Bug#994260: RFS: blop-lv2/1.0.2-1 [ITP] -- Bandlimited LADSPA Oscillator Plugins ported to LV2
Hi Bastian, sorry for the very late reply. I uploaded a newer version of blop-lv2. https://mentors.debian.net/package/blop-lv2/ version: 1.0.4-1 Yes, the libs are only available as statically linked .so files. There are no more 'Jérôme Carretero' copyright notices. I guess he is an author of waf, and waf has been removed from the new release. Best, Dennis OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#994260: RFS: blop-lv2/1.0.2-1 [ITP] -- Bandlimited LADSPA Oscillator Plugins ported to LV2
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hi Dennis, Am 19.10.22 um 15:32 schrieb snd: Hi Bastian, sorry for the very late reply. I uploaded a newer version of blop-lv2. https://mentors.debian.net/package/blop-lv2/ version: 1.0.4-1 Yes, the libs are only available as statically linked .so files. There are no more 'Jérôme Carretero' copyright notices. I guess he is an author of waf, and waf has been removed from the new release. It is almost a year. I do not have the bandwidth currently to look at the package again. But I have reopened the RFS for you. Thanks, Bastian
Bug#1021959: RFS: electrum/4.3.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Easy to use Bitcoin client
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:05:21 AM MST Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 19.10.22 um 00:43 schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > Because this Lintian error existed in the previous packages and because it > > does not relate the RC bug that this upload is attempting to fix I was > > planning to wait for a future release to fix it. Do you think it would > > be best to deal with it now without input from Tristan Seligmann? > > Yes. I am a team member and can make this kind of change. > I have to care about packages that I upload are conforming to the Debian > Policy and not having the source available for the JS files is violating > it. > > The replacing of the embedded copies can wait however, but I would be happy > to sponsor another version with them as well. I have submitted a request to upstream to help me understand the best way to remove these JavaScript files and depend on system copies. You can follow that conversation at the following link if you like. Once I have a working build without these files I will create a MR. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/8023[1] -- Soren Stoutner so...@stoutner.com [1] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/8023 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#1021959: RFS: electrum/4.3.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Easy to use Bitcoin client
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:00:23 AM MST Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 19.10.22 um 00:52 schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > I very carefully looked though all the files in the source and the output > > of licensecheck to create the copyright file. If you compare it to the > > copyright file from 4.0.9-1 you will see that it is much improved and > > fixes many inaccuracies that existed in the 4.0.9-1 Debian package. I am > > fairly sure that the current copyright file is comprehensively correct, > > but feel free to point out anything I have missed. > > Missing copyright: > > 2011, ParaType Ltd. > 2014, The Monero Project Good catch. I have added these to the copyright file and will submit a MR shortly. > Missing license: > > CC0 via electrum/www/jquery-ui-themes-1.12.1/LICENSE.txt The jQuery UI themes license is covered by the following existing section in the copyright file: Files: electrum/www/jquery-ui-themes-1.12.1/* Copyright: jQuery Foundation and other contributors, https://jquery.org/ License: Expat Comment: Various authors are described in the electrum/www/jquery-ui-themes-1.12.1/ AUTHORS file. The CC0 license mentioned in the second half of electrum/www/jquery-ui- themes-1.12.1/LICENSE.txt specifically says, "Copyright and related rights for sample code are waived via CC0. Sample code is defined as all source code contained within the demos directory.” The demos directory is not shipped in the upstream tarball, so this license was left out of the copyright file as it does not apply to any files. -- Soren Stoutner so...@stoutner.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1021959: RFS: electrum/4.3.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Easy to use Bitcoin client
Am 19.10.22 um 00:43 schrieb Soren Stoutner: Because this Lintian error existed in the previous packages and because it does not relate the RC bug that this upload is attempting to fix I was planning to wait for a future release to fix it. Do you think it would be best to deal with it now without input from Tristan Seligmann? Yes. I am a team member and can make this kind of change. I have to care about packages that I upload are conforming to the Debian Policy and not having the source available for the JS files is violating it. The replacing of the embedded copies can wait however, but I would be happy to sponsor another version with them as well.
Bug#1021959: RFS: electrum/4.3.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Easy to use Bitcoin client
Am 19.10.22 um 00:52 schrieb Soren Stoutner: I very carefully looked though all the files in the source and the output of licensecheck to create the copyright file. If you compare it to the copyright file from 4.0.9-1 you will see that it is much improved and fixes many inaccuracies that existed in the 4.0.9-1 Debian package. I am fairly sure that the current copyright file is comprehensively correct, but feel free to point out anything I have missed. Missing copyright: 2011, ParaType Ltd. 2014, The Monero Project Missing license: CC0 via electrum/www/jquery-ui-themes-1.12.1/LICENSE.txt
Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Hi, My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the package again. Questions: - Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given that the package never made it to unstable - Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest upstream version? - When I initially created the repository in salsa.debian.org, I was not very familiar with git-buildpackage and I believe that branches and tags are not compliant (you can compare https://salsa.debian.org/ralex/odr-audioenc with https://github.com/opendigitalradio/debian-audioenc). If the version on github is indeed compliant with the debian standards, can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before pushing the package? Thank you very much in advance for your support. -- Robin ALEXANDER OpenPGP_0xB44D368855690D0F.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
