Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Fernando Toledo]

Hi People, i'm back (sorry i very busy with work/study) =|


On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:35:05 +0200 Mattia Rizzolo  wrote:
> 
> Bart Martens already changed the metadata of #693230 to match your
> intentions.

very good, thanks!

> 
> The next step for you would be to seek a sponsor to review and upload
> your package.  I'm generally happy to do that, however since this would
> be your first package in Debian I'd like to understand what is your
> knowledge of things like the BTS, what you followed (if anything) to
> work with the packaging, etc.

I'm not DD but i have some skill on packaging for Debian (not all, but
some to help me to work) :)

I was working on several packages (see pkg-* projects on github):

https://github.com/ftoledo

Also, i'm working on Huayra GNU/Linux a Debian derivated distro:

https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census/Huayra
https://github.com/HuayraLinux/
https://huayra.conectarigualdad.gob.ar

We have several customs packages and repositories too.

> 
> The fact that mentors.d.n is all green on your package is a good sign,
> but also I see you are not closing this bug report (#693230) with your
> upload, so something is missing.

i update the mentors package, now lintian says:

--
 – Package closes a ITA bug

wnpp:
#693230 (normal): ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for BW,
QWK,OMEN and SOUP
--

Is this enough, or should I add something else?

> 
> I'll be happy to review your package once you answer the above; for more
> details on my usual workflow and requirements, see
> https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html

I'm reading your requeriments, i hope to meet them and get the package
upload.

I am very grateful for your help!

Saludos!
-- 
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Mattia Rizzolo]

[ dropping #806572 as that bug is closed and archived  ]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 01:47:37PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote:
> https://github.com/ftoledo/pkg-multimail
> 
> I upload to mentors:
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail
> 
> I see that the package is orphaned, i can adopt it, but i'm not DD, how
> to can i help and procced to upload to unstable?

The process to adopt a package is described here:
https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#howto-o

Bart Martens already changed the metadata of #693230 to match your
intentions.

The next step for you would be to seek a sponsor to review and upload
your package.  I'm generally happy to do that, however since this would
be your first package in Debian I'd like to understand what is your
knowledge of things like the BTS, what you followed (if anything) to
work with the packaging, etc.

The fact that mentors.d.n is all green on your package is a good sign,
but also I see you are not closing this bug report (#693230) with your
upload, so something is missing.

I'll be happy to review your package once you answer the above; for more
details on my usual workflow and requirements, see
https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Fernando Toledo]

Hi people!

I'm working on version 0.52

https://github.com/ftoledo/pkg-multimail

I upload to mentors:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail

I see that the package is orphaned, i can adopt it, but i'm not DD, how
to can i help and procced to upload to unstable?

Thanks!

-- 
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Fernando Toledo]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 15:13:34 + Mattia Rizzolo  wrote:
> Hi Robert!
> 
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
> >I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so 
> > haven't 
> > been able to work on this as much as I'd like...  Should I perhaps 
> > temporarily 
> > close the RFS bug and reopen it when I have an updated version of the 
> > package 
> > done and uploaded to mentors?  (Note that the next package update will also 
> > include a new snapshot.)
> 
> Givent that I received no follow up on this, I'm closing this RFS
> ticket.  Feel free to either open a new one once you start again working
> on this, or continue directly with Tobi in the ITA bug, or anything you
> like.
> 
> -- 
> regards,
> Mattia Rizzolo
> 
> GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
> more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
> Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
> Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Hi all, i'm use this package and i like if should be update.

can re-upload to mentors and publish the VCS? i wish to help.

Saludos!
-- 
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Mattia Rizzolo]

Hi Robert!

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
>I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so 
> haven't 
> been able to work on this as much as I'd like...  Should I perhaps 
> temporarily 
> close the RFS bug and reopen it when I have an updated version of the package 
> done and uploaded to mentors?  (Note that the next package update will also 
> include a new snapshot.)

Givent that I received no follow up on this, I'm closing this RFS
ticket.  Feel free to either open a new one once you start again working
on this, or continue directly with Tobi in the ITA bug, or anything you
like.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
>I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so 
> haven't 
> been able to work on this as much as I'd like...

life sometimes gets in the middle of this, yeah...

> Should I perhaps temporarily 
> close the RFS bug and reopen it when I have an updated version of the package 
> done and uploaded to mentors?

Also consider that mentors.d.n deletes packages which haven't seen
updates in a good while, and a script turns the ITPs without activities
in 6 months to RFS.  If you are going to pause the work for, say, more
than 2 months, I'd find closing this RFS and getting it off the queue a
kind and gentle action, otherwise feel free to keep it open, is not that
annoying :)

Thanks for replying and making us aware of the current state!
-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

Hi Mattia!

On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 01:16:20 PM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:38:47AM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
> > Hi Tobias!
> > 
> > On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay 
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> [ anticipation of work that will be done... ]
> 
> How's going with this?

   I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so haven't 
been able to work on this as much as I'd like...  Should I perhaps temporarily 
close the RFS bug and reopen it when I have an updated version of the package 
done and uploaded to mentors?  (Note that the next package update will also 
include a new snapshot.)


> Several weeks passed and we haven't heard back from you, this is just a
> gentle ping :)

   And I appreciate that!





RJ Clay
j...@rocasa.us

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Mattia Rizzolo]

Hi Robert!

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:38:47AM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote:
> Hi Tobias!
> 
> On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
>  
> > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay 
> > wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
[ anticipation of work that will be done... ]

How's going with this?
Several weeks passed and we haven't heard back from you, this is just a
gentle ping :)


-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org  : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#693230: Fwd: Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

Forward to ITP bug...

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016, 06:08:55 PM
From: Robert James Clay <j...@rocasa.us>
To: debian-ment...@lists.debian.org, Tobias Frost <t...@debian.org>, 
806...@bugs.debian.org

On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> 
> Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:
> 
> Some small review. 

   Thanks!

> 
> - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically
> generated.  

That came out since my multimail package on mentors was put online at the 
mentors site.   The package doesn't have any reverse depends; so no, it doesn't 
really need an explicit "-dbg" package anymore.


> 
> - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?

   The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further discuss 
other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him with the results of 
package builds but he hasn't commented...


> 
> - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in since 
> oldstable)

   I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep it 
explicitly noted...

   
> - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?

   As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related lintian 
errors.


> - also, with the drop of the dbg package some overrides can be removed

   "overrides"?  You mean, in d/rules?

 
> - please remove the comments from d/watch

  I sometimes have relevant info in d/watch file comments, but yes in this case 
there's really no need for them...






RJ Clay
j...@rocasa.us

-

Bug#693230: Fwd: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016, 05:54:29 AM
From: Tobias Frost <t...@frost.de>
To: 806...@bugs.debian.org


Hi Robert,

(btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails)

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay <j...@rocasa.us>
wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
> 
>The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further
> discuss other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him
> with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...

The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
available) a link to more information. 
 
> > 
> > - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> > (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in
since oldstable)
> 
>I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep
it explicitly noted...

OK

>
> > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
> 
>As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
lintian errors.

With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.

You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

%:
dh $@

Why: 
- the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
know that they have to look on changelog.gz
- dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
maybwe 10k.
- dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
figured out by dh_auto_install. 

d/copyright:
- The license is actually GPL-3+ 
- I saw a file with, 1996-1997 Kolossvary Tamas, (d/copyright: 1997
missing)
- John Zero 1996-1997   
- Toth Istwan seems also to have contributed 1997
- Ingo Brueckl is missing
- The color files have certain authors, they should be added.
- Are the years for your contribution right? It says 2013-16 but there
is no changelog entry from after 2009 (beside the latest one)

- bluewave.h... Well, that scares me. Because the license terms say
read "THE BLUE WAVE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION".
However, this document does not say that bluewave.h can be distributed,
just that you are allowed to use the structs. 
Beside that (lets assume the header is covered), there is only right of
use, that does not neccessarily include the right for distribution and
the right for modification. (Please ask on debian-legal) 

More General:
Your changelog is quite verbose, that is good, but you do not need to
overdo it -- for example is would be enough to say "Add homepage" or
"New Maintainer".  (as said, not wrong, no need to change, just maybe
something to reduce effort on your side)
However, there are some changes where the "why has this changed" is not
obvious. In this case you should spend a few words on the why, because
the "what" is self-explained by the diff of the package. 
Example here is the line about the Makefile: The reader will not have
an idea why this has been changed, which is very impportant purpose of
a changelog.  

-- 
tobi

-

Bug#693230: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

Hi Tobias!

On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
 
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay 
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
> > 
> >The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further
> > discuss other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him
> > with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...
> 
> The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
> are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
> the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
> available) a link to more information. 

  I'll be discussing that with the author, but in the mean time will see about 
updating the patch headers more appropriately.



> > > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
> > 
> >As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
> lintian errors.
> 
> With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.

According to my notes, I was still seeing hardening related errors, after 
changing the debhelper version to 9.  I'll investigate that again.


> 
> You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:
> 
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
> 
> %:
> dh $@

   I'll be looking into how it might be reduced to that, although there is at 
least one thing I'd want to keep...


> 
> Why: 
> - the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
> know that they have to look on changelog.gz

 And those already familiar with the application (but not necessarily Debian) 
would expect to see the HISTORY file, so I'd rather keep that.  (It only adds a 
sym link after all...)


> - dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
> maybwe 10k.

   And not really needed any longer, when the dbgsym package is being used.   
I'll take care of that


> - dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
> figured out by dh_auto_install. 

   I'll check into that as well, as I don't recall why I explicitly still had 
that set.


> 
> d/copyright:

   I'll investigate the issues you raised regarding the debian/copyright file 
and resolve as necessary.






RJ Clay
j...@rocasa.us

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Tobias Frost]

PS: Another remark regarding bluewave.h -- I did not evaluate if this
license is compatible with the GPL-3.. Another thing to check with
debian-legal.


Hi Robert,

(btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails)

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
>  
> The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further
> discuss other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him
> with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...

The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
available) a link to more information. 
 
> >  
> > - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> > (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in
since oldstable)
>  
> I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep
it explicitly noted...

OK

>    
> > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
>  
> As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
lintian errors.

With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.

You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

%:
dh $@

Why: 
- the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
know that they have to look on changelog.gz
- dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
maybwe 10k.
- dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
figured out by dh_auto_install. 

d/copyright:
- The license is actually GPL-3+ 
- I saw a file with, 1996-1997 Kolossvary Tamas, (d/copyright: 1997
missing)
- John Zero 1996-1997   
- Toth Istwan seems also to have contributed 1997
- Ingo Brueckl is missing
- The color files have certain authors, they should be added.
- Are the years for your contribution right? It says 2013-16 but there
is no changelog entry from after 2009 (beside the latest one)

- bluewave.h... Well, that scares me. Because the license terms say
read "THE BLUE WAVE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION".
However, this document does not say that bluewave.h can be distributed,
just that you are allowed to use the structs. 
Beside that (lets assume the header is covered), there is only right of
use, that does not neccessarily include the right for distribution and
the right for modification. (Please ask on debian-legal) 

More General:
Your changelog is quite verbose, that is good, but you do not need to
overdo it -- for example is would be enough to say "Add homepage" or
"New Maintainer".  (as said, not wrong, no need to change, just maybe
something to reduce effort on your side)
However, there are some changes where the "why has this changed" is not
obvious. In this case you should spend a few words on the why, because
the "what" is self-explained by the diff of the package. 
Example here is the line about the Makefile: The reader will not have
an idea why this has been changed, which is very impportant purpose of
a changelog.  

-- 
tobi

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Tobias Frost]

Hi Robert,

(btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails)

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
> 
>The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further
> discuss other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him
> with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...

The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
available) a link to more information. 
 
> > 
> > - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> > (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in
since oldstable)
> 
>I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep
it explicitly noted...

OK

>    
> > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
> 
>As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
lintian errors.

With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.

You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

%:
dh $@

Why: 
- the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
know that they have to look on changelog.gz
- dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
maybwe 10k.
- dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
figured out by dh_auto_install. 

d/copyright:
- The license is actually GPL-3+ 
- I saw a file with, 1996-1997 Kolossvary Tamas, (d/copyright: 1997
missing)
- John Zero 1996-1997   
- Toth Istwan seems also to have contributed 1997
- Ingo Brueckl is missing
- The color files have certain authors, they should be added.
- Are the years for your contribution right? It says 2013-16 but there
is no changelog entry from after 2009 (beside the latest one)

- bluewave.h... Well, that scares me. Because the license terms say
read "THE BLUE WAVE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION".
However, this document does not say that bluewave.h can be distributed,
just that you are allowed to use the structs. 
Beside that (lets assume the header is covered), there is only right of
use, that does not neccessarily include the right for distribution and
the right for modification. (Please ask on debian-legal) 

More General:
Your changelog is quite verbose, that is good, but you do not need to
overdo it -- for example is would be enough to say "Add homepage" or
"New Maintainer".  (as said, not wrong, no need to change, just maybe
something to reduce effort on your side)
However, there are some changes where the "why has this changed" is not
obvious. In this case you should spend a few words on the why, because
the "what" is self-explained by the diff of the package. 
Example here is the line about the Makefile: The reader will not have
an idea why this has been changed, which is very impportant purpose of
a changelog.  

-- 
tobi

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> 
> Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:
> 
> Some small review. 

   As a result of the review of my multimail package by Tobias, I have 
completed some updates to the package and have uploaded the new version to the 
mentors site. I am still looking for a sponsor for the package, which again can 
be downloaded is follows:

 dget -x
 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multimail/multimail_0.50~20150922-1.dsc
 







 Regards,
Robert James Clay

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Tobias Frost]

Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:

Some small review. (I did not perform a copyright check and did not
build the package)


- Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically
generated. (The long description would be anyway confusing: "provides
dbg symbols for crashmail -- while the pacakage name is multimail)

- Is the patch forwarded to upstream?

- Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0 (The versioned
depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in since oldstable)

- d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
- also, with the drop of the dbg package some overrides can be removed

- please remove the comments from d/watch

-- 
tobi

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> 
> Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay:
> 
> Some small review. 

   Thanks!

> 
> - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically
> generated.  

That came out since my multimail package on mentors was put online at the 
mentors site.   The package doesn't have any reverse depends; so no, it doesn't 
really need an explicit "-dbg" package anymore.


> 
> - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?

   The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean?  I plan to further discuss 
other aspects of it with him, yes...  I have provided him with the results of 
package builds but he hasn't commented...


> 
> - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in since 
> oldstable)

   I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep it 
explicitly noted...

   
> - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?

   As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related lintian 
errors.


> - also, with the drop of the dbg package some overrides can be removed

   "overrides"?  You mean, in d/rules?

 
> - please remove the comments from d/watch

  I sometimes have relevant info in d/watch file comments, but yes in this case 
there's really no need for them...






RJ Clay
j...@rocasa.us

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Fernando Toledo]

El 03/01/16 a las 11:44, Robert James Clay escribió:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 02:25:05 AM Robert James Clay wrote:
> 
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail"
> 
>I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, 
> "multimail";  or at least a review(s), if not sponsoring. It can be 
> downloaded 
> as follows:
> 
>  dget -x
>  
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multimail/multimail_0.50~20150922-1.dsc
>  
> 
Hi Robert, i just build it with pbuilder on jessie chroot and works fine.
I hope that you get a sponsor to upload.
Saludos!


-- 
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

Hi Fernando!

On Monday, January 04, 2016 02:56:45 PM Fernando Toledo wrote:
> 
> El 03/01/16 a las 11:44, Robert James Clay escribió:
> >I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, 
> > "multimail";  or at least a review(s), if not sponsoring.  

> Hi Robert, i just build it with pbuilder on jessie chroot and works fine.

  Appreciate the feedback!


> I hope that you get a sponsor to upload.

  Thanks!



Robert James Clay
j...@rocasa.us

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 02:25:05 AM Robert James Clay wrote:

> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail"

   I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, 
"multimail";  or at least a review(s), if not sponsoring. It can be downloaded 
as follows:

 dget -x
 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multimail/multimail_0.50~20150922-1.dsc
 





 Regards,
Robert James Clay

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

[Robert James Clay]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal 

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail"

* Package name: multimail
  Version : 0.50~20150922-1
  Upstream Author : William McBrine 
* URL : http://multimail.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL-3
  Section : mail

It builds those binary packages:

 multimail  - Offline reader for Blue Wave, QWK, OMEN and SOUP
 multimail-dbg - debugging symbols for multimail

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail

  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/multimail/multimail_0.50~20150922-1.dsc

  More information about multimail can be obtained from  
http://multimail.sourceforge.net/.

  Changes since the last upload:

  * New maintainer. (Closes: #693230)
  * Add current debian/TODO file.
  * Add debian/watch file for use by uscan.
  * Rewrite debian/copyright in machine readable format.
  * Set package source format explicitly as '3.0 (quilt)'.
  * Changes to debian/control:
- Add a multimail-dbg stanza.
- Add a Homepage entry to the source package stanza.
- Update debhelper Build-Depends version to '>= 9.0'.
- Add '${misc:Depends}' to the binary package Depends line.
- Set Standards-Version entry to 3.9.6, no changes required.
- Change the Maintainer entry to be 'Robert James Clay