Re: RFS: packagekit (ping2)
[...] (lots of further info on packagekit) Well, I am a DD and in principle could sponsor such a package, but I just lack all the know how needed to properly evaluate gnome-related packages. And, as I already wrote in another reponse to an RFS some minutes ago, it seems that nobody else reading the RFS on this list is currently able to do such sponsoring. Wouldn't it maybe be a good idea to contact the Debian GNOME Team instead? All the info is available at http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-gnome PackageKit is no GNOME package (it's not part of GNOME). There is a GNOME frontend for it, called GNOME-PackageKit. The PackageKit daemon uses GLib, but that's all. But as PackageKit is used (can be used) by many GNOME applications, the GNOME development team might be interested in having this in the repos. So, I'll write to their mailing list later, maybe someone is interested in sponsoring the package. Hope this helps, Yep, at least I have some kind of perspective for this package now. I'll first ask the Ubuntu devs, then post on the pkg-gnome mailinglist. Thanks! -- 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/0a134f9c0962c9271f317ecd503bf...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit (ping2)
Hi Matthias, On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert jul...@vdg.blogsite.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems regarding packaging. OK, I will save them to answer you within 4 days then ;) Don't take me wrong, I'm not DD so I wont upload, but even if I were, by reading your mail I just don't get what packagekit is, so I guess I'm not the only one ;) [...] (lots of further info on packagekit) Well, I am a DD and in principle could sponsor such a package, but I just lack all the know how needed to properly evaluate gnome-related packages. And, as I already wrote in another reponse to an RFS some minutes ago, it seems that nobody else reading the RFS on this list is currently able to do such sponsoring. Wouldn't it maybe be a good idea to contact the Debian GNOME Team instead? All the info is available at http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-gnome Hope this helps, Michael pgpJB3amPgqsr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: packagekit (ping2)
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert jul...@vdg.blogsite.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems regarding packaging. OK, I will save them to answer you within 4 days then ;) Don't take me wrong, I'm not DD so I wont upload, but even if I were, by reading your mail I just don't get what packagekit is, so I guess I'm not the only one ;) Hmm, okay, if this is the problem I can solve it easily :P PackageKit is a DBus abstraction layer and Freedesktop standard for accessing package management. It allows you to implement access to package management into your application in a cross-distro way, for example the Anjuta IDE searches for required plugins using PackageKit and the Nautilus file manager can use it to install apps for missing mime-types etc. All these apps just need to know the PackageKit API, it does not matter if the distribution uses APT/Yum/Zypper/Emerge/your_packagemanager. Also, PackageKit organizes all package management tasks in transactions, which allows you e.g to browse the package database while installing new packages/updates. PackageKit is also the basis for tools like GNOME-PackageKit, which provides an advanced, user-friendly PackageManager and System-Update GUI, as well as KPackageKit (Apper) does for KDE. (KDE can also use PackageKit to install missing Debug-Symbols automatically) For more information about PK, please read http://packagekit.org/pk-intro.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PackageKit I work closely with upstream and hope to find someone interested in sponsoring the package for Debian. Here you can find details about this package: * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.8-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: [...] The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: [fill in]. And that should probably be filled too Oh, sorry, I forgot this... My motivation is that I work closely with upstream on some PK related tasks, including this package. I develop an extension for PackageKit, so I know the project's code well, also PackageKit is the basis of some own projects I develop. I also assist the Ubuntu packaging of PK sometimes (by providing patches etc.) and I think having PK in Debian is great for PackageKit by itself (as it tries to be a generic package management abstraction layer for all distros) and for Debian, as it then can benefit from all PK features and existing apps can depend on it, as well as Debian can have the (really nice) PK-based update-manager or other PK-based tools too. It also can use the global AppInstall data to create tools similar to Ubuntu's USC. (but cross-distro) The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/d66e5898c1659cf65492682a247e4...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit (ping2)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems regarding packaging. I work closely with upstream and hope to find someone interested in sponsoring the package for Debian. Here you can find details about this package: * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.8-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: browser-plugin-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: [fill in]. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/d9d60fb9cd7342774321ea4029bf9...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit (ping2)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.8-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: browser-plugin-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I follow the project since version 0.1.5 and develop some own software on to of the PackageKit library. I use PackageKit daily and I'm in contact with upstream. Note on PackageKit: PackageKit has Debconf support now (the APTcc backend has it) and supports some other functions requested for Debian, like solving the problem if a package installation requires a package removal etc. Nearly all problems some Debian devs named are fixed and PK ist ready for the repos. Kubuntu aleady uses it with great success. I recently updated the pkg at Debian Mentors. Specially for Debian, v.0.6.8 provides these changes: - aptcc: Improved user experience by setting subprogress on package installation/remove/update (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Disable auto remove by default (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Fix how downloads are emitted (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Forbid canceling while installing, the user might need to dpkg --configure -a on the cmd line (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Improved how packages are emited (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Improved logic for the updates category (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: make sure all downloaded packages emit FINISHED (Daniel Nicoletti) - aptcc: Show apt error message when we could not get the cache lock (Daniel Nicoletti) The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/4bf89b9e6f7a3361b0f9498bfb355...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.7-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 browser-plugin-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I follow the project since version 0.1.5 and develop some own software on to of the PackageKit library. I use PackageKit daily and I'm in contact with upstream. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Note on PackageKit: PackageKit has Debconf support now (the APTcc backend has it) and supports some other functions requested for Debian, like solving the problem if a package installation requires a package removal etc. Nearly all problems some Debian devs named are fixed and PK ist ready for the repos. Kubuntu aleady uses it with great success. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/c051fe92db12157315c960c35f186...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit (ping)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.7-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 browser-plugin-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I follow the project since version 0.1.5 and develop some own software on to of the PackageKit library. I use PackageKit daily and I'm in contact with upstream. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Note on PackageKit: PackageKit has Debconf support now (the APTcc backend has it) and supports some other functions requested for Debian, like solving the problem if a package installation requires a package removal etc. Nearly all problems some Debian devs named are fixed and PK ist ready for the repos. Kubuntu aleady uses it with great success. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/d8c6de4f3cbdf9f3b2dd4da9390ea...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem to reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation) I mean stuff like indicating that the text is CC-BY-SA and listing the copyright information. Please read the CC-BY-SA legal code and try to ensure you are doing the right thing. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/aanlktikhhsmnbonloqxthbnotqvpfsjomqg+5r0_8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:39:55 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem to reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation) I mean stuff like indicating that the text is CC-BY-SA and listing the copyright information. Uh, I already added the information to Debian's wiki, but it seems like I removed while moving the page to PackageKit namespace... Anyway, I added a reference to Fedorawiki and the information that the license is CC-BY-SA again. Cheers, Matthias Please read the CC-BY-SA legal code and try to ensure you are doing the right thing. -- 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/ec8d2b5434124d3df3c42db3bd891...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
Something left to do? Regards Matthias --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/db90e36d5f9e6d996cf66247352c6...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
2010/8/31 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from Fedora) Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so... http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound and so on Also, what was the license for the Fedora pages? Please ensure that the Debian wiki is in compliance with that license. I was reading through the wiki and found this, * Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents. This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So I think, this item can be removed. Thanks Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. -- 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/aanlktimrba0hxth3kq-fik9g57m8iqbzcjf1f0ryy...@mail.gmail.com
Debian and Patents (was: Re: RFS: packagekit)
In aanlktimrba0hxth3kq-fik9g57m8iqbzcjf1f0ryy...@mail.gmail.com, Praveen A wrote: I was reading through the wiki and found this, * Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents. This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So I think, this item can be removed. I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due to legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the debian-multimedia repositories which, while good, are not official. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian and Patents (was: Re: RFS: packagekit)
2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net: I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due to legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the debian-multimedia repositories which, while good, are not official. apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg apt-cache show libmad0 ffmpeg pr...@savannah:~$ apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg libmad0: Installed: 0.15.1b-5 Candidate: 0.15.1b-5 Version table: *** 0.15.1b-5 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status ffmpeg: Installed: (none) Candidate: 4:0.5.2-3 Version table: 4:0.6-2 0 101 http://ftp.de.debian.org experimental/main Packages 4:0.5.2-3 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages It is in debian main. I was surprised to see even wmv/wma playing out of the box with squeeze. Thanks Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. -- 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/aanlktinfifth2ssp-nabzpoavxxxz83jye8d6lbtr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: packagekit
Praveen A prav...@gmail.com writes: I was reading through the wiki and found this, * Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents. This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So I think, this item can be removed. It depends on what you mean by encumbered. I'm quite sure that Fedora contains software covered by patents for which there is no public license. It's almost impossible to have software systems that aren't covered by some patent, probably unenforcable. I believe Debian and Fedora use essentially the same policy: we don't include software with a patent that we think is likely to be enforced on either Debian or our users. Where that line gets drawn tends to vary a lot depending on a wide variety of factors, including legal advice. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87tymb446h@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:26:25 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from Fedora) Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so... http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound and so on Also, what was the license for the Fedora pages? Please ensure that the Debian wiki is in compliance with that license. Changed. (http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/ItemNotFound) I refreshed the patch and uploaded the package to Mentors again. The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem to reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation) Regards Matthias --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/fbcce75cbe05f2296b4621e363d9e...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: Debian and Patents (was: Re: RFS: packagekit)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:12:37 +0530, Praveen A prav...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net: I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due to legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the debian-multimedia repositories which, while good, are not official. It is. Debian Sid ships a version of FFMpeg which has disabled patented codecs etc. The Debian software pool might be not completely free of patents, but the most dangerous and important aren't shipped. Also it AFAIK does not contain a lot of patented software. apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg apt-cache show libmad0 ffmpeg pr...@savannah:~$ apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg libmad0: Installed: 0.15.1b-5 Candidate: 0.15.1b-5 Version table: *** 0.15.1b-5 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status ffmpeg: Installed: (none) Candidate: 4:0.5.2-3 Version table: 4:0.6-2 0 101 http://ftp.de.debian.org experimental/main Packages 4:0.5.2-3 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages It is in debian main. I was surprised to see even wmv/wma playing out of the box with squeeze. Are you really sure? (Maybe I got something wrong, but this shouldn't be possible and it wasn't possible on my Debian installation) Cheers Matthias -- 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/814093d4a0fa771ecfad2874ac4cb...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
Hi again! With the latest upload I fixed everything which was criticized on the packaging: The copyright is clear, it does not FTBFS on pbuilder, the mozilla package has been renamed to browser-plugin, we don't need the dirty hack to remove the source file anymore and new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from Fedora) So, is there someone out there who wants to review/sponsor the package? Would be very nice :) Regards Matthias --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/9a54a70ec512406432afc47298734...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:12:18 +0200, David Bremner brem...@unb.ca wrote: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: somone (pabs?) wrote: Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib? They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this directory we only have documentation of PK. As best I understand the Linux File Hierarchy Standard, and thus Debian Policy, architecture independent files should go in /usr/share, even if they are scripts. Perhaps you could make a subdirectory for the docs, and one for the helper scripts I think someone from Ubuntu told me one time to move the scripts to /usr/lib... Anyway, I changed the packaging, the helper scripts now go to /usr/share/PackageKit Thanks, Matthias --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/ca045f00ef38baed4b577dae18c6f...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: somone (pabs?) wrote: Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib? They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this directory we only have documentation of PK. As best I understand the Linux File Hierarchy Standard, and thus Debian Policy, architecture independent files should go in /usr/share, even if they are scripts. Perhaps you could make a subdirectory for the docs, and one for the helper scripts All the best, David -- 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/87aao4xn0t@rocinante.cs.unb.ca
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from Fedora) Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so... http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound and so on Also, what was the license for the Fedora pages? Please ensure that the Debian wiki is in compliance with that license. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/aanlktimeofp-u_1j3e3=cu=nr6rzs8etqozbwhna_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc
A review as promised...
The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document the
license situation. It is possible to have a per-binary-package
copyright file, which you might want to do since the libraries are
licensed differently.
Why do you need to build in a subdirectory? Seems like it complicates
the debian/rules file for no benefit. You can drop many of the flags
from DEB_BASIC_AUTOTOOLS_FLAGS by using dh_auto_configure --
$(DEB_BASIC_AUTOTOOLS_FLAGS) $(PK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS) instead. Same for
make vs dh_auto_install.
Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?
Not sure that patch removal stuff is a good idea. Better to fix
upstream to not include generated files in the tarball.
Can the ln -s can be achieved with dh_link instead?
The watch file isn't quite as specific as it could be, I would replace
(.*) with ([\d\.]+) and drop the blank line.
Why is most of 01_set_defaults.patch needed? Shouldn't we only need to
change the iceweasel thing?
02_update_aptcc.patch is a pretty big patch, has it been applied upstream yet?
For the URLs in 00_set_vendor.patch I would suggest creating new pages
in the PackageKit namespace on the wiki focused on what PackageKit
needs from them and based on what other distros have in the equivalent
pages. Then make those pages CategoryPermalink.
I wonder if the s/emblem-favorite/distributor-logo/ part of
00_set_vendor.patch should be forwarded upstream.
The browser plugin package naming has changed recently, they should no
longer be called mozilla-* but browser-plugin-* or xul-ext-* IIRC.
Is the smart backend useful in Debian? I can't see smart in Debian.
The upstream README duplicates the information from debian/control,
drop it from debian/docs.
Please add explanations to README.Debian about why things aren't shipped.
Would it be a good idea to turn on unit tests? That would help ensure
the package works on all arches.
Which features of PackageKit in Fedora will not work in Debian?
An automated warning:
configure: WARNING: Distro upgrade notification not supported
The package FTBFS in pbuilder:
running CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/sh /bin/sh ../configure --prefix=/usr
--includedir=${prefix}/include --mandir=${prefix}/share/man
--infodir=${prefix}/share/info --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var
--libexecdir=${prefix}/lib/packagekit --disable-dependency-tracking
--disable-silent-rules --disable-static --enable-introspection
--enable-gtk-doc --disable-cron --enable-apt --enable-aptcc
--enable-smart --disable-local --disable-tests
--with-default-backend=aptcc --enable-browser-plugin
--enable-gtk-module --enable-gstreamer-plugin
--enable-command-not-found --disable-dummy
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/pabs/opt/lib/pkgconfig CFLAGS=-g -O2 LDFLAGS=
CPPFLAGS= CXXFLAGS=-g -O2 --no-create --no-recursion
configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-introspection
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk... no
checking for mawk... mawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar
../configure: line 3493: syntax error near unexpected token `0.6.7'
../configure: line 3493: `GOBJECT_INTROSPECTION_CHECK(0.6.7)'
make[1]: *** [config.status] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:234: HAVE_INTROSPECTION does not
appear in AM_CONDITIONAL
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: addprefix $(srcdir: non-POSIX
variable name
lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: (probably a GNU make extension)
make[1]: *** [../Makefile.in] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/packagekit-0.6.7/build'
dh_auto_build: make -j2 returned exit code 2
make: *** [build] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
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/aanlktinw5cvohmwk39xb8ayacn52at_h5jndjbnux...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: packagekit
Hi! http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc A review as promised... The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document the license situation. It is possible to have a per-binary-package copyright file, which you might want to do since the libraries are licensed differently. I updated the license file. Should be okay now. Why do you need to build in a subdirectory? Seems like it complicates the debian/rules file for no benefit. You can drop many of the flags from DEB_BASIC_AUTOTOOLS_FLAGS by using dh_auto_configure -- $(DEB_BASIC_AUTOTOOLS_FLAGS) $(PK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS) instead. Same for make vs dh_auto_install. Changed. I built in a subdirectory because I thought maybe the scripts would create their modified file versions there so I could easily cleanup the sources. This is not the case, so I dropped the out-of-source build as you said. Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib? They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this directory we only have documentation of PK. Not sure that patch removal stuff is a good idea. Better to fix upstream to not include generated files in the tarball. I asked upstream to do this. As soon as the problem is fixed I will remove the patch removal. Can the ln -s can be achieved with dh_link instead? Changed. The watch file isn't quite as specific as it could be, I would replace (.*) with ([\d\.]+) and drop the blank line. Okay, done. Why is most of 01_set_defaults.patch needed? Shouldn't we only need to change the iceweasel thing? The patch sets the optimal settings for the APT(cc) backends for Debian. The other settings are set to good values which Kubuntu uses too. 02_update_aptcc.patch is a pretty big patch, has it been applied upstream yet? Yes. Will be included in the next PK release. For the URLs in 00_set_vendor.patch I would suggest creating new pages in the PackageKit namespace on the wiki focused on what PackageKit needs from them and based on what other distros have in the equivalent pages. Then make those pages CategoryPermalink. I'll do this. Can copy the Ubuntu page with instructions how to add new repositories? It's a pretty nice page. I wonder if the s/emblem-favorite/distributor-logo/ part of 00_set_vendor.patch should be forwarded upstream. Don't know... Fedora does not change this setting, so I think it's okay since Richard is the maintainer of the Fedora packaging and could easily change it upstream too. The browser plugin package naming has changed recently, they should no longer be called mozilla-* but browser-plugin-* or xul-ext-* IIRC. Okay, changed. Is the smart backend useful in Debian? I can't see smart in Debian. See http://labix.org/smart . We do have a smart package in Debian Sid. The upstream README duplicates the information from debian/control, drop it from debian/docs. Done. Please add explanations to README.Debian about why things aren't shipped. Added. Would it be a good idea to turn on unit tests? That would help ensure the package works on all arches. Unit tests always failed in pbuilder and while running a local debuild. I think they're broken at time, cause Fedora has them disabled too. I'll enable them if they do not block the build process. Which features of PackageKit in Fedora will not work in Debian? An automated warning: configure: WARNING: Distro upgrade notification not supported Strange... ALL features of PackageKit the backend supports will work on Debian. (And the APT backends do support most of the PK features) Distro upgrade notifications have to be done by KPackageKit or GNOME-PackageKit. But anyway I don't think it's a good idea to let PackageKit do distro-upgrades, so APT will notify about a new distro release and do the upgrade instead. (PackageKit won't interrupt APT working as usual) The package FTBFS in pbuilder: [...] ../configure: line 3493: syntax error near unexpected token `0.6.7' ../configure: line 3493: `GOBJECT_INTROSPECTION_CHECK(0.6.7)' make[1]: *** [config.status] Error 2 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:234: HAVE_INTROSPECTION does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: addprefix $(srcdir: non-POSIX variable name lib/packagekit-glib2/Makefile.am:241: (probably a GNU make extension) make[1]: *** [../Makefile.in] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/packagekit-0.6.7/build' dh_auto_build: make -j2 returned exit code 2 make: *** [build] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 Fixed. Thanks! -- 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/2d866271de426ff58dbb4a72acec1...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
Hi! I found a way to make the creation of the patch a little less annoying. You just need to run debuild -S -sa twice, if a patch is created, and the script will remove the patch and cleanup the sources automatically. This keeps the debian/patches directory clean. --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/d2c3f1412ca3e7edc5437f17eb5cc...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:12:47 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done. I don't have time to do ongoing sponsorship but I will attempt to review the package this weekend. Great! Most work to make PackageKit Debian-compliant was done by Daniel Nicoletti, Richard Hughes, Sebastian Heinlein and many others. Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format? PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is not undone in make distclean, so debhelper creates a huge patch in debian/patches, which is really ugly. Is there a workaround for this or do I have to live with it? Thanks, Matthias --- The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc -- 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/7c6c3619ecaff59bf5bff1ca27bad...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format? PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is not undone in make distclean, so debhelper creates a huge patch in debian/patches, which is really ugly. Is there a workaround for this or do I have to live with it? You could just use format 1.0 :) Or disable the documentation-update-on-build, or bash upstream until they provide already-updated documentation ;) David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:50:34 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org wrote: Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org writes: Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format? PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is not undone in make distclean, so debhelper creates a huge patch in debian/patches, which is really ugly. It's not specific to the 3.0 source format, the changes would also show up in the .diff.gz with the old format. If the updated files are not needed for the next build, you can just remove them in the clean target, either by listing them in debian/clean with debhelper = 7 or manually in debian/rules. I already do this, but the problem is that the script changes files, it does not only create new ones. So I'm completely unable to restore all files. Cheers Matthias -- 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/ee536a1547a944f9bdc0570948eb8...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:37:18 +0200, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format? PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is not undone in make distclean, so debhelper creates a huge patch in debian/patches, which is really ugly. Is there a workaround for this or do I have to live with it? You could just use format 1.0 :) Or disable the documentation-update-on-build, or bash upstream until they provide already-updated documentation ;) I'll ask upstream :) Thanks! -- 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/ee1eec82cd74e7347f1d7d8dfe9b3...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org writes: Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format? PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is not undone in make distclean, so debhelper creates a huge patch in debian/patches, which is really ugly. It's not specific to the 3.0 source format, the changes would also show up in the .diff.gz with the old format. If the updated files are not needed for the next build, you can just remove them in the clean target, either by listing them in debian/clean with debhelper = 7 or manually in debian/rules. Regards, Ansgar -- 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/87mxs89hrp@marvin.43-1.org
Re: RFS: packagekit
Hi again! I already do this, but the problem is that the script changes files, it does not only create new ones. So I'm completely unable to restore all files. No, not *completely*. You can move the files that get modified, build everything and move them back in the clean target. That's a common trick. Another one is to copy all the files in a subdirectory (say, cp -va src tgt), build the package there and just remove that subdirectory in the clean target once you're done. This way, the original sources are kept intact. Funny, a few hours ago I added exactly this for the docs/api folder. Maybe I'll extend it to restore the other files too. Thanks! -- 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/2f5593c0ea327a67adb871c004a52...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.7-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 mozilla-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I follow the project since version 0.2 (I think) and develop some own software on to of the PackageKit library. I use PackageKit daily and stay in contact with upstream. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Notes: The make distclean does not reset the source code. PackageKit re-generates the source code documentation, so debhelper will create a patch for all those files. This is somewhat ugly, does someone know how to disable this behavior? Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/6acd3b3b0c82316823d7dc9df79ad...@mb8-2.1blu.de
RFS: packagekit
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. * Package name: packagekit Version : 0.6.7-1 Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com * URL : http://packagekit.org * License : GPLv2/LGPLv2 Section : admin It builds these binary packages: gstreamer0.10-packagekit - GStreamer plugin to install codecs using PackageKit libpackagekit-glib2-14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib libpackagekit-glib2-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using GLib (development files) libpackagekit-qt-dev - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 (development files) libpackagekit-qt14 - Library for accessing PackageKit using Qt4 mozilla-packagekit - Plugin to install missing plugins using PackageKit packagekit - Provides a package management service packagekit-backend-apt - Python APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-aptcc - C++ APT backend for PackageKit packagekit-backend-smart - Smart backend for PackageKit packagekit-bash-completion - Offer to install missing programs automatically packagekit-docs - Documentation for PackageKit packagekit-gtk-module - Install fonts automatically using PackageKit python-packagekit - PackageKit Python bindings The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 468132 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I follow the project since version 0.2 (I think) and develop some own software on to of the PackageKit library. I use PackageKit daily and stay in contact with upstream. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Notes regarding packaging: The make distclean does not reset the source code. PackageKit re-generates the source code documentation, so debhelper will create a patch for all those files. This is somewhat ugly, does someone know how to disable this behavior? Note on PackageKit: PackageKit has Debconf support now (the APTcc backend has it) and supports some other functions requested for Debian. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- 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/177801b691bdb097fc12f2b6fdc2b...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: packagekit
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit. I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done. I don't have time to do ongoing sponsorship but I will attempt to review the package this weekend. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/aanlktimya3-6df7=uxp23z6sn=0nd=p10hh6occzj...@mail.gmail.com
