred. Regards, Håvard --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the update!--- End Message ---
Bug#1015928: marked as done (RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-10 [QA] [RC] -- C++ API for D-Bus)
Your message dated Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:00:24 +0200 with message-id <65d19094-bccf-9bb9-8f39-25c6a0e6b...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-10 [QA] [RC] -- C++ API for D-Bus has caused the Debian Bug report #1015928, regarding RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-10 [QA] [RC] -- C++ API for D-Bus 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.) -- 1015928: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1015928 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dbus-c++": * Package name: dbus-c++ Version : 0.9.0-10 Upstream Author : * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/dbus-cplusplus/ * License : LGPL-2.1, GPL-3+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dbus-cplusplus Section : libs The source builds the following binary packages: libdbus-c++-1-0v5 - C++ API for D-Bus (runtime package) libdbus-c++-bin - C++ API for D-Bus (utilities) libdbus-c++-dev - C++ API for D-Bus (development package) libdbus-c++-doc - C++ API for D-Bus (documentation) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/dbus-c++/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dbus-c++/dbus-c++_0.9.0-10.dsc Changes since the last upload: dbus-c++ (0.9.0-10) unstable; urgency=medium . * QA upload. * Add 08_fix_gcc-12.patch, taken from Fedora. Closes: #1012911 Regards, Håvard --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the constant QA work!--- End Message ---
