Bug#821171: RFS: growl-for-linux/0.8.1-2 [ITP]
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:26:23PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > I've already contacted with upstream author in this issue, > isn't good enough? > https://github.com/mattn/growl-for-linux/issues/56 You are more than wonderful. And I am sorry to overlook this issue. > Okay, I'll fix it. Thank you. I am waiting for your uploading. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#821171: RFS: growl-for-linux/0.8.1-2 [ITP]
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:43:45PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > No. As far as I know, growl-for-linux had never released in Ubuntu. > upstream author had released it as PPA before. > > https://launchpad.net/~mattn/+archive/ubuntu/growl-for-linux > > So, I'd like to put this into Debian. OK, prior confirmation is not always needed. Generally, if others already have made package, it is nice to contact him/her to avoid redundant work. Now, since you have sent PR to upstream github to make packaging better, I hope you cooperate with him nicely from now on. > Thanks, I've fixed typos. > > * Drop -> Dropped in debian/changelog > * Rewrited -> Rewrote in debian/changelog > * ballon -> balloon in debian/control Confirmed. But debian/changelog.bak is contained. Please remove it. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#821171: RFS: growl-for-linux/0.8.1-2 [ITP]
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 06:05:03PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > * Package name: growl-for-linux > Version : 0.8.1-2 It seems that upstream author already uploads this package into Ubuntu, Do you talk him about uploading this package into Debian? > * debian/copyright > - Rewrited to machine-readable debian/copyright typo: Rewrited You can use aspell or ispell for spell check. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-pkg-desc > * debian/rules > - Fixed non-empty-dependency_libs-in-la-file lintian warning > - Added hardening flags (+all,-pie) > - Drop deprecated libtweets subscriber "Drop" is only present tense. Others are past tense. debian/control: > Growl For Linux provides four kind of display styles - ballon, fog, typo: ballon -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]
Please restart ITP process and re-upload this with removal of overriding for pedantic tags. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 05:47:23PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > > I think there is no need to suppress pedantic reports. > > Maybe, but I think that it is a good manner to treat it explicitly. lintian(1) says: | Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. BTW, I hesitate to upload this package because of pabs' suggetion. We need to build consensus. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]
> * debian/control - Maintainer: Does he agree to be the Debian official maintainer for this package? Aren't YOU the Debian official maintainer for it? - #Vcs-Git: - #Vcs-Browser: Please remove template. - Suggests: There is no package named flashplugin-installer in Debian. > * debian/rules Please remove sample comment header. > * debian/libhal1-flash.lintian-overrides > - Suppress pedantic lintian reports > * debian/source.lintian-overrides > - Suppress pedantic gpg signature lintian report I think there is no need to suppress pedantic reports. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#815177: RFS: fcitx-imlist/0.5.0-1 [ITP]
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 02:57:04AM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote:
> dget -x
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fcitx-imlist/fcitx-imlist_0.5.0-1.dsc
Do you know/use pbuilder/cowbuilder?
* http://pbuilder.alioth.debian.org/
* https://wiki.debian.org/cowbuilder
pbuilder/cowbuilder tell you whether your packages can build.
Your package's Build-Depends: is not satisfied with its dependency. Check it.
And, Do you know/use lintian?
* https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/checkit.ja.html#lintians
Your package's Standards-Version is out of date. Check it.
When you want to upload packages, a goal is below 3 cleans.
Check and mention them in RFS message.
* pbuilder/cowbuilder clean
* lintian clean
* piuparts clean
Oh, maybe, you wrote blog articles for them. Review them.
* http://www.clear-code.com/blog/2014/11/21.html
* http://www.clear-code.com/blog/2014/4/3.html
* http://www.clear-code.com/blog/2014/12/1.html
--
Regards,
dai
GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#813489: RFS: libhinawa/0.7.0-1 [ITP]
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:46:01PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > libhinawa (0.7.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium Close ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/813474 > * Team upload. You are listed as Uploaders: field, so "Team upload" line is not needed. See: https://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload --- > Some packaging teams use a single mailing list that collects all bug reports, > and allow normal uploads by team members without them being listed directly > as Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, the special first line > “ * Team upload.” will avoid to the upload to be confused with a NMU. --- I think it is OK expect them. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#775799: RFS: libmodule-install-rtx-perl/0.37-1 [ITP]
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:07:00AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: Sorry for late, I've fixed these issue and update mentors' package. (I add new Files: entry, and README.Debian to refer them) uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#775799: RFS: libmodule-install-rtx-perl/0.37-1 [ITP]
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:57:56AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: - d/copyright: copyright holder is not only Best Practical Solutions but also Audrey Tang c...@audreyt.org. - d/docs: maybe missing. I've fixed them and re-uploaded to mentors. ack. - d/p/01-fix-plugindir.patch: where comes from? I picked this patch from rt-authen-externalauth's. describe its origin somewhere (changelog, README.Debian, etc.) but this patch's license is GPL-2. rt-authen-externalauth-0.25/debian/copyright: Files: debian/* Copyright: 2012-2014 Tom Jampen t...@cryptography.ch License: GPL-2 libmodule-install-rtx-perl-0.37/debian/copyright: Files: debian/* Copyright: 2015, KURASHIKI Satoru lur...@gmail.com License: MIT you should add new entry about debian/patches/01-fix-plugindir.patch and describe its origin here. of cource, this patch's license stays GPL-2. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#775799: RFS: libmodule-install-rtx-perl/0.37-1 [ITP]
- d/copyright: copyright holder is not only Best Practical Solutions but also Audrey Tang c...@audreyt.org. - d/docs: maybe missing. - d/p/01-fix-plugindir.patch: where comes from? note: pbuilder and piuparts clean. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#766567: RFS: ruby-serverspec-runner/0.2.4-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 06:26:08PM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: OK, I've changed package name, and re-upload to mentors.d.o. (with lintian fixes). http://mentors.debian.net/package/serverspec-runner http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/serverspec-runner/serverspec-runner_0.2.4-1.dsc awesome works! uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#766564: RFS: prt/0.19-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:36:46AM +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: * Package name: prt Version : 0.19-1 Upstream Author : hitode909 hitode...@gmail.com * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~hitode/App-PRT-0.19/ * License : Artistic or GPL-1+ Section : perl It builds those binary packages: prt - Command line Perl Refactoring Tool uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#766567: RFS: ruby-serverspec-runner/0.2.4-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:08:19AM +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package ruby-serverspec-runner * Package name: ruby-serverspec-runner Version : 0.2.4-1 Upstream Author : hiracy leiz...@mbr.nifty.com * URL : https://github.com/hiracy/serverspec-runner * License : MIT Section : ruby It builds those binary packages: ruby-serverspec-runner - simple execution framework for serverspec this is application package, so ruby- prefix removed package name serverspec-runner is suitable. Naming of ruby packages https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Naming_of_ruby_packages debian/control: Vcs-Browser: unable to open this page. please fix this lintian warning. you can use help2man to generate template. W: ruby-serverspec-runner: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/serverspec-runner 6.7.3. Documentation https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-docs -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#766567: RFS: ruby-serverspec-runner/0.2.4-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:57:48AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: this is application package, so ruby- prefix removed package name serverspec-runner is suitable. According to guideline, It seems that it's ok to have ruby- prefix. (optional choice) (I want it for unification with ruby-serverspec, though it should have been named as serverspec...) serverspec is mainly used as a library (framework), not as an application, so ruby-serverspec is suitable package name for it. naming unification is not much important, i think. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#766339: RFS: libtest-mock-guard-perl/0.10-1 [ITP]
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:29:07PM +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: * Package name: libtest-mock-guard-perl Version : 0.10-1 Upstream Author : Toru Yamaguchi zigo...@cpan.org * URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Test-Mock-Guard * License : Artistic or GPL Section : perl It builds those binary packages: libtest-mock-guard-perl - Simple mock test library using RAII. uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#732677: RFS: ruby-specinfra/0.0.16-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 06:00:33PM +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package ruby-specinfra * Package name: ruby-specinfra Version : 0.0.16-1 Upstream Author : Gosuke Miyashita gosukena...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/serverspec/specinfra * License : MIT Section : ruby checked and uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#728973: RFS: libclass-std-storable-perl/0.0.1-1 [ITP]
uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#717780: RFS: ruby-serverspec/0.7.1-1 [ITP] -- RSpec tests for your servers
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:59:36PM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: I'm considering to use github as its repository, so will do (after I could deal with it using git-buildpackage). cf. https://github.com/lurdan/serverspec i see. I've updated the package on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/ruby-serverspec/ruby-serverspec_0.7.2-1.dsc uploaded. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#717780: RFS: ruby-serverspec/0.7.1-1 [ITP] -- RSpec tests for your servers
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:51:58AM +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/ruby-serverspec/ruby-serverspec_0.7.1-1.dsc ruby-serverspec: Newer version (0.7.2) available. debian/control: don't you use anonscm.debian.org repository? debian/patches/fix-sample: remains template strings. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RC-FIX] RFS: canna
Hi, On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 08:05:06PM -0300, gustavo panizzo gfa wrote: i've prepared a QA upload for canna, it fixes the RC bug #681756. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/canna/canna_3.7p3-10.dsc thank you for your works, but i am afraid it does not fix RC bug #681756. your package is adding a removal of /etc/default/canna.dpkg-old, but bug#681756 says below. 0m27.4s ERROR: FAIL: After purging files have disappeared: /etc/canna/owned by: canna, libcanna1g /etc/canna/default.canna not owned i cannot reproduce that bug, your package did not fix bug #681756 in itself. so it should not close bug #681756, i think. i got this when i run piuparts against 3.7p3-9 3m11.8s ERROR: WARN: Broken symlinks: /usr/bin/chmoddic - catdic 3m15.0s INFO: PASS: Installation and purging test. 3m16.5s INFO: apt-cache knows about the following packages: canna 3m19.7s ERROR: WARN: Broken symlinks: /usr/bin/chmoddic - catdic 3m20.3s INFO: Installation of ['tmp/canna_3.7p3-9_i386.deb'] ok 3m21.4s ERROR: WARN: Broken symlinks: /usr/bin/chmoddic - catdic 3m24.9s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left files on system: /etc/default/canna.dpkg-oldnot owned i could not reproduce bug #681756, too. i got only /etc/default/canna.dpkg-old not owned, no Broken symlinks. there may be some condition to reproduce these errors. -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RC-FIX] RFS: canna
Hi, On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 02:11:54AM -0300, gustavo panizzo gfa wrote: i've prepared a QA upload for canna, it fixes the RC bug #681756. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/canna/canna_3.7p3-10.dsc thank you for your works, but i am afraid it does not fix RC bug #681756. your package is adding a removal of /etc/default/canna.dpkg-old, but bug#681756 says below. 0m27.4s ERROR: FAIL: After purging files have disappeared: /etc/canna/owned by: canna, libcanna1g /etc/canna/default.canna not owned so, would you please revise your package? -- Regards, dai GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E signature.asc Description: Digital signature
