Bug#682357: RFS: birthday/1.6.2-5 [ITA]
package sponsorship-requests user sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org usertags 682357 not-fit-for-wheezy stop Hi Patrick, I had a look at your package at mentors uploaded there on 2012-07-21 23:35. These are the changes you mentioned in debian/changelog : | birthday (1.6.2-5) unstable; urgency=low | |* Fixing changelog-line-too-long. |* Fixing package-lacks-version-build-depends-on-debhelper. |* Added description for previous-events patch. | | -- Patrick Uiterwijk Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:25:29 +0200 | | birthday (1.6.2-4) unstable; urgency=low | |* New maintainer (Closes: 673226). |* debian/control: Standards-version updated to 3.9.3. |* debian/compat: upgraded to 7. |* Move to source version 3.0 (quilt). |* Imported patch to show previous events (Closes: 63). | | -- Patrick Uiterwijk Sat, 21 Jul 2012 23:39:33 +0200 I don't find the changes for these entries, so I suggest that you remove them : |* Fixing changelog-line-too-long. |* Fixing package-lacks-version-build-depends-on-debhelper. Optional: You could merge 1.6.2-4 and 1.6.2-5 into just 1.6.2-4. Optional: You could give the patch from bug 63 a (much) shorter name. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120722060454.ga25...@master.debian.org
Re: need help in fixing bug #618388 of IPPLAN package
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:30:45AM +0530, vykuntam srinivas wrote: > hi all,i want to fix the bug #618388 of IPPLAN package,but the previious > maintainer stated that " libphp-phplayersmenu itself is not maintained > anymore"when reporting bug #647269 please refer this link : > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647269 > as i am a newbie i do not understand why *libphp-phplayersmenu* is not > being maintained? > > > can any one please explain me why *libphp-phplayersmenu* is not being > maintained? The package libphp-phplayersmenu has been removed from Debian, but you can bring it back in Debian and maintain it if you want that. http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libphp-phplayersmenu.html http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=613885 You can also maintain ipplan if you want that. http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/ipplan.html http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647269 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721202233.gb26...@master.debian.org
Bug#679049: RFS: qpxtool/0.7.1.002-6 [QA] -- CD/DVD quality checker
package sponsorship-requests user sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org usertags 679049 not-fit-for-wheezy stop The package currently at mentors is the one uploaded there on 2012-06-26 00:30. I'm adding the tag not-fit-for-wheezy based on what I read in debian/changelog. qpxtool (0.7.1.002-6) unstable; urgency=low * QA upload. * Bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (was 3.9.2). * Bumped debhelper version to 9 (was 7.0.50~); updated debian/compat. * Added file debian/patches/05-add-hardening-flags-in-compiler-options.patch. * Updated debian/rules: added hardening flags in compiler options. * Changed build dependency from libpng12-dev to libpng-dev. Added file debian/patches/04-fix-build-with-libpng15.patch. Added small hack in debian/rules (see LIBPNG_VER variable). Build with libpng version 1.5.10 was tested successfully. (Closes: #662481, #648127) * Used [kfreebsd-any] instead of hardcoded list of kFreeBSD architectures [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64] in build dependency. (Closes: #634714) * File debian/copyright was updated in according to Copyright format 1.0. * Fixed such lintian warnings and notes: - out-of-date-copyright-format-uri - hardening-no-relro and hardening-no-fortify-functions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721201118.ga26...@master.debian.org
Bug#679344: RFS: bzr-email/0.0.1~bzr58-1 [ITA]
Hi KURASHIKI Satoru, As I commented earlier for your package at mentors uploaded there on 2012-06-28 00:14, detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz I found this in debian/copyright : Source: branch from http://launchpad.net/bzr-email and hand-packed by "tar cf - | gzip -9". That's not really "detailed information". I figured out that it means this : bzr branch lp:bzr-email rm -r bzr-email/.bzr rm bzr-email/.bzrignore mv bzr-email bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58 tar cf bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58.orig.tar bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58 gzip -9 bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58.orig.tar But then I saw that launchpad supports downloading a tarball for a given revision : http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr/bzr-email/trunk/revision/58 So, I suggest to simply use that in debian/copyright. The years of the copyright notices in debian/copyright need an update. See for example the years in emailer.py. I see that some parts of debian/copyright were removed. Intentional ? It's not mentioned in debian/changelog. For completeness you could also mention in debian/changelog the changes to the Vcs-fields in debian/control. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721184826.ga12...@master.debian.org
Bug#665354: RFS: viennacl/1.3.0-1 (for experimental)
Hi Michael, I had a look at your package at mentors uploaded there on 2012-07-19 13:36. The file doc/manual/figures/TU_Signet_CMYK.eps contains "Copyright(C)2000-2006 Adobe Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved" and I don't find a corresponding license to redistribute in debian/copyright. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721170641.ge10...@master.debian.org
Bug#661831: RFS: texi2html/5.0-1 -- Convert Texinfo files to HTML
Hi Francesco, I had a look at your package at mentors uploaded there on 2012-07-14 11:00. The information in debian/copyright is yet not complete. One example is that the copyright and license of the file test/manuals/res_all/mini_ker/Linking-rule.html are not yet included in debian/copyright. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721164115.gd10...@master.debian.org
Bug#677347: RFS: rt-extension-jsgantt
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:04:18AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: > hi, > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Bart Martens wrote: > >> > In that case I close this RFS now because there is currently no package > >> > to > >> > sponsor. You can reopen this RFS or submit a new one after wheezy > >> > release or > >> > at any time you want. > >> > >> Why? > > > > See above. > > I'm unsure but If your point is mismatch with uploaded package > on mentors, Your RFS had no package. You clearly intended to wait until after wheezy release. So I closed the RFS. > so I will re-upload NOW If you want that, go ahead. > and wait until wheezy released. I don't know why you write that. Maybe the confusion is that you think that sponsorship of packages not for wheezy must wait until after wheezy release. That is not true. Packages can be sponsored now even if they are not for wheezy. > > I don't want to filing same RFS twice meaninglessly. You can simply reopen the existing RFS. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721155725.gc10...@master.debian.org
how to consult who has set usertag not-fit-for-wheezy
Hello, Is there a way to consult who has set the usertag not-fit-for-wheezy for a particular RFS bug ? For normal tags like "patch", "upstream", "moreinfo" and so on, there are links to the messages sent to cont...@bugs.debian.org on the bug log, but for usertags I don't see such links. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721072611.gf21...@master.debian.org
Bug#677347: RFS: rt-extension-jsgantt
Hello KURASHIKI Satoru, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677347 http://mentors.debian.net/package/rt-extension-jsgantt Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721071220.ge21...@master.debian.org
Re: packaging C interpreter
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:40:52AM +0530, Rustom Mody wrote: > I use and am interested in packaging the C interpreter > http://www.linuxbox.com/tiki/node/149 > > Before spending significant time on it, I thought I would ask if this would > be acceptable as a debian package > Some possible issues: > > 1. Its not under GPL but a 'creative licence' > 2. It build does not use autotools but make with small edits. I guess I > could try putting it under autotools > 3. Its an old project > > I still believe that for many students C is still a first language and > therefore having an interpreter to study would greatly help them up their > learning curve Gergely Nagy already wrote some smart things about aspects I'm not commenting on now. Using an interpreter instead of a compiler usually moves some error checking from "compile time" to "runtime". This may not be useful for students. But I don't object against packaging a C interpreter. You may get more feedback from others on how welcome this software is in Debian on the ITP. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120721070324.gc21...@master.debian.org
Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=wheezy-bilevel > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=wheezy-view > http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS#Usertags > > If consensus is reached (or if noone reacts negatively) I'm happy with your efforts on this. Please continue. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719192701.gc24...@master.debian.org
automatic removal of packages from mentors
Hi supp...@mentors.debian.net, I understand that packages must be removed from mentors, because disk space is not infinite. I have heard from multiple people requesting sponsorship that one of the reasons to remove packages is that no sponsor was found within 20 weeks. However, some of the removed packages have an open RFS with recent comments. Can you send a copy of the automatic notification to the RFS ? Can you also check the age of the most recent comment on the RFS before removing the package ? Also, it would be nice that packages for which the packager does not respond to review comments within a reasonable time are removed first, so that packages waiting for a first review can remain at mentors for a bit longer than 20 weeks. Of course, I understand that at some point you must also remove packages waiting for a first review due to lack of disk space. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719061117.gh28...@master.debian.org
Bug#663916: RFS: phonetisaurus
Hi Giulio, I see that you updated the package at mentors around 24 June 2012, but the package is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719052352.gd28...@master.debian.org
Bug#661533: RFS: postfix-cluebringer
Hello Nikolai, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120718033819.gb26...@master.debian.org
Bug#661633: RFS: mercurial-buildpackage
Hi Darren, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120716164519.ga10...@master.debian.org
Re: Any script to populate debian/copyright file ?
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 06:00:59PM -0400, Aliaksei Sheshka wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:51:46AM -0400, Aliaksei Sheshka wrote: > > > I've read the policy but still confused, if some one can help, please > > > take a look. > > > > Do you have specific questions on debian-policy ? > > > > Yes. > W: irrtoolset source: syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright line 1201: > Continuation line outside a paragraph. > I understand that file is wrong, but don't know where to find a good and > correct example of multi copyright multi license fine. One way to solve this is to switch to plain text, because DEP5 is not mandatory for debian-policy. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile "Use of this format is optional." I'm personally not a fan of DEP5, because I have not yet seen any benefits, only more work for the packager, and less readable for humans than plain text. If there would be any benefit, then I'm not sure it's worth all the trouble. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120716064219.gb31...@master.debian.org
Re: Any script to populate debian/copyright file ?
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:51:46AM -0400, Aliaksei Sheshka wrote: > Hi Debian-Mentors! > > Is anyone aware/have a script to populate debian/copyright file ? No idea. > I'm trying to build a package for irrtoolset > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=392333 If you intend to package this software, then please retitle that bug to ITP and set yourself as the owner. > but the source code has multiple licenses, one file licence a, another b > and so on. > I've told that I have to list each of it as a separate entry, so I did: > http://ipcluster.com/deb/irrtoolset/ looks like it's not good since lintian > complains. What are the lintian messages you need help with ? > I've read the policy but still confused, if some one can help, please take > a look. Do you have specific questions on debian-policy ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120715180425.gc32...@master.debian.org
Re: Question about submitting a package for a new upstream version of Jampal
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:03:54AM -0400, Peter Bennett wrote: > I originally packaged jampal a year ago. My upload was sponsored by > Kilian Krause and uploaded into Debian. To package a new upstream > version should I log a bug against Jampal for a new upstream > version? No need to do that. > What is the process? You can upload the package to mentors.debian.net with "needs sponsor = yes". > Is it similar to uploading a new package? No. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120715174523.ga32...@master.debian.org
how to document removed Build-Depends in debian/changelog (Re: viennacl at mentors)
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 12:58:11PM +0200, Michael Wild wrote: > On 07/14/2012 11:13 AM, Bart Martens wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > Are you aware of the comment at mentors ? > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/viennacl > > > > Regards, > > > > Bart Martens > > > > Hi Bart > > I just had a look at the changelog, and it mentions "Remove unused > build-deps". I see that now too. So actually you did mention it, and I overlooked it. > Is that not enough? Maybe this is enough for some sponsors. I'm not sure. > Do I need to list the individually? I would mention this in debian/changelog : * debian/control: No longer Build-Depends: poppler-utils, asciidoc, lynx. But I don't know how detailed such information must be for debian-policy. Sometimes it is useful to also mention the reasons. I'm adding debian-mentors in cc so that other sponsors can comment if they want to. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120715112514.ga2...@master.debian.org
Bug#659077: RFS for package no longer at mentors
Hello, I see that the package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Can the RFS be closed, or can you restore the package at mentors ? no package at mentors for RFS 664181 trustmanager 3.0.5-1 no package at mentors for RFS 659805 aguilas 1.0.1-1 no package at mentors for RFS 660314 nbc 1.2.1.r4+dfsg-3 no package at mentors for RFS 659077 plowshare 1+20120130-1 no package at mentors for RFS 660270 gnonograms 0.9.6-1 no package at mentors for RFS 658959 phpvirtualbox-4.1 7-1 no package at mentors for RFS 658835 aspsms-t 1.3.1-1 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120715110524.ga22...@master.debian.org
Bug#666566: RFS: liboauth
Hi Bilal, How is progress on this ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666566 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120714093117.gn26...@master.debian.org
Bug#676806: RFS: outguess
Hi, How is progress on this ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676806 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120714091914.gm26...@master.debian.org
Bug#670212: RFS: pentobi
Hi Dean, How is progress ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670212 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120714091614.gk26...@master.debian.org
Bug#677239: RFS: fractalnow/0.8.1-1
Hi Marc, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120712054202.gb24...@master.debian.org
Bug#679344: RFS: bzr-email
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:13:17AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: > hi, > > Thanks for your time, > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Bart Martens wrote: > > Looking at this package: > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/bzr-email > > Version:0.0.1~bzr58-1 > > Uploaded: 2012-06-28 00:14 > > > > How was bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58.orig.tar.gz created ? > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz > > I repackaged it simply to branch its repository and tar-gzip by hand, > because upstream distributes it only in bzr branch. > > According to the developers-reference, I might have to put "-9" to > pack in tgz... I meant to suggest this part of developers-reference : Detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711152241.ga11...@master.debian.org
Bug#679344: RFS: bzr-email
Hello, Looking at this package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/bzr-email Version:0.0.1~bzr58-1 Uploaded: 2012-06-28 00:14 How was bzr-email_0.0.1~bzr58.orig.tar.gz created ? http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012075800.ge23...@master.debian.org
modifications by sponsors
Hello debian-mentors, I have the following questions about sponsorship. I would like to welcome answers from sponsors and from people maintaining packages via sponsorship. Is it OK that a sponsor adds modifications to a sponsored package ? Is it OK that a sponsor adds him/herself to "Uploaders" ? My answers are currently "no" and "no", but there may be different opinions. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012073420.gd23...@master.debian.org
Bug#661533: RFS: postfix-cluebringer
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 06:34:12PM +1000, Nikolai Lusan wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 08:02 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > Can you fix bugs 643252 and 668725 for wheezy before introducing a newer > > upstream release in unstable ? > > Both of those issues were fixed months ago in the 2.0.11 release > currently in the mentors repo, I filed an RFS but nobody came forward. The package at mentors has no "closes: #nn" for these two bugs. http://mentors.debian.net/package/postfix-cluebringer > I also believe that the 2.0.11 build needs to go into wheezy New upstream versions are seen as "significant changes" in the freeze policy. http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html > as it meets > with the php 5.4 requirement. Check out the 2.0.11-3 package on debian > mentors Version 2.0.11-3 is currently not at mentors. > If you still need a separate 2.0.10 release for wheezy then let me know > and I can do it Freeze policy suggests to fix important bugs via unstable. At this point I still suggest to fix bugs 643252 and 668725 for wheezy before introducing a newer upstream release in unstable. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711101050.gc23...@master.debian.org
Bug#661533: RFS: postfix-cluebringer
Hi Nikolai, Can you fix bugs 643252 and 668725 for wheezy before introducing a newer upstream release in unstable ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711080208.gc1...@master.debian.org
Bug#678480: RFS: neko
Hi Gabriele, You wrote: > Please upload haxe and neko for me before the freeze. > If I won't find any sponsor, I'll re-orphan them. Are you going to re-orphan them ? If yes, then please also remove the packages from mentors and close the RFS bugs. If no, then please update neko at mentors to conform to the freeze policy. http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711071808.ga1...@master.debian.org
Re: How I can help? - Second attempt
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:56:31AM +0200, jose antonio wrote: > Hello all, > > I have installed Debian Wheezy on my computer and I have followed the > maint-guide (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/) using the > sources gentoo-0.19.13 I previously have downloaded. > > I have practiced with devhelper and does not seem very complicated. > (Following the guide "GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool" -> > http://sourceware.org/autobook/) > > I have programmed in several languages throughout my working life but > I do not know to program in c++ and it's something I would like to > learn (Currently, I am developing in Java). In fact, I am following > the manual GTKmm because I want to learn to create applications for > Linux and especially for Gnome. OK. > > That said, I would like to ask if do you think I could help them to > maintain some gtk++ program by way of introduction? Maybe you want to adopt one of the packages on these lists ? http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_byage http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned_byage Or maybe you want to fix a release critical bug on this list ? http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/debian/all.html > or should I finish > first the manual and create a small application? Entirely your choice. > > On the other hand, once downloaded the sources of gentoo-0.19.13, I > installed Anjuta, Geany ... and have not convinced me too. Then, I > installed eclipse-linuxtools-indigo-SR2-linux-gtk-incubation-x86_64.tar.gz > and it seemed to be the most advanced IDE. You could see the > definitions of functions, from the files in which these functions were > called using F3 and this is useful for learn about how the program was > written. Also, I liked the ease of use of debug mode. But I am afraid > that Eclipse could leave a configuration file that > could affect the project and perhaps may fail the packaging (not tested). > > What IDE do you use to modify the sources of the projects? Any of your choice. > > > Finally, thank you very much for your effort and all your work! > I like debian and would like to contribute with you, and maybe become > a Debian Developer in a future! hehe There is lots of work to do, and if you look around on the debian websites, I'm sure you'll find work you want to do. Questions on Debian packaging are welcome on this list: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120710054748.ga30...@master.debian.org
Re: kyotocabinet 1.2.76-4
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 09:47:49PM -0700, shawn wrote:
> Supposedly I have an approval of -2 + -3 for unblock: (?)
> ===
> Do you plan to go for an unblock for 1.2.76-4 ? The changes between
> 1.2.76-2 and 1.2.76-3 seemed OK for an unblock in my opinion, but this
> 1.2.76-4 has too many changes in my opinion. I haven't verified the
> changes between 1.2.76-1 and 1.2.76-2. You already have an unblock for
> 1.2.76-1. Maybe the changes between 1.2.76-3 and 1.2.76-4 should be
> reduced to only the minimal changes to fix the RC bug.
>
> Bart Martens at 2012-07-06 06:30:28.340977
>
> from: http://mentors.debian.net/package/kyotocabinet (after which i
> scaled back changes)
>
Hi Shawn,
I see that you are now requesting an unblock for kyotocabinet 1.2.76-4.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/07/msg00327.html
At this point you have an unblock for 1.2.76-1.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/kyotocabinet.html
I have attached the differences between 1.2.76-1 and 1.2.76-4, and I think that
the differences are not yet OK for an unblock.
If you want an unblock for 1.2.76-4 then I suggest to follow these steps:
Please download 1.2.76-1 from snapshots:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/kyotocabinet/1.2.76-1/
Please download 1.2.76-4 from mentors:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/kyotocabinet
Please run one of these commands:
debdiff kyotocabinet_1.2.76-1.dsc kyotocabinet_1.2.76-4.dsc
debdiff kyotocabinet_1.2.76-4.dsc kyotocabinet_1.2.76-1.dsc
The former command makes more sense to me but the latter is suggested in the
freeze policy.
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html
Please modify 1.2.76-4 at mentors so that every change conforms to the freeze
policy. That includes documenting every change verbosely in the changelog.
Please attach the debdiff output to your request for an unblock.
Regards,
Bart Martens
diff -Nru kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/changelog kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/changelog
--- kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/changelog 2012-06-17 10:09:08.0 +
+++ kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/changelog 2012-07-06 16:34:15.0 +
@@ -1,3 +1,30 @@
+kyotocabinet (1.2.76-4) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * use breaks/replaces for smooth upgrades following man page move
+ from -doc -> -utils
+ * do not unconditionally use -m64 when available (Closes: #680058)
+ * link with --as-needed on GNU/kFreeBSD as well as Linux
+
+ -- Shawn Landden Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:33:36 -0700
+
+kyotocabinet (1.2.76-3) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * workaround for dh_installdoc leaving empty folder is not necessary
+ on buildds
+
+ -- Shawn Landden Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:50:23 -0700
+
+kyotocabinet (1.2.76-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * include static library (libkyotocabinet.a) in -dev deb per §8.3
+ * consolidate and clean up docs
+- fixed api/index.html link to work without a web server
+ * include examples in doc package
+ * improve test for atomics to remove special casing, could be prettier however
+- fixes FTBFS on 32-bit powerpc
+
+ -- Shawn Landden Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:39:24 -0700
+
kyotocabinet (1.2.76-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial release. (Closes: #613450)
diff -Nru kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/control kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/control
--- kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/control 2012-06-17 12:00:39.0 +
+++ kyotocabinet-1.2.76/debian/control 2012-07-06 16:25:52.0 +
@@ -35,8 +35,7 @@
Section: debug
Architecture: any
Priority: extra
-Depends: libkyotocabinet16 (= ${binary:Version}), ${shlibs:Depends},
- ${misc:Depends}
+Depends: libkyotocabinet16 (= ${binary:Version}), ${misc:Depends}
Multi-Arch: same
Description: Straightforward implementation of DBM - debugging symbols
Kyoto Cabinet is a library of routines for managing a database. The
@@ -51,7 +50,10 @@
Package: kyotocabinet-utils
Architecture: any
-Depends: kyotocabinet-doc, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
+Replaces: kyotocabinet-doc (<< 1.2.76-2)
+Breaks: kyotocabinet-doc (<< 1.2.76-2)
+Recommends: kyotocabinet-doc
Multi-Arch: foreign
Description: Straightforward implementation of DBM - utilities
Kyoto Cabinet is a library of routines for managing a database. The
@@ -62,13 +64,15 @@
concept of data tables nor data types. Records are organized in
hash table or B+ tree.
.
- This package contains the test utilities.
+ This package contains the kcutilmgr tool, used to compile kyotocabinet
+ language bindings without Debian patches applied, and well as testing
+ and debugging utilities.
Package: kyotocabinet-doc
Section: doc
Architecture: all
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
-Multi-Arch: foreign
+Suggests: libkyotocabinet-dev
Description: Straightforward implementation of DBM - docs
Kyoto Cabinet is a library of routines for managing a database. The
database is a simple data file containing records, each is a
Re: Copyright problems for the opensource reimplementation of a closed-source library (ITP #679504)
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote: > I take the > header of the closed-source library, wipe out the comments and (...) In that case I see no doubt that you start from the closed-source work. I have read other comments in this thread suggesting different approaches, and I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120706185501.gb31...@master.debian.org
Re: Found neglected package
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:59:23PM +0200, Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > can I orphan a package that obviously lacks maintainer interest > (11 open bugs, 2 RC-NMUs in 2012, latest maintainer mail in June 2007, > 8 bugs since then)? > > BTW: He is still active and looking for sponsors. Name of the package ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120706044745.ga19...@master.debian.org
Bug#659522: RFS: prelink/0.0.20111012-1 [QA upload] - ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking
Hi Daniel, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120705044153.ga9...@master.debian.org
freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship
Hello, Now that the freeze period has started, some of the open requests for sponsorship are now invalid because the packages don't conform to the freeze policy. http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html With "open requests for sponsorship" I mean not only the RFS bugs but also the packages at mentors marked "needs a sponsor = yes". http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=sponsorship-requests http://mentors.debian.net/packages/index Here are some numbers of open requests for sponsorship, and the part "in Debian" means "in unstable or in experimental" in this context : total : 236 for package in Debian : 79 for package in Debian with RFS bug : 45 I see no problem for the 236-79=157 requests for packages not yet in Debian. The current freeze policy allows these packages to be uploaded to unstable, at least how I read the current freeze policy. For the 45 requests "for package in Debian with RFS bug" we currently use the severity of the RFS bug to indicate whether the package fixes RC bugs. I suggest to change that now. I suggest to use the severity of the RFS bugs to group the requests into "for wheezy" with severity "important" and "not for wheezy" with severity "normal". For the 79-45=34 requests "for package in Debian without RFS bug" I suggest to open RFS bugs for the packages meant for wheezy. I suggest that the person requesting sponsorship indicates whether the package is meant for wheezy, and that reviewers comment on the RFS bugs and on the pages at mentors on whether the package conforms to the freeze policy. Comments on these suggestions ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120702065809.gd22...@master.debian.org
Bug#676722: RFS: ruby-kyotocabinet/1.32-1 [ITP] -- DBM-Ruby bindings
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:50:58AM -0700, shawn wrote: > After kyotocabinet got uploaded to unstable with an out-of-date version > I was worried that old versions (of same version number) are > downloadable even after reuploading them with dput -f, so I removed the > package before reuploading. However it seems that it also didn't post > the upload that I did make after deleting the package (!). I just > uploaded it yet again (and it required a -f) so hopefully that will > fix it. > > Ruby-kyotocabinet is also available in pkg-ruby-extras on alioth now > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-kyotocabinet.git;a=summary > > (which is in the control file) > > > also, make note that because #679683 this package will not build against > libkyotocabinet-dev 1.2.76-1 (but it will against the -2 I have uploaded > to mentors) Do you mean that kyotocabinet must be sponsored before ruby-kyotocabinet ? http://mentors.debian.net/package/kyotocabinet http://mentors.debian.net/package/ruby-kyotocabinet Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120701190932.gb16...@master.debian.org
Bug#676722: RFS: ruby-kyotocabinet/1.32-1 [ITP] -- DBM-Ruby bindings
Hello Shawn, I don't see ruby-kyotocabinet at mentors. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120701184001.ga16...@master.debian.org
Bug#677491: RFS: narval
Hi Xavier, There is no package at mentors. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120628164112.gc14...@master.debian.org
Bug#670334: RFS for package in NEW
Hello, I see that this package is in NEW. http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Does this mean that this RFS can be closed now ? Or is this RFS meant to replace the package in NEW ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120628062402.gb17...@master.debian.org
Re: Question regarding Standard-Versions
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:59:35PM +0200, Werner Detter wrote: > Hi everybody, > > my package is already in unstable/testing. No bugs, everything clean except > (from packages.qa.debian.org): > > The package should be updated to follow the last version of Debian Policy > (Standards-Version 3.9.3 instead of 3.9.2). > > So is it worth to bump the Standards-Versions from 3.9.2 to 3.9.3 and create > a new package so that it's totally clean for the squeeze-freeze ? If you would upload a new package with only that number changed, then it is, in my opinion, not worth the trouble. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120627204555.gc10...@master.debian.org
Bug#679107: RFS: mysql-cluster-7.2
Hi Steven, I see that your RFS for mysql-cluster-7.2 is marked [ITP], but I don't see the ITP bug. Is there one ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120627055607.gc12...@master.debian.org
Bug#678836: Package qpdfview
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:18:34AM +0200, Benjamin Eltzner wrote: > If I am not mistaken you commented on the package > qpdfview I uploaded to mentors. > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/qpdfview > > If I understand you correctly, you criticize the fact that the source > of the package is not identical to the source in the upstream > repository. I wrote this: | These files should be identical: | | 29b2f3e9f1ff18f83529c2fc1c46067a qpdfview-0.3.tar.gz | f9a08c00980b5d3fc93d874907963c3d qpdfview_0.3.orig.tar.gz I wrote that because of this: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz "You should upload packages with a pristine source tarball if possible". > This is due to the fact that If there are good reasons to repackage the to repackage the upstream source, then "detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright". http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz > Would it suffice, if I forwarded to you the email > from upstream containing the source of the package I submitted along > with a signature or is it necessary that the source submitted to > debian is published by upstream in their repository? http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile "the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were obtained". http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Homepage "Homepage - (...) the site from which the original source can be obtained" > > I would be glad if you could give me a hint. I hope that this was helpful. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120627054326.ga12...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#678815: ITP: wmfs -- Window Manager From Scratch
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:57:52AM +0200, Mickaël Raybaud-Roig wrote: > 2012/6/25 Osamu Aoki : > > I am concerned about this package description of ITP and I wish it is > > improved if it is uploaded to Debian. > > Hello, > > In fact, i didn't realized that the ITP description will be the > description of the final package. The ITP description is just some initial information about the software you intend to package. Writing a good description of the final package in debian/control is part of the packaging work, and that is what really matters. Some sponsors expect the description of the final package to be agreed upon on the ITP, but I don't think that it is a documented rule or so. > > I will edit it as soon as possible (i am at work, and i don't have my > PGP key, so i dont know if i can, since i used PGP to send the ITP > ...) > > But how can-i edit the description ? > Shoud-i use this http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control.en.html#summary ? You can send e-mails to 678...@bugs.debian.org to add any information relevant to your work on packaging the software. Signing is optional. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120626161607.ga30...@master.debian.org
Re: RFS: metaphoneptbr/1.12.34 [ITP]
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:46:19AM -0300, Carlos Jordão wrote: > 2012/6/25 Bart Martens > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:32:28AM -0300, Carlos Jordão wrote: > > > 2012/6/24 Bart Martens > > > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > > > This RFS is marked [ITP], but is there an ITP bug ? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Bart Martens > > > > > > > Hi Bart, > > > > > > I'm sorry, I didn´t understand your question. > > > > No problem. > > > > > > > > I developed it, we (me and some colleagues) use it on a few projects, but > > > it can benefit everyone who needs a stronger string comparison than usual > > > means, for the portuguese language. > > > > > > This package doesn´t exist in debian distribution, so a I followed the > > > instructions to Request for package, > > > > There is a difference between these : > > - "request for package" = RFP > > - "intent to package" = ITP > > - "request for sponsorship" = RFS > > > > RFP is for requesting some software to be packaged in Debian, but invite > > other > > people to do the work. ITP is for expressing that you intend to do that > > work. > > RFS is for requesting a prepared package to be reviewed and accepted into > > Debian. > > > > You seem to have followed the instructions for RFS, and that is OK. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677564 > > > > > to include it into debian. I > > > understand this software is valuable, has reached some mature as program > > > and there is a paper about it. > > > > > > If I misunderstood the steps to ask for inclusion into debian, I´m sorry, > > > > No problem. > > > > > and I would like some advice how to propose it. > > > > Information on RFP and ITP can be found here: > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ > > > > What you want to do now, is register an ITP and to set yourself as the > > owner of > > that ITP. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bart Martens > > > I changed the owner of this bug to me. Should I open a new ITP bug? > Regards, > Carlos What you want to do now, is register an ITP and to set yourself as the owner of that ITP. Information on ITP can be found here: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625163419.gb21...@master.debian.org
Re: New subscription
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:53:56PM -0300, Ronoaldo José de Lana Pereira wrote: > Hello Debian Developers, > > My name is Ronoaldo, and I wold like to be a Debian Developer. I'm > currently interested in helping with packaging through a sponsor. Go ahead. Welcome. > At the > -desktop lists, I offered myself as a packager to alternative desktop > themes. I'm also interested in helping and maintaining other packages that > need assistance in the future. Plenty work to do. > > I work with Debian for a while as my primary desktop and servers. Also, I > am familiar with some other Debian variants. I just love the Debian > packaging system, and learned how to package sources into .deb's in the > college. > > I know a few programming languages such as Java, Python and C/C++, and I'm > also very familiar with Bash Scripting. > > I'm looking for a sponsor to help me package the alternative desktop > themes, and to further assistance into the process of becoming a Debian > Developer. Do you have a prepared package somewhere that needs sponsoring now ? > > Any information will be very helpful and I wold be honored to become part > of the Debian Community. You'll need to do some reading (see the Debian websites), and you're welcome to come back here to ask more specific questions. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625163122.ga21...@master.debian.org
Re: RFS: metaphoneptbr/1.12.34 [ITP]
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:32:28AM -0300, Carlos Jordão wrote: > 2012/6/24 Bart Martens > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > This RFS is marked [ITP], but is there an ITP bug ? > > > > Regards, > > > > Bart Martens > > > Hi Bart, > > I'm sorry, I didn´t understand your question. No problem. > > I developed it, we (me and some colleagues) use it on a few projects, but > it can benefit everyone who needs a stronger string comparison than usual > means, for the portuguese language. > > This package doesn´t exist in debian distribution, so a I followed the > instructions to Request for package, There is a difference between these : - "request for package" = RFP - "intent to package" = ITP - "request for sponsorship" = RFS RFP is for requesting some software to be packaged in Debian, but invite other people to do the work. ITP is for expressing that you intend to do that work. RFS is for requesting a prepared package to be reviewed and accepted into Debian. You seem to have followed the instructions for RFS, and that is OK. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677564 > to include it into debian. I > understand this software is valuable, has reached some mature as program > and there is a paper about it. > > If I misunderstood the steps to ask for inclusion into debian, I´m sorry, No problem. > and I would like some advice how to propose it. Information on RFP and ITP can be found here: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ What you want to do now, is register an ITP and to set yourself as the owner of that ITP. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625053037.ga17...@master.debian.org
Bug#677564: RFS: metaphoneptbr/1.12.34 [ITP]
Hi Carlos, This RFS is marked [ITP], but is there an ITP bug ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624095659.gj19...@master.debian.org
Bug#676701: RFS: pyhoca-cli
Hi Mike, The package at mentors is not there anymore. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624080348.gh19...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#675701: RFS: ptop
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 03:59:11PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 06:37:42AM +0000, Bart Martens a écrit : > > > > "Files: filename1, filename2" for exceptions. > > Actually, it should be: > > Files: filename1 filename2 > > (The separator is a space, not a comma plus a space). Actually, the debian/copyright format for this package is plain text, so anything goes. (I suggest to keep it in plain text at this point.) Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624070359.ge19...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop
Hi Bas, http://mentors.debian.net/package/ptop Uploaded: 2012-06-23 20:07 Some of my comments on RFS 675701 are not yet processed in this package. I also have the following additional comments. The file pg_top.c contains "Copyright (c) 1989 - 1994, William LeFebvre, Northwestern University" but I don't find Northwestern University anywhere in debian/copyright. You write in debian/copyright that pg_top.c has the BSD license. That is not true. Files like aclocal.m4 are usually not mentioned in debian/copyright. It is not wrong to mention them anyway, but if you mention them, then the copyright and license information must be accurate. You write in debian/copyright that aclocal.m4 has the BSD license. That is not true. I don't find "Copyright (c) Richard Henderson " in the upstream source code, so why is this in debian/copyright ? You changed the license of the Debian packaging. Did Adam Majer agree with that ? What does "activate in control file" in debian/changelog mean ? I seen no change in debian/control corresponding to that. Why skip version 3.6.2-6 ? Optional: I see that the text of the BSD license is repeated a few times. It is OK to mention that text only once and then point to that text repeatedly like this "License: BSD, see below" or "License: BSD, see above". That would shorten debian/copyright quite a bit. Optional: It is OK to put all files and copyright notices for files with the same license together, like this : "The following files have one or more of the following copyright notices and have the following license : ...". That would also shorten debian/copyright quite a bit. Optional: It is OK to specify most files with simply "Files: *" and to use "Files: filename1, filename2" for exceptions. That would simplify maintenance of the debian/copyright in the future. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624063742.gd19...@master.debian.org
Re: packages to be removed from mentors.debian.net
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 07:42:20PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > Le 23/06/2012 à 16:29, Bart Martens écrivit : > > Hi paulproteus, pabs, daemonkeeper, > > > > Here is a list of packages to be removed from mentors: > > http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/toremovefrommentors.txt > > > > I count currently 124 packages on the list. The list is updated daily. > > > > I have contacted you before about this, but apparently you have not yet > > found > > the time to actually remove the packages. Note that the list has moved to > > the > > above-mentioned url. Let me know if I can help with removing these packages > > from mentors. > > Hello Bart, > > Thanks for this, My pleasure. > apparently our package removal code needs some work :) > > Would you be so kind as to share the script Yes. http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/crontab-wnpp-rfs-mentors.sh.txt http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-rfs-mentors.pl.txt > or whatever method you used > to generate this list? We could then integrate it into the debexpo > codebase directly. > > I'll go through the list this evening. That would be nice. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623180655.ga16...@master.debian.org
packages to be removed from mentors.debian.net
Hi paulproteus, pabs, daemonkeeper, Here is a list of packages to be removed from mentors: http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/toremovefrommentors.txt I count currently 124 packages on the list. The list is updated daily. I have contacted you before about this, but apparently you have not yet found the time to actually remove the packages. Note that the list has moved to the above-mentioned url. Let me know if I can help with removing these packages from mentors. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623142922.gl32...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:12:54AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Bart Martens wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Bart Martens wrote: > > > > The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and > > > > David Keppel is such an author. > > I have looked through many copyright files and do not see one that > does this. See for example this one along with many others: > > /usr/share/doc/gawk/copyright > > Of course that doesn't mean there aren't others that do. I would > welcome an example to follow. I just haven't found any. I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0. > Nor does it > mean that it isn't the right thing to do. Maybe the outcome of bug 678607 will be to no longer list the authors. > Although philosophically I > am not sure of the need for it since anyone looking for authors would > look in the AUTHORS file which is the canonical location for that > information, at least for GNU programs. I agree with that. > > > > Thank you for taking the time to look at the copyright file in detail. > > > I admit the new DEP5 format confuses me. > > > > Me too. > > :-) > > > > Where would I find such a statement in the documentation? > > To answer my own question it is stated here: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile > > In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources > (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors. > > So definitely stated by Policy the original authors must be named. Yes. > > > > How would this be defined in the file? How would we comply with > > > that statement within the restrictions of the above documentation? > > > > No idea. > > After doing more research and without any other input I think the only > thing that makes sense is to include the information in the free-form > Comment: block. Seems OK to me. > I don't find any other packages doing this (would > welcome an example) I don't know any example in DEP5 or copyright-format/1.0. > but it would definitely seem to be required by the > spirit of Policy 12.5 Yes. > and there doesn't seem to be any other place to > put it in the DEP5 format. No idea. > > > > The copyright holder is of course the FSF. That is the copyright > > > statement listed in each of the files. > > > > > > Should I list the original authors in a Comment: field? I see no > > > other way. Help! > > > > No idea. > > I think putting this in a Comment: field about the only acceptable > solution that I can see that meets all of the (conflicting) > requirements. It would conform to debian-policy. > > > Note that DEP5 is not mandatory. Plain text is OK for policy. What > > motivated > > you to switch to DEP5 ? > > There are several facets. First is that since the package needs to be > sponsored it means that every sponsor will have their own pet peeves > and requests. Generally this means that everything must be of the > newest features. You never know what a sponsor will ask for. (Or > sometimes it must be of an older feature!) I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different sponsoring styles. > DEP5 is one of Debian's > new features and therefore to get a package through sponsorship it > pretty much needs to have it. DEP5 is not required for packages I sponsor, although I don't mind that DEP5 is used. The package maintainer can choose, in my opinion. I find plain text format much easier for everyone, but it's not my choice to make. > See for example the request to move to > quilt instead of using the previous diff.gz format. I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that. > Also the request > to use the newest compat level which arrived during the updating of > this package. I don't remember asking that. I guess someone else asked that. > Before Sandro offerred to help I had started > conversations with two other DDs for this package. Since I am > completely at the mercy of a sponsor when they say jump I can only ask > how high and try my best to comply. I understand that it is not easy for package maintainers to deal with different sponsoring styles. > Although there was no specific > request for DEP5 there were requests to update the copyright file. Yes, I remember things I said about completing the copyright file. :-) > > And secondly in the maintainers guide it specifically calls out DEP5 > format. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html > 4.2. copyright
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 02:05:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens writes: > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:54:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Bart Martens writes: > > >>> That "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders" is simply a > >>> fact regardless of what debian-policy states. For example, the > >>> programmer who wrote some software can be the "author" and the company > >>> the programmer was working for can be the "copyright holder". > > >> This is the part I don't find this at all obvious. To me, it's the > >> difference between referring to the collective entity or disassembling > >> it into its constituent parts. Either are usually considered correct; > >> one could say that the Free Software Foundation is the author of GNU > >> time, or that several specific volunteers for the Free Software > >> Foundation are the authors of GNU time, and be correct either way. > > > I don't see this as "the collective entity" and "constituent parts". > > Being an author doesn't make one a copyright holder. And being a > > copyright holder doesn't make one an author. The terms "author" and > > "copyright holder" are different terms with different meanings. > > > Of course, some/many/most authors are also copyright holders of their > > works, but not always. Authors and copyright holders of the same works > > can be different parties with different interests. > > Ah! Yes. I see your point here, and agree with it. Breakthrough ! Hooray ! :-) > > In this case, I would consider the FSF both the copyright holder *and* the > author (in a collective sense), since the people who worked on the > software did so under the aegis of the FSF. It was an FSF project written > by FSF volunteers as part of the overall GNU project (like most GNU > software). In this case I don't see the FSF as an author. The fact that the software was written under the umbrella of the FSF does not make the FSF an author. Also the FSF is not mentioned anywhere as an author of this software. > But I could see the case where those things could be quite > distinct, even when involving the FSF (for example, if I remember > correctly, the Objective C GCC frontend wasn't written by the FSF and was > contributed to the FSF after the fact by separate authors who wouldn't > have thought of themselves as part of the FSF). That sounds like a good example of distinct authors and copyright holders. > > That's a difficult distinction to draw if there isn't good upstream > documentation of the origin of the software. So I suppose it would be > generally safer to list the actual people, since that way you wouldn't get > it wrong if you misunderstood the organizational affiliation. Fortunately most upstream tarballs clearly state who is author and who is copyright holder, so Debian can then simply use that information. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623104320.gi32...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 06:54:17PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > > Bart Martens writes: > > > > > That "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders" is simply a > > > fact regardless of what debian-policy states. For example, the > > > programmer who wrote some software can be the "author" and the > > > company the programmer was working for can be the "copyright > > > holder". > > > > This is the part I don't find this at all obvious. To me, it's the > > difference between referring to the collective entity or disassembling > > it into its constituent parts. […] > > In many cases, the programmer can be working for a company and yet not > properly considered to be a “constituent part” of that company. > > The most obvious example is a contract programmer coming in to do a > specific work; the programmer has an entirely different employer from > the organisation who hired them for the work. > > Another obvious example is where the copyright is later transferred to > another party; while this common action changes the work's copyright > holder, it would be false and misleading to say that it changes the > work's author. > > So the two are certainly distinct in many common cases. > > > It sounds like to you the word "author" implies an individual human > > being always, and isn't correct to use about a collective entity like > > a volunteer project, non-profit umbrella, or company. > > I see a different distinction being drawn, and I interpreted Bart as > drawing this one: the distinction between who *wrote* the work (the > author) versus who *currently holds copyright* in the work (the > copyright holder. I confirm that this is what I meant, so you interpreted me correctly. > > That is, an organisation might hire a contract programmer to write the > ‘time’ program. The programmer is not a part of that organisation. The > programmer is the author; the organisation who hired them is (by > default, in many jurisdictions) the copyright holder. I'm not sure about "by default" here, but I agree that the organisation who hired the programmer can be the copyright holder. > > > I always assumed (and indeed still do believe) that the larger entity > > for which the programmers are either working or volunteering was a > > reasonable "author" for this purpose. > > So I agree with Bart that it's frequently and trivially incorrect to > equate “author” with “copyright holder”. > > > I don't believe that I'm doing this. :) The opinion I'm expressing > > here is exactly the opinion that I've applied in all of my own > > packaging, and which I had, prior to this thread, assumed was the > > interpretation that everyone held. > > On the other hand, I pretty much follow the practice Russ is advocating > here. I don't mind that Debian stops listing authors in debian/copyright. But that requires an update of debian-policy. > I think Policy is wrong to talk about “author” where it means > “copyright holder”, and I assume the intent is the latter and not the > former. Are we talking about the part "should name the original authors" ? Then I think that simply "authors" is meant, so I see no error in debian-policy here. > > > We're both on the same page about applying the same standards to > > sponsoring as one would generally apply to any other package in the > > archive; I think this is just a disagreement over what the existing > > Policy text means. Now that I've seen this thread, I can certainly see > > where it's unclear. > > Thank you for filing a bug report over this; though this ambiguity > bothered me, it never reached the threshold for me to file a report for > it. I don't see the ambiguity, but I don't object against clarifications, obviously. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623101316.gh32...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:15:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens writes: (...) > > And I'm sorry for my tone in some of my earlier messages. I had a really > obnoxious week and didn't do a very good job of keeping that out of my > tone. Apology accepted. There was only a small part where I felt uncomfortable about the tone, but that is now OK for me, really. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623095649.gg32...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:54:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens writes: > > > That "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders" is simply a fact > > regardless of what debian-policy states. For example, the programmer > > who wrote some software can be the "author" and the company the > > programmer was working for can be the "copyright holder". > > This is the part I don't find this at all obvious. To me, it's the > difference between referring to the collective entity or disassembling it > into its constituent parts. Either are usually considered correct; one > could say that the Free Software Foundation is the author of GNU time, or > that several specific volunteers for the Free Software Foundation are the > authors of GNU time, and be correct either way. I don't see this as "the collective entity" and "constituent parts". Being an author doesn't make one a copyright holder. And being a copyright holder doesn't make one an author. The terms "author" and "copyright holder" are different terms with different meanings. Of course, some/many/most authors are also copyright holders of their works, but not always. Authors and copyright holders of the same works can be different parties with different interests. > > It sounds like to you the word "author" implies an individual human being > always, and isn't correct to use about a collective entity like a > volunteer project, non-profit umbrella, or company. Whether an "author" is always an "individual human being" is, in my opinion, not relevant in this context. Other example : books. It is very common with books that the author and the copyright holder are not the same person/organization. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623085225.gf32...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:27:06AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > > To answer my own question it is stated here: > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile > > > In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources > > (if any) were obtained, and should name the original authors. > > > So definitely stated by Policy the original authors must be named. > > The way that I would interpret that section for a typical GNU package is > that the Free Software Foundation is the original authors (assuming, of > course, it was a GNU package). The file time-1.7/time.c contains this: "Originally written by David Keppel ." So David Keppel is an "original author" as meant in debian-policy. It is a mystery to me why you interpret debian-policy that in this case the Free Software Foundation would be the original author. > One *could* get more specific by listing > the specific volunteers who did that work as part of the GNU project In this case David Keppel is not just a volunteer, but a real "original author". > (but > there isn't really a good spot for doing that other than a Comment > section, as you mention), Then I guess it is OK to use the Comment section for David Keppel. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623080848.ge32...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:08:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens writes: > > > We know that "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders". > > Debian-policy uses "should" for the "authors" and "must" for the > > "copyright information". > > I don't agree with this interpretation of Debian Policy, and I don't > follow it for my own packages. That "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders" is simply a fact regardless of what debian-policy states. For example, the programmer who wrote some software can be the "author" and the company the programmer was working for can be the "copyright holder". Another example is an author who gives the copyright to the Free Software Foundation. That debian-policy uses "should" for the "authors" and "must" for the "copyright information" is also simply a fact. Quoting debian-policy: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile "must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information" "should name the original authors" So it is not clear to me where the different interpretation comes from. Feel free to propose a modification of debian-policy to remove "should name the original authors", but then please follow normal procedure for modifying debian-policy, and please don't relax current debian-policy on debian-mentors. > > > To be honest, Russ, and no disrespect meant, I'm surprised to see that > > someone from the Technical Committee and the Policy team goes so lightly > > over mixing "authors" and "copyright holders" and over the importance of > > "must" and "should" in debian-policy on debian-mentors. It is, in my > > opinion, better to stick to current debian-policy on debian-mentors, and > > to debate possible improvements of debian-policy elsewhere. > > I stepped in and replied in debian-mentors because I think your > interpretation of Policy as it is currently written is incorrect. See above. > The new > package is a substantial improvement over what's in the archive, Good reason to sponsor this package. > and the > standards to which you're holding it are not standards that we, in > general, are expecting of packages in the archive. Just following current debian-policy for this package. > It's certainly fine > for you to follow stricter standards in your own packages and ask for > stricter standards in packages you sponsor, Sponsors should, in my opinion, not ask for stricter standards. > but I'm willing to sponsor the > package as-is. The package as-is does not yet conform to current debian-policy. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623073734.gd32...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:21:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I've reviewed the latest version of your packaging, and I'd be happy to > upload it. Thank you very much for all the work that you've put into the > package. Unwinding all the of the patches into quilt format in particular > is quite impressive (and I suspect will make it easier for other > distributions or an eventual new GNU maintainer). > > Bart and Sandro, I don't want to jump in if you would like to be the > sponsor and don't want to step on other people. If you're okay with me > sponsoring this package going forward, though, I'm happy to do so. It is OK for me that you sponsor this package. > > Bob Proulx writes: > > Bart Martens wrote: > > >> The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and > >> David Keppel is such an author. > > > Thank you for taking the time to look at the copyright file in detail. > > I admit the new DEP5 format confuses me. I need to find some actual > > examples in the field of more than the very simple examples listed in > > the documentation. I am working from this document: > > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ > > You should instead use: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > not that this would resolve your question, since there isn't anywhere in > the format to record authors who do not hold copyright. Then this copyright format is not suitable for writing debian/copyright files that fully conform to debian-policy. > As mentioned in > my other message, I don't think this is really the purpose of the > debian/copyright file. Debian-policy is clear on the purpose of debian/copyright. It states "should name the original authors". > What you have now seems fine to me. Not to current debian-policy. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623071820.gc32...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:46:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens writes: > > > The previous package maintainers are also copyright holders of debian/* > > so debian/copyright needs an update for that. > > While a package sponsor can of course ask for whatever they'd like before > being willing to sponsor a package, Hey Russ, I didn't "ask for whatever" I "like". > I do think it's worth noting that the > majority of packages in Debian do not record the copyright statements for > all contributors to the debian/* packaging, nor is this something that > we're enforcing on an archive-wide basis. It's a nice thing to do, but > I'm not sure how important it really is given that all those contributions > are already documented in debian/changelog. A "must" in debian-policy is not just "a nice thing to do". > > > The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and David > > Keppel is such an author. > > For the purposes of satisfying this portion of Policy, I think that > treating "authors" as meaning the same thing as "copyright holders" is > quite reasonable. We know that "authors" are not the same as "copyright holders". Debian-policy uses "should" for the "authors" and "must" for the "copyright information". > > I think asking people to document more authorship than upstream provides > in upstream's copyright statements is asking for quite a lot, Debian-policy "is asking for quite a lot". > and also is > a standard that we are not following in most of the rest of the archive. > I certainly don't bother to do that with my packages; documenting > upstream's copyright notices seems sufficient to me. If upstream doesn't > consider it important enough to record, I don't consider it a mandatory > part of being a Debian package maintainer to go do that historical > research myself, assuming that there are no legal issues raised by the > omission. In this case the "original author" was simply mentioned in the upstream software. > > If upstream provides a separate CREDITS or THANKS file supplementing their > legal notices, I generally install that as a documentation file like any > other That is, in my opinion, good practice, unless their contents are already copied entirely into debian/copyright. > (but don't bother to invent copyright notices for all the people > listed there to add to debian/coypright). Adding invented copyright notices to debian/copyright for authors that are not copyright holders would be wrong. To be honest, Russ, and no disrespect meant, I'm surprised to see that someone from the Technical Committee and the Policy team goes so lightly over mixing "authors" and "copyright holders" and over the importance of "must" and "should" in debian-policy on debian-mentors. It is, in my opinion, better to stick to current debian-policy on debian-mentors, and to debate possible improvements of debian-policy elsewhere. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623065511.gb32...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:49:48PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Hi Bart, > > Bart Martens wrote: > > The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and > > David Keppel is such an author. > > Thank you for taking the time to look at the copyright file in detail. > I admit the new DEP5 format confuses me. Me too. > I need to find some actual > examples in the field of more than the very simple examples listed in > the documentation. I am working from this document: > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ > > Where would I find such a statement in the documentation? How would > this be defined in the file? How would we comply with that statement > within the restrictions of the above documentation? No idea. > > The copyright holder is of course the FSF. That is the copyright > statement listed in each of the files. > > Should I list the original authors in a Comment: field? I see no > other way. Help! No idea. Note that DEP5 is not mandatory. Plain text is OK for policy. What motivated you to switch to DEP5 ? I presume that the issue with the original authors is not yet solved in your package of "Jun 22 17:39". Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623052531.ga32...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time
Hi Bob, The previous package maintainers are also copyright holders of debian/* so debian/copyright needs an update for that. Please talk to the previous maintainers if there is doubt on the license(s) for debian/*. The package uses source format "3.0 (quilt)" but does not really use quilt, so debian/README.source can be removed. The file debian/copyright "should name the original authors", and David Keppel is such an author. The years in the main copyright notice are not correct. For example, time.c additionally has "1990, 91, 92". Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120622060515.ga8...@master.debian.org
Bug#677019: RFS: chordii
Hi Malcolm, http://mentors.debian.net/package/chordii Uploaded: 2012-02-25 23:28 The file /usr/share/doc/chordii/changelog.gz is no longer installed, and that is not mentioned in debian/changelog. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120621174419.ga18...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: What is wrong with ptop
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:19:14AM +, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote: > In the comment on mentors you say copyright is wrong. > > But William LeFebvre is listed as one of the main copyright holders. > I don't have to specify witch he wrote en witch wong worked on, right? Hi Bas, http://mentors.debian.net/package/ptop I have read the comment again. I think that the comment is very clear. What part don't you understand ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120613114152.ga23...@master.debian.org
Bug#677070: RFS: ledgersmb/1.3.18-1 -- Financial accounting and ERP program
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:03:53AM -0400, Robert James Clay wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 08:36 -0400, Robert James Clay wrote: > > > * Package name: ledgersmb > > Version : 1.3.18-1 > > Note that the Mentors QA item "Package is not the latest upstream > version"[1] is incorrect, as v1.3.18 is the most recent release. The > "Newest" version mentioned, 1.3.9990204845, is actually a pre-release > testing version of LedgerSMB v1.4 (/Development Snapshots/1.4m2_4845/ in > the project downloads). It is not incorrect. It just doesn't know that it's a pre-release and that you decide to not package a pre-release. You can exclude that pre-release by using this in debian/watch : | version=3 | opts="uversionmangle=s/^1\.3\.9990204845$/0/" \ | http://sf.net/ledger-smb/ledgersmb-([\d\.]+)\.tar\.gz Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120612142147.ga17...@master.debian.org
Re: wwwoffle
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:12:46AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > I've seen wwwoffle was dropped from Debian and Ubuntu. > As I really need it, I'm willing to step in as maintainer. > > I'm currently in process of importing the available releases into > an git repo and adding the latest patches. > > I've never really contributed to Debian yet, so please let me > know what should be done here. That is a question for debia-mentors. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ The first step is to register your "intent to package" (ITP). http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120612042302.gb10...@master.debian.org
Bug#677019: RFS: chordii/4.3+repack-2 -- Text file (chordpro format) to music sheet converter
Package: sponsorship-requests Owner: Malcolm Locke There is a package at mentors but it is marked "needs sponsor = no". I'm opening this RFS on behalf of Malcolm Locke who was requesting a sponsor on the ITA bug 607321. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607321 http://mentors.debian.net/package/chordii Uploader: Malcolm Locke Version:4.3+repack-2 Uploaded: 2012-02-25 23:28 Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611081524.gt25...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time/1.7-24 -- The GNU time program for measuring cpu resource usage
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:04AM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > That's interesting: I sent a review of "time" on "Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at > 5:09 PM CET" while Bob wrote his complains to Bart on June 10th. Maybe the review got lost. Can you resend the review to 677...@bugs.debian.org ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611065208.gd25...@master.debian.org
Bug#677013: RFS: time/1.7-24 -- The GNU time program for measuring cpu resource usage
Package: sponsorship-requests Owner: Bob Proulx I'm opening this RFS on behalf of Bob Proulx who owns ITA 652670. On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:16:53PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Hi Bart, > > > How is progress on this ITA ? > > Can I admit that it is a little frustrating? I am not a DD and > therefore the package needs to be sponsored. I have had various DDs > sponsor packages before. But I have been striking out going through > my list. The ones I have contacted have all become busy with life and > have fallen out of contact. > > My version of the package is available here and is signed with my > key. Since you asked would you feel like sponsoring it? > > http://www.proulx.com/~bob/debian/pool/sid/main/time/ > > -rw-r--r-- 1 98294 Apr 10 16:39 time_1.7-24.diff.gz > -rw-rw-r-- 1987 Apr 10 16:53 time_1.7-24.dsc > -rw-r--r-- 1 10372 Apr 10 16:39 time_1.7-24_amd64.build > -rw-rw-r-- 1 2300 Apr 10 16:53 time_1.7-24_amd64.changes > -rw-r--r-- 1 32640 Apr 10 16:39 time_1.7-24_amd64.deb > -rw-rw-r-- 1 103066 Aug 9 1997 time_1.7.orig.tar.gz > > Here is the current changelog entry and list of closed bugs. > > Description: > time - program for measuring CPU resource usage > Closes: 492669 542469 592620 598099 617935 649402 652670 663260 > Changes: > time (1.7-24) unstable; urgency=low > . >* New maintainer. Thanks Tollef Fog Heen. (Closes: #652670) >* Thanks to previous maintainers for all of their efforts! >* Acknowledge NMU for Build-Depends automake. Thanks Salvatore > Bonaccorso. (Closes: #592620) >* Update to new standards version 3.9.3. >* Update to new compat level 8. >* Use new DEP5 copyright file format. >* Use dh_installinfo instead of install-info from postinst scripts. > Thanks Riku Saikkonen, Hans Spaans. (Closes: #617935, #598099) >* ru_maxrss is reported in KBytes not pages. Thanks Richard Kettlewell, > Sven Hartrumpf, Miles Bader. (Closes: #649402) >* Update bug report email address in README. Thanks Faheem Mitha. > (Closes: #542469) >* Improve capitalization in short description. Thanks Filipus > Klutiero. (Closes: #492669) >* Fix man page roff formatting. Thanks Bjarni Ingi Gislason. > (Closes: #663260) > > Previously maintainer scripts were used for install-info. Those > scripts have been removed from the new package. I converted it to > using dh_installinfo. That means that the new package doesn't have > any explicit maintainer scripts, those are now removed, and now uses > the dpkg install-info triggers. Which also requires a dependency > added of "dpkg (>= 1.15.4) | install-info" to the new package. > > So on the whole I would say that (if uploaded) the package would be in > improved over the one currently in the archive. > > Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120611052520.gb25...@master.debian.org
Bug#676806: RFS: outguess/1:0.2-8
Hi Anthony, Can you also fix bug 659737 ? Are you familiar with how to use outguess-histogram ? Why that message "malloc: Cannot allocate memory" ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120610141114.gb30...@master.debian.org
Bug#659522: RFS: prelink/0.0.20111012-1 [ITA] - ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:13:16AM +0200, Daniel Martà wrote: > Bart, > > Thanks for the QA upload. These uploads are signed by Michael Gilbert. http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/prelink/news/20120608T170415Z.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/prelink/news/20120609T074749Z.html > I'll repack my ITA as NMU and retitle this bug > now. You can adopt prelink if you want that. If you prefer to not adopt it, then you can do a QA upload. I don't think it is useful to do an NMU of a package owned by Debian QA Group. > If I understand the process correctly, I should put the QA team as > its maintainer, but leave myself in the changelog entry for this NMU, > right? The maintainer is already the Debian QA Group. If you do a QA upload then you can put yourself in the changelog entry. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120609083342.gd...@master.debian.org
Bug#659522: RFS: prelink/0.0.20111012-1 [ITA] - ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking
Hi Daniel, I think that your package got removed from mentors automatically when version 0.0.20090925-2 got uploaded to unstable. You can fix that by simply uploading your package again to mentors. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120609054712.gc...@master.debian.org
Re: Bug#676643: RFS: x2goclient/3.99.2.1-2
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 11:03:31PM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Hi all (esp. Bart, who already took a look at the formerly uploaded package), > > On Fr 08 Jun 2012 15:39:53 CEST Mike Gabriel wrote: > > > * Package name: x2goclient > > Version : 3.99.2.1-2 > > Upstream Author : Oleksandr Shneyder > > * URL : http://wiki.x2go.org > > * License : GPL-2+ > > Section : x11 > > > > I have re-uploaded the package after I had seen your comments on mentors. > > 1. changing a previous changelog entry... > > I am not sure what you meant by that. I read "modifies previous entries in changelog" in my notes for x2goclient uploaded to mentors on 2012-06-08 13:20, but when I look at the package again I see no such modifications, so now I'm not sure anymore what I meant. > Did you refer to a commit in > the Vcs-Git > of x2goclient on Alioth? No, I hadn't looked at that. > Yes there I had a commit that was correcting a typo > in an already released version. That has been removed now. Correcting a typo is no problem at all, in my opinion. > > 2. lintian-overrides > W: x2goplugin: hardening-no-fortify-functions > usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libx2goplugin.so > W: x2goclient: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/x2goclient > > -> if I understood your request correctly you recommend / ask for not > overriding these lintian warnings due to the current state of the detection > code? For now, I have removed the lintian-overrides for those from > the package > again. Yes I recommend to not override false positives currently produces by lintian. I think that lintian should be fixed to no longer produce false positives instead. > > Do you think you could take another look? Yes I'll take another look. > > x2goclient (3.99.2.1-2) unstable; urgency=low > > * Fix patch: 001_hardening-x2goclient.patch, add patch description. > * Add patch: 002_remove-encoding-from-desktop-entry.patch, encoding keys in > .desktop files have become deprecated (FreeDesktop.org). > * Add patch: 003_fix-spelling-error-authentication.patch, fix the spelling > of the word authentication. > * Also add upstream changelog to bin:package x2goplugin. > * Do not ship html version of man page anymore. > * Drop lintian overrides (hardening-no-fortify-functions) again due > to recommendation/request from Bart Martens . > > -- Mike Gabriel > Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:10:10 +0200 Note that you quoted 3.99.2.1-2 but also 3.99.2.1-1 is not yet in Debian. Maybe you want to merge 3.99.2.1-2 and 3.99.2.1-1 into just 3.99.2.1-1 but that is optional, in my opinion. Anyhow, I'm comparing your package at mentors with 3.99.2.0-1. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120609044727.ga...@master.debian.org
Bug#659522: O: prelink -- ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking
reopen 659522 stop On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:53:38PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:33:31AM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > There are two RFS bugs for prelink, bug 659522 from Daniel Martà and bug > > 676516 > > from Andrey Rahmatullin. Both RFS'es claim to have a package ready for > > sponsoring at mentors. > > > > At first sight the package at mentors seems from Daniel MartÃ. > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/prelink > > Uploader: Daniel Martà > > Uploaded: 2012-06-07 13:29 > > > > But it is from Andrey Rahmatullin. > There are both packages on that page. True. I overlooked that. > > I'm also closing Daniel MartÃ's > > RFS because there is currently no package to be sponsored from Daniel > > MartÃ. Reopening 659522, because there is a package. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608154457.gb16...@master.debian.org
Bug#669565: RFS for package in a version control system
Hi, This RFS is a request to sponsor a package that can be found in a version control system. To increase your chance to find a sponsor within reasonable time, you may want to put the source package online somewhere with a link to the .dsc file, for example at http://mentors.debian.net/ . This is only a suggestion. It is OK to have the package in a version control system. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608062750.gc9...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop/3.6.2-7
Hi Bas, I'm not sure about removing that "the Debian packaging is Copyright (C) 2007, Adam Majer " from debian/copyright. Are you ? The files port.h and sprompt.c also have a copyright notice with "PostgreSQL Global Development Group" but that is not mentioned in debian/copyright. As I said before, "please scan the upstream source code for copyright notices and licenses". Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608054804.gb8...@master.debian.org
Bug#659522: O: prelink -- ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking
retitle 657967 O: prelink -- ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking noowner 657967 unblock 657967 by 659522 block 657967 by 676516 close 659522 stop The ITA owner Daniel Martà wrote on 21 May 2012 "to make it as a NMU" and "re-orphan the package and repack the update as a NMU". So Daniel Martà no longer intends to adopt the package. So retitling and noownering. At this point anyone can adopt the prelink package. There are two RFS bugs for prelink, bug 659522 from Daniel Martà and bug 676516 from Andrey Rahmatullin. Both RFS'es claim to have a package ready for sponsoring at mentors. At first sight the package at mentors seems from Daniel MartÃ. http://mentors.debian.net/package/prelink Uploader: Daniel Martà Uploaded: 2012-06-07 13:29 But it is from Andrey Rahmatullin. | prelink (0.0.20090925-2) unstable; urgency=low | | * QA upload | * debian/control: Set Maintainer: to the QA group, drop Uploaders: | * debian/patches/: Add r187.dpatch, r188.dpatch, r189.dpatch and | r190.dpatch, cherry-picked from the upstream SVN | (svn://sourceware.org/svn/prelink), which define and handle several new | DWARF codes emitted by gcc > 4.5 (Closes: #676390) | | -- Andrey Rahmatullin Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:14:47 +0600 So sponsors sponsoring the package currently at mentors should be aware of that this package is from Andrey Rahmatullin. To limit further confusion I'm removing the block with Daniel MartÃ's RFS and adding a block with Andrey Rahmatullin's RFS. I'm also closing Daniel MartÃ's RFS because there is currently no package to be sponsored from Daniel MartÃ. Also, I think that there should be only RFS per package at a time. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608053331.ga8...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop/3.6.2-7
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:20:29AM +, Bart Martens wrote: > Hi Bas, > Hi Bas, I'm now reviewing your upload of 2012-06-05 07:30. > I suggest to do the following changes: > - Remove machine/m_gnu.c from debian/patches/ptop_hurd, OK. > - Add "cp -f machine/m_linux.c machine/m_gnu.c" to debian/rules, I don't find any "cp" in debian/rules. Did you use a different approach ? > - Add debian/clean containing "machine/m_gnu.c", I don't see any file that matches debian/*clean. Did you use a different approach ? > - Add similar changes for the other arch(s) with the same problem, > - Rename debian/patches/ptop_hurd to debian/patches/archs, The patch debian/patches/archs contains this line: + kfrebsd-gnu*) MODULE=linux;; Is that a typing mistake ? > - Update "Architecture:" in debian/control. It's set to "Architecture: any" now. Are all architecture related problems solved ? > > I'm not sure about removing hppa and powerpcspe from ptop's archs list because > I don't know the issue with debhelper on these archs. Is it really a > permanent > problem ? Maybe ptop can have "Architecture: any". > This page > http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=debhelper&suite=sid > states "No entry in hppa database, check Packages-arch-specific" but this page > https://buildd.debian-ports.org/quinn-diff/sid/Packages-arch-specific > seems to fail at this time. You seem to have decided to include both hppa and powerpcspe. Is the problem with debhelper on hppa and powerpcspe solved or not permanent ? I see that you have updated debian/copyright, but it is not ready yet. Please look at the file LICENSE and compare that to debian/copyright. They currently don't match. Also, please scan the upstream source code for copyright notices and licenses. For example, the file pg_trace.h contains "Copyright (c) 2006, PostgreSQL Global Development Group" and that is not yet mentioned in debian/copyright, and it is not clear whether pg_trace.h has the same license as the one in the file LICENSE. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605174321.gh9...@master.debian.org
Re: +dfsg
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:27:23AM +0200, Gerber van der Graaf wrote: > For the (lib)freefoam* packages I am building I came across some > non-free files in the source. I got some remarks that the non-free files > will have to be removed and the source will have to be re-packed in a > new +dfsg tar file (instead of providing patches in debian/). > > As I will have to remove an entire directory, containing a module, its > parent directory contains a CMakeLists.txt file containing > 'add_subdirectory(subdir_containing_non_free_files)' > My question is: do I have to provide a patch in debian/patches which > contains the change in the CMakeLists.txt file Yes. > or should the file be modified before repacking? No. For completeness: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605161308.gc9...@master.debian.org
Bug#675910: RFS: grr.app/0.9.0-1
Hi Yavor, The information in debian/copyright is not yet complete, see GNUstep.h. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605060911.gc21...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop/3.6.2-7
Hi Bas, I suggest to do the following changes: - Remove machine/m_gnu.c from debian/patches/ptop_hurd, - Add "cp -f machine/m_linux.c machine/m_gnu.c" to debian/rules, - Add debian/clean containing "machine/m_gnu.c", - Add similar changes for the other arch(s) with the same problem, - Rename debian/patches/ptop_hurd to debian/patches/archs, - Update "Architecture:" in debian/control. I'm not sure about removing hppa and powerpcspe from ptop's archs list because I don't know the issue with debhelper on these archs. Is it really a permanent problem ? Maybe ptop can have "Architecture: any". This page http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=debhelper&suite=sid states "No entry in hppa database, check Packages-arch-specific" but this page https://buildd.debian-ports.org/quinn-diff/sid/Packages-arch-specific seems to fail at this time. I looked this up: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile "must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information" "should name the original authors" I see in the file LICENSE that William LeFebvre is copyright holder but that is not yet mentioned in debian/copyright. That's a "must" for debian-policy. I see that there are quite some authors. Mentioning them in debian/copyright is a "should" for debian-policy. To help you with listing them, I found these authors so far: Andrew Herbert Andrew S. Townley Anthony Baxter Ariel Faigon Christos Zoulas Joep Vesseur John Haxby John Schimmel Kevin Schmidt Larry McVoy Mike Hopkirk Richard Henderson Sandeep Cariapa Thorsten Lockert Torsten Kasch William LeFebvre Rich Holland Mark Wong I think that the list is pretty complete, but it's possible that I've missed a few. I have left out the e-mail addresses to prevent complaints about spam. I suggest to add this list to debian/copyright. It's a "should" for debian-policy. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605052029.gb21...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop
Hi Bas, I suggested earlier to have another look at the list of architectures for these reasons : - m68k is twice on the list, - hppa is not on the list but removing hppa is not mentioned in debian/changelog, - powerpcspe is on the list but the build fails for the same reason as hppa. Architecture: amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 s390x sparc sparc64 sh4 ppc64 powerpcspe m68k m68k armhf alpha hurd-i386 There are some typing mistakes in debian/changelog. | ptop (3.6.2-8) unstable; urgency=low | | * Applyed path for hurd architechtur and activate in control file (closes: #675757) | | -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:50:35 +0200 | | ptop (3.6.2-7) unstable; urgency=low | | * Remove architechtures hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 | because they alway fail | * Changed Standards-Version to 3.9.3 | | -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:13:20 +0200 It would be nice to have 3.6.2-7 and 3.6.2-8 combined into only 3.6.2-7, but it's not really an error. It is good to see that hurd-i386 is back. I guess you don't have a solution for the other removed architectures yet. I see that debian/patches/ptop_hurd contains machine/m_gnu.c and that file contains this: * AUTHOR: Richard Henderson * Order support added by Alexey Klimkin * Ported to 2.4 by William LeFebvre But I don't find any Henderson in debian/copyright. I also don't see any license for machine/m_gnu.c. Maybe Barry deFreese knows more, since he is mentioned in the patch as the author of the patch. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120604173432.gb15...@master.debian.org
Bug#675701: RFS: ptop/3.6.2-7
Hi Bastiaan, Please have another look at the list of architectures. http://mentors.debian.net/package/ptop Uploaded: 2012-06-02 19:35 * Remove architechtures hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 because they alway fail Architecture: amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 s390x sparc sparc64 sh4 ppc64 powerpcspe m68k m68k armhf alpha https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ptop http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=ptop Also, have you tried asking help on debian-...@lists.debian.org and debian-h...@lists.debian.org ? Maybe you want to open a bug in the BTS to log all related information. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120603055009.ga30...@master.debian.org
Bug#675487: RFS: ebtables/2.0.10.4-...
Jochen Friedrich wrote via private e-mail that he prefers that William Dauchy adds himself to "Uploaders" instead of doing an NMU. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120603050007.ga19...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.5-1
retitle 673096 RFS: figlet/2.2.5-1 severity 673096 normal stop Hi Jonathan, Please remove the part "(closes: #674844)" from debian/changelog. Bug 674844 is for version 2.2.2-1 in stable. That bug in stable is not solved by uploading version 2.2.5-1 to unstable. Please keep 674844 open until 675167 is done. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120602192644.ga12...@master.debian.org
Bug#661507: RFS: libblocxx/2.3.0~svn544-1 [ITP] BloCxx - C++ Framework for Application Development
Hi Björn, The package is no longer at mentors. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120602180733.ga23...@master.debian.org
Bug#668007: RFS: cover-thumbnailer/0.8.3-1 [ITP]
Hi, The package at mentors is no longer there. What happened ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120601044615.ga20...@master.debian.org
Re: Packaging a new release of released SW, not considered by the DM?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22:21PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > Hi, > > A Short question. Is it possible to ITP a new release of some software > not being even considered by the DM, for whatever reason. Wishlist bugs > are submitted, etc. According to if there is no reply of bug reports, > there seems to be no interest at all from the DM to package that piece > of SW, not even for experimental. If not possible, why? What does the > Debian Policy state? I'm replying to the debian-mentors list, because I think this is where this question belongs. Generally it is not OK to ITP a new release of a package already in Debian maintained by someone else. Which package are we talking about ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120601043549.gb20...@master.debian.org
Re: RFS: new powertop version
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:15:01AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Julian Wollrath writes: > > > I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but > > since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes > > were > > needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also > > needed so that it would be machine readable according to the specifications > > in > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/. > > This kind of change (changing the copyright file format) is not usually > acceptable in an NMU, unless cleared with the maintainer. I just want to add that I very much agree with that changing the copyright file format does not belong in an NMU. > Although many > maintainers consider the use of the machine readable format to be a best > practice, I'm not one of those maintainers. I prefer the old plain text format. > it does not have the force of policy, I'm happy with that. > and the absence of > machine readable formatting of debian/copyright is at most wishlist bug, > i.e. something that the submitter might like, but the maintainer might > or might not agree is an improvement. I have so far not seen any benefit from the "machine readable formatting". Actually, I think that developing tools to extract all copyright and license information from the upstream software would be a better investment of time than the time spent by those many packagers hand-coding that "machine readable format". > > Note that while it is not especially likely, it is possible to introduce > release critical bugs (violations of policy "must"s) by editing of > debian/copyright. I agree. It is better to simply quote the exact texts from the upstream software. > For more information, see section 12.5 of Debian > policy. > > Pretty much the same thing holds for changing packaging formats from 1.0 > to 3.0 (quilt), which you did not do here, but is a common beginner > mistake in NMUs. I also agree that changing this aspect does not belong in an NMU. > > Thanks for your efforts, and don't get too discouraged, more experienced > contributors make similar mistakes. That is unfortunately very true. I also learn while sponsoring packages from beginning package maintainers. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120529190628.ga21...@master.debian.org
Re: how often should ask for upload?
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:55:16PM -0300, gustavo panizzo wrote: > hi > > after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i > prepare new revisions of it I have no general answer to that, but I see that bug 674339 should be fixed as soon as possible. > and ask to potential sponsors to upload it > to the archive? Your package at mentors is marked "needs a sponsor = yes", so you're OK at the moment about asking for a sponsor. > > should i wait until the pkg has a many bugs? Some bugs are more important/urgent than others. > or each bug deserves an upload? I don't think so, no. Did you receive a notification for the comment that was added on this page ? http://mentors.debian.net/package/vavoom Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528161022.gc20...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Hi Jonathan, This seems an easy solution for figlet 2.2.4-1 : ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528100608.ga17...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Hi Jonathan, Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at 2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of re-distribution. http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet Note that you can still package figlet for Debian, if you want that, but then the license problem must be solved before figlet can re-enter Debian. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528090527.ga1...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable. The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528085807.gc26...@master.debian.org
Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1
Hi Jonathan, The information in debian/copyright is not complete. One example is that Edward B. Hamrick is the copyright holder of inflate.c and the license differs from the one in LICENSE. The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license contains a license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute". Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528041654.ga...@master.debian.org
Re: RFS: new powertop version
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 06:00:26PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of the package powertop, which > closes several bugs (e.g. bug #672555). I do this since there was no reaction > from the maintainer regarding my patches which fix bug #672555 and would like > to see the new version of powertop in Debian. Version 2.0 was released on 5 May 2012 and it was announced on the upstream website on 10 May 2012. Bug 672555 was submitted on 11 May 2012. Isn't it a bit soon to push this new upstream release via NMU ? Also, I'm not sure about new upstream releases via NMU. Have you offered to co-maintain ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526171907.ga15...@master.debian.org
Bug#665354: RFS: viennacl/1.2.1-1
Hi Michael, Why not 1.3.0 ? http://viennacl.sourceforge.net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/viennacl/files/ Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526155308.gb17...@master.debian.org
Bug#670212: RFS: pentobi/1.2-1
Hi Dean, Why not pentobi 2.0 ? http://sourceforge.net/projects/pentobi/files/ Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526135720.ga32...@master.debian.org
Bug#674477: RFS: frogatto{-data}/1.2+dfsg-1.1 [NMU] -- 2D platformer game starring a quixotic frog
Hi Vincent, I'm not sure whether an entry on the "Low Threshold NMU" list makes it OK to package a newer upstream release via NMU. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526090827.ga10...@master.debian.org
