Bug#951453: RFS: pysolfc/2.6.4-3 -- collection of more than 1000 solitaire card games
Hi, thanks for your contribution, this should be in unstable by tonight. cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#940575: RFS: fortran-language-server/1.10.2-1 [ITP] -- Fortran Language Server for the Language Server Protocol
Hi Denis, I did a few minor changes and uploaded. Upstream published 1.10.3 recently, you might want to package it. No need to open RFSs in the future, just send me an e-mail. Please, don't forget to update upstream and pristine-tar branches/to push them. :) I will close this bug once ftpmasters have accepted the package. cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#932148: Built & uploaded
Hi Juhani, > > I had a look at the changes, everything fine. Manual smoke tests fine as > > well. I'm pretty sure there are still bugs in there, pysolfc breaks very > > easily (that's the main reason why I kept delaying this update for such a > > long time). > > I see. BTW, regarding breakage, here's a small TODO for the next pysolfc > version... > - revert changes of commit 27444536 in debian/rules (upstreamed) > - remove debian/patches/configobj (upstreamed) > - package https://github.com/shlomif/pysol_cards (upstream separated it out) >- based on the rpm, it seems straight-forward > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pysol-cards/blob/master/f/python-pysol-cards.spec > - new dependency python3-attr Great, thanks. > > Anyways, we can't delay this forever, so I went along and uploaded it. > > There's one more delay though: since the release of Buster, only > source-only uploads migrate to testing. Unfortunately your upload did > include the binary packages. > I believe you'll have to bump the version and upload again. > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/07/msg2.html Seems like I overlooked this. I'll prepare a small source only upload this week so we get these changes into testing. If you want to add some more changes from your side, just commit them on Salsa, I'll take a look at them. cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#932148: Built & uploaded
Hi Juhani, I had a look at the changes, everything fine. Manual smoke tests fine as well. I'm pretty sure there are still bugs in there, pysolfc breaks very easily (that's the main reason why I kept delaying this update for such a long time). Anyways, we can't delay this forever, so I went along and uploaded it. I'm not using it myself, so if you could test it a bit more in the next days, that would be great. If there are other issues to fix I will have time to take care of it during DebConf. Thanks for your work. cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#932148: RFS: pysolfc/2.6.4-1 [RC]
Hi Juhani, Thanks for working on this. I'll review your changes and upload asap. cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#858860: RFS: arpwatch [ITA]
> * Does somebody have a recommendation regarding the version for > experimental (add ~exp1 or just increase the version once more when > uploading to unstable after stretch was released)? I think you don't need the ~exp1. For your next upload to unstable, you'll just have to increase the version as usual and mention "Upload to unstable." in the changelog. > * Is there a procedure to join (or apply for joining) the > pkg-security-team? I did not find any information regarding that > online. I am not admin, but I think Gianfranco can add you. -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#858860: RFS: arpwatch [ITA]
> - $(INSTALL) -m 555 -o bin -g bin arpwatch $(DESTDIR)$(BINDEST)
> + $(INSTALL) -Dm 555 -o bin -g bin arpwatch $(DESTDIR)$(BINDEST)
>
>
> this should work too (as said above) and is less invasive :)
Oh right, thanks :)
--
Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com
4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#858860: RFS: arpwatch [ITA]
Hi Christian, Lukas, > It does solve the problem (i.e. the error is gone if `usr/sbin` is > present in the `dirs` file). According to the Debian New Maintainers' > Guide guide, creating directories that are not created by > `make install DESTDIR=...` as invoked by dh_auto_install is exactly > what the dirs file is for [1]. right :) > Also, running `dh binary --no-act` in the arpwatch packaging dir yields: > $ dh binary --no-act >(...) >dh_installdirs >dh_auto_install >(...) > > > Can you explain in which situations dh_installdirs will be run after > dh_auto_install? As far as I am aware, dh_installdirs in always executed before dh_auto_install. This is also what the Debian New Maintainer's Guide suggests[0]. > I'd like to avoid messing with the upstream build system more than > required. If dh_installdirs isn't the correct approach, maybe I can > create an override_dh_auto_install target and create the directory > there before calling dh_auto_install…? I'd say using dirs is fine. Alternatively you could probably patch the Makefile like that: --- a/Makefile.in 2017-04-05 18:04:48.110827892 +0200 +++ b/Makefile.in 2017-04-05 18:04:48.106828088 +0200 @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ zap.o intoa.o -lutil install: force - $(INSTALL) -m 555 -o bin -g bin arpwatch $(DESTDIR)$(BINDEST) + mkdir -p "$(DESTDIR)" && $(INSTALL) -m 555 -o bin -g bin arpwatch $(DESTDIR)$(BINDEST) $(INSTALL) -m 555 -o bin -g bin arpsnmp $(DESTDIR)$(BINDEST) install-man: force Cheers, Hugo [0] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#rules -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#858860: RFS: arpwatch [ITA]
s:0' value 'dpkg (>= > > 1.16.1)': unnecessary versioned dependency: dpkg (>= 1.16.1). > > Debian has oldstable -> 1.16.18; stable -> 1.17.27; unstable -> 1.18.23; > > testing -> 1.18.23; > > Ok, I removed the pre-dependenciy. > > In order to setup the file based trigger I followed man deb-triggers(5) > from dpkg-dev version 1.18.23 (most recent version in unstable) which > states: > > The “-noawait” variants are only supported since dpkg 1.16.1, and will > > lead to errors if used with an older dpkg. It is thus recommended to > > add a “Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.16.1)” to any package that wish to use > > those directives. If the dpkg documentation recommends to do so, then, fine, forget about this warning. > > $ codespell * > > aclocal.m4:784: seperate ==> separate > > aclocal.m4:787: independantly ==> independently > > aclocal.m4:788: dependancies ==> dependencies > > arp2ethers:8: occurance ==> occurrence > > config.sub:1161: nto ==> not | disable due to \n > > debian/changelog:129: wont ==> won't, wont > > dns.c:140: cannonical ==> canonical > > WARNING: Decoding file ethercodes.dat > > WARNING: using encoding=utf-8 failed. > > WARNING: Trying next encoding: iso-8859-1 > > ethercodes.dat:785: Intruments ==> Instruments > > ethercodes.dat:838: Aircaft ==> Aircraft > > ethercodes.dat:1180: Engeneering ==> Engineering > > ethercodes.dat:2083: Internation ==> International > > ethercodes.dat:7447: MANAGMENT ==> MANAGEMENT > > Except for debian/changelog all of these refer to files from upstream. > From these files, the only thing that will end up being in the binary > package is the typo in a comment of the arp2ethers /bin/sh script. I you > prefer that I create a patch to fix that I will do so (I personally > wouldn't bother). Indeed, this is kind of useless if they don't appear in the binary/users don't see it. > The spelling mistake in debian/changelog is from an old entry. Should I > rewrite the changelog.Debian history to fix that spelling mistake? I wouldn't do it. > Thanks also for including the commands you used to find problems with > the package, that's really helpful. These tools are helpful to improve the quality of your packages. As you can see, there are a lot of false positive, and you may not always want to "fix" everything. :) I didn't have enough time to review all your changes to maintainer scripts, but piuparts didn't report anything bad and we're uploading to experimental, so I'd say the package is ready for upload. Does anybody in the team wants to take a second look ? Are you already a member of the team ? If yes, could you move your git repository to https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-security/arpwatch.git ? If needed, I can remove the old one on collab-maint. Cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#858860: RFS: arpwatch [ITA]
Hi Lukas, > > Gianfranco suggested also asking the pkg-security-team for possible > > sponsors. It would be great if one of you could have a look and > > provide guidance! If team maintenance is be possible, I'd like that > > very much. > > I think arpwatch would be a good fit for the team. Is there somebody > willing to review my packaging work? This seems to be a good fit for the team, indeed. https://git.somlen.de/arpwatch.git/ returns 403 Forbidden :) Quick review: * lintian reports P: arpwatch source: source-contains-data-from-ieee-data-oui-db ethercodes.dat but it looks like you already fixed it. If this warning is not relevant anymore please override it. * There's no copyright entry for you Nitpicking: in debian/changelog: why "remove dmassagevendor" ? This changelog entry could be more verbose. $ cme check dpkg [...] Warning in 'dirs:0' value 'usr/sbin': Make sure that this directory is actually needed. See L<http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dother.en.html#dirs> for details Warning in 'dirs:1' value 'var/lib/arpwatch': Make sure that this directory is actually needed. See L<http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dother.en.html#dirs> for details [...] Warning in 'control source Vcs-Git' value 'git://anonscm.debian.org/collab-maint/arpwatch.git': An unencrypted transport protocol is used for this URI. It is recommended to use a secure transport such as HTTPS for anonymous read-only access. Warning in 'control source Vcs-Git' value 'git://anonscm.debian.org/collab-maint/arpwatch.git': URL is not the canonical one for repositories hosted on Alioth. Warning in 'control binary:arpwatch Pre-Depends:0' value 'dpkg (>= 1.16.1)': unnecessary versioned dependency: dpkg (>= 1.16.1). Debian has oldstable -> 1.16.18; stable -> 1.17.27; unstable -> 1.18.23; testing -> 1.18.23; Warning in 'copyright Format' value 'http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/': Format uses insecure http protocol instead of https checking data check done $ codespell * aclocal.m4:784: seperate ==> separate aclocal.m4:787: independantly ==> independently aclocal.m4:788: dependancies ==> dependencies arp2ethers:8: occurance ==> occurrence config.sub:1161: nto ==> not | disable due to \n debian/changelog:129: wont ==> won't, wont dns.c:140: cannonical ==> canonical WARNING: Decoding file ethercodes.dat WARNING: using encoding=utf-8 failed. WARNING: Trying next encoding: iso-8859-1 ethercodes.dat:785: Intruments ==> Instruments ethercodes.dat:838: Aircaft ==> Aircraft ethercodes.dat:1180: Engeneering ==> Engineering ethercodes.dat:2083: Internation ==> International ethercodes.dat:7447: MANAGMENT ==> MANAGEMENT Otherwise, the package looks good. I did not review everything yet, I'll take a second look later. :) Cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle)|www.owl.eu.com 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, I've had a last look at the source code of the package, and, unfortunately I found something quite annoying: there are lot of external snippets and external libs in the vendors folder. Debian's way of thinking packaging isn't in accordance to it. We should package every piece of code separately; otherwise it may create security and organisational problems. If I upload the package in its current state, it may be rejected by FTP Master. Moreover, it will be hard to maintain this package in the future. The main problem is that packaging these snippets separately will take quite a lot of time and won't be a simple task. I don't have the time to sponsor so many packages. Thus, I'd advise you to get in touch with the Go Packaging Team[0] (#debian-golang on irc.debian.org). They will surely help you to find a solution for your package. They might also decide to upload it. Of course, don't hesitate to ping me if you need some quick review, I'm not far away. :-) Regards, Hugo [0] https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. I completely understand that. My point was that I think it is beneficial to keep the version requirements there in case someone wants to backport it. That way they will not run into unexpected problems. If you don't think that is beneficial I can remove it. Anyway, I'm nitpicking. Let it if you want. I've made a new review of your package and I've found a last problem in your d/copyright file: The Expat license paragraph is malformed. I've attached a correct version. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: git-lfs Upstream-Contact: supp...@github.com Source: https://github.com/github/git-lfs Files: * Copyright: 2013-2015 GitHub, Inc. and Git LFS contributors License: Expat Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015 Stephen Gelman ssg...@gmail.com License: Expat License: Expat Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: . The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. . THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, Here are some remaining problems I'd like to see solved before sponsoring the package. (1) debian/control: --- - Concerning git (= 1.8.0): The version in jessie-backports is 2.1, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.9.1. - Concerning golang-go (= 1.3.0): The version in jessie is 1.3.3, so anyway this condition will be verified in case of a backport to stable. This condition would also be verified in case of a backport to oldstable since the version in wheezy-backports is 1.3.3. FYI, the Release Team doesn't always accepts backports to stable. However, if the backport of your package is accepted, it will go to the jessie-backports archive[0]. (2) debian/changelog: - - Why have you increased the debian revision number ? This package is the first debian release, so the complete package version number should be 0.5.4-1. - Why have you made three changelog entries ? This package haven't been uploaded to the Debian archive so, only one entry is allowed. - Usually, the changelog entry for an initial release looks like: * Initial release. (Closes: ITPBUG) (3) debian/copyright: - - Please, specify an e-mail adress after your name in the Copyright field of d/copyright, like so: Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015 Stephen Gelman ssg...@gmail.com License: Expat Thanks ! Regards, Hugo [0] http://backports.debian.org/Contribute/ -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793171: RFS: git-lfs/0.5.2-1 [ITP]
Hi, Here is a quick review of your package. (1) debian/control: --- - Please, write a longer extended description. - It isn't necessary to specify git (= 1.8.0), Debian has squeeze - 1:1.7.2.5-3; squeeze-backports - 1:1.7.10.4-1~bpo60+1; wheezy - 1:1.7.10.4-1+wheezy1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+1; wheezy-backports - 1:1.9.1-1~bpo70+2; jessie-kfreebsd - 1:2.1.4-2.1; jessie - 1:2.1.4-2.1; stretch - 1:2.1.4-2.1; sid - 1:2.1.4-2.1; experimental - 1:2.1.4+next.20141218-2; experimental - 1:2.4.3+next.20150611-1; sid - 1:2.4.6-1; experimental - 1:2.5.0~rc2+next.20150720-1. - It isn't necessary to specify golang-go (= 1.3.0), Debian has wheezy - 2:1.0.2-1.1; wheezy-backports - 2:1.3.3-1~bpo70+1; jessie - 2:1.3.3-1; stretch - 2:1.4.2-3; sid - 2:1.4.2-3. - Please, run 'wrap-and-sort -a'. - Please, specify Vcs-Browser and Vcs-* fields if you are using a Vcs for your Debian work. If not, consider using one. (2) debian/copyright: - - You aren't mentioned in the copyright file. You should add a paragraph for debian/* that mentions you work. - Since you aren't providing any upstream e-mail adress in the Copyright field, it might be a good idea to specify an Upstream-Contact field. (3) debian/changelog: - - Please, use urgency=low. (4) debian/watch: - - Please, write a watch file. - Optionally, it could be a good idea to ask git-lfs' upstream to provide signed releases. (5) debian/rules: - - 'rm -f debian/debhelper.log' should be automatically done by dh_clean. Why are you specifying this rule ? - Lintian reports 'P: hardening-no-fortify-functions'. If this warning is justified, you should fix it. Otherwise, this warning must be overriden with an informative comment. (6) debian/docs --- - Some additionnal documentation is provided in the source code (like README.md), you should consider integrating it in the package. (7) sourcecode -- - codespell reports some spelling errors in the source code. You should consider fixing them: ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:81: occured == occurred ./lfs/transfer_queue.go:154: transfered == transferred ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/spf13/cobra/README.md:65: libary == library ./vendor/_nuts/github.com/ogier/pflag/bool_test.go:54: requred == required Thanks for your work ! Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: my WNPP list is empty but it is not
Since a couple of weeks, my list of WNPP bugs is empty, but I know that I have a couple of them around: is a temporary bug ? is there a way to re-fill the list ? A similar bug have been reported against qa.debian.org[0]. [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791380 -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749213: RFS: qtop/2.2.3-2 [ITP]
Hi Andrew, Thank you for your review ! I haven't gotten a chance to look at this very deeply yet. No problem, it's already very nice to spare time to review this package ! :) I've also spoken with Axel (Beckert), and he signaled me other bugs. So, the quality of this package should be better now. A quick look suggests that the License filed in debian/copyright for the upstream files should be GPL-2+ instead of just GPL-2. I've updated d/copyright to change it. It also fails to build for me in a clean sid pbuilder: The build-dependencies were wrong. I had not tried to build the package with pbuilder ! Now, it builds fine. And finally, you seem to have renamed the binary but not the Exec field in the desktop file, so that will be broken. Added to name.patch. ;) So... I've made many changes, and, to make clearer, I've written a changelog: * d/rules: - Deleted all declarations that debhelper 8 needed which are useless with debhelper 9. * d/control: - Changed debhelper required version to 9.0.0. - Added new build-dependencies. * d/compat: - Using compatibility level 9. * d/qtop.1: - Deleted the paragraph about 'info qtop' which was useless. * d/patches/name.patch: - Added Top.desktop to the patch. * d/copyright: - Changed upstream license from GPL-2 to GPL-2+. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#749213: RFS: qtop/2.2.3-2 [ITP]
Hi, I've spoken with the Upstream to find a good name. He have also made a new version of the software to allow other binary names (2.2.4). The final name of this package is qtop: I've also made an update, and, finally, the package seems ready to be uploaded. qtop appears to be Lintian errors/warnings clear and compiles fine on my computer. :) The package is available at the same adress.[0] Regards, Hugo [0] https://mentors.debian.net/package/qtop -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749213: RFS: qtop/2.2.3-2 [ITP]
Hi, I'm actually speaking with the Upstream to find a good name for this package. It will maybe change again. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749152: RFS: top/2.2.3-1 [ITP]
I'll fill a new RFS for the qtop package. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#749213: RFS: qtop/2.2.3-2 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package qtop Package name: qtop Version : 2.2.3-2 Upstream Author : Hugo Pereira Da Costa hugo.pere...@free.fr URL : http://hugo.pereira.free.fr/software/ License : GPL2 Programming lang: C++ / Qt5 Section : admin It builds this binary package: qtop - windowed version of the console top command To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/qtop Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qtop/qtop_2.2.3-2.dsc More information about top can be obtained from Hugo Pereira's website: http://hugo.pereira.free.fr/ I've already asked for a sponsorship, but the name of the package was buggy. I've also made a patch to change the name of the software from 'Top' to 'qtop'. qtop (2.2.3-2) unstable; urgency=low * debian/patches/name.patch: - Changes the name of the binary from Top to qtop. -- Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@orange.fr Sun, 25 May 2014 00:42:12 +0200 qtop (2.2.3-1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial release (Closes: #731881) -- Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@orange.fr Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:10 +0200 Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#749213: RFS: qtop/2.2.3-2 [ITP]
Since the package has been never released, please remove the changelog entry for 2.2.3-2 and keep only the first with Initial release. I've corrected it. The new version is on mentors.debian.org at the same adress. [0] Regards, Hugo [0] https://mentors.debian.net/package/qtop -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#749152: RFS: top/2.2.3-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package top Package name: top Version : 2.2.3-1 Upstream Author : Hugo Pereira Da Costa hugo.pere...@free.fr URL : http://hugo.pereira.free.fr/software/ License : GPL2 Programming lang: C++ / Qt5 Section : admin It builds this binary package: top - windowed version of the console top command To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/top Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/top/top_2.2.3-1.dsc More information about top can be obtained from Hugo Pereira's website: http://hugo.pereira.free.fr/ It will be the first debian release. top (2.2.3-1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial release (Closes: #731881) -- Hugo Lefeuvre hugo6...@orange.fr Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:10 +0200 Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749152: RFS: top/2.2.3-1 [ITP]
Hi Kumar / Hi Henrique, The name of the binary is 'Top'. You think it would be a good idea to change the name of the binary ? As far as I'm concerned, I have no problems with Top. * The manpage works well - man top for the top command - man Top for the Top command But, if you think it's buggy, I'll change it. Naturally, I can also try to speak with the Upstream to change the name of the source program but I think it will be... very long. :) Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749152: RFS: top/2.2.3-1 [ITP]
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 08:27:02PM +0200, Eric L. wrote: I think, everybody agrees that it's quite buggy, but you can do both in parallel: change the binary name in the package with a patch as well as the package name itself, and ask upstream to change their name. qtop did sound like a good suggestion. I'll do the changes in the evening. ;) -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#749152: RFS: top/2.2.3-1 [ITP]
It should be done now. The new name of the binary is qtop. I've uploaded the package on mentos.debian.org.[0] Regards, Hugo [0] https://mentors.debian.net/package/qtop -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hugo6390)|www.hugo6390.org 4096/ ACB7 B67F 197F 9B32 1533 431C AC90 AC3E C524 065E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
