Bug#872147: marked as done (RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2)

2017-08-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:39:01 + (UTC)
with message-id <1722144433.4221437.1502944741...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#872147: RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2 NMU
has caused the Debian Bug report #872147,
regarding RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
872147: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872147
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

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

 * Package name: lirc
   Version : 0.10.0-2
   Upstream Author : leamas.alec AT gmail DOT com (current maintainer)
 * URL : http://sf.net/p/lirc
 * License : GPLv2+ and BSD
   Section : utils

It builds those binary packages:

 liblirc-client0 - infra-red remote control support - client library
 liblirc-dev - Infra-red remote control support - development files
 liblirc0   - Infra-red remote control support - Run-time libraries
 liblircclient-dev - Transitional placeholder.
 liblircclient0 - Transitional placeholder
 lirc  - Infra-red remote control support - daemons and utils
 lirc-doc   - Infra-red remote control support - website and manual docs
 lirc-x - infra-red remote control support - X utilities

To access further information about this package, please visit the 
https://mentors.debian.net/package/lirc. Alternatively, one can download 
the package with dget using:


dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lirc/lirc_0.10.0-2.dsc

More information on lirc can be obtained from http://sf.net/p/lirc

Changes since the last upload:

lirc (0.10.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Fixed missing media/lirc.h, closes: #872074
  * Fixed VCS browser path
  * Restore parallel builds, accidentally disabled in -1
  * Fixed upstream bus #294 (VPATH build issues, in -1).
  * Fixed upstream bug #295  - lircmd non-existing socket writes, in -1.


Regards,

-- Alec Leamas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---


Hello,
>I still don't like it, but I'll leave it (and a full package review) to
>someone who will upload it.


I don't like it neither, but the current status-quo has been determined after a 
lot
of talking on debian-devel and debian-mentors, where nobody had a better idea 
about
a nice and clean solution.

Fortunately, most of the current overhead will be "droppable" on some months,
e.g. the old transitional libraries, and some of the postrm stuff
(since everybody is supposed to have migrated to the new lirc in at least two 
stable releases).

We had to merge the Debian/Ubuntu package, that were completely different, it 
hasn't been
a trivial job :)

sponsored!

G.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

Bug#870242: marked as done (RFS: woeusb/2.1.2+-1 (ITP) -- Bootable Windows installation/PE USB storage creator)

2017-08-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:51:23 +0500
with message-id <20170816185123.6tga4in6653ii...@belkar.wrar.name>
and subject line Re: Bug#870242: RFS: woeusb/2.1.2+-1 (ITP) -- Bootable Windows 
installation/PE USB storage creator
has caused the Debian Bug report #870242,
regarding RFS: woeusb/2.1.2+-1 (ITP) -- Bootable Windows installation/PE USB 
storage creator
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
870242: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870242
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors, 

I am looking a sponsor for my (currently working on) package "woeusb":

* Package name: woeusb
* Version : 2.1.2(and future releases)
* Upstream Author : slacka , 林博仁
 et.al, refer
 for the full list.
WinUSB(the source of the fork) author is Colin GILLE / congelli501

* URL : https://github.com/slacka/WoeUSB
* License : GPL v3
* Section : utils

It builds this binary package:

woeusb - Bootable Windows installation/PE USB storage creator

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

  https://github.com/slacka/WoeUSB
  https://mentors.debian.net/package/woeusb (not uploaded yet, might not be 
available)

Thanks, 
林博仁 
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:21:05PM +0800, 林博仁 wrote:
>   https://mentors.debian.net/package/woeusb (not uploaded yet, might not be 
> available)
Please reopen this RFS or file a new one when there is an actual package
to review.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

Bug#871693: RFS: tinymux/2.10.1.14-1 [RC]

2017-08-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:00:21PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote:
> > > > By the way, binutils (>= 2.28.0) is wrong, as 2.28-1 is not >= 2.28.0.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fixing.
> > You've changed it to >= 2.25-5. Why? Also, why this restriction is needed?
> >
> 
> I don't know what the guidance is for versions, so I picked the versions
> for Jessie (oldstable). There's nothing in the code that would prevent it
> from being built with older versions of these dependencies. 
Then why do you have a version restriction at all?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#871693: RFS: tinymux/2.10.1.14-1 [RC]

2017-08-16 Thread Stephen Dennis 
Thank you for the feedback and for the effort it takes to review these
packages.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:05:26PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote:
> > > By the way, binutils (>= 2.28.0) is wrong, as 2.28-1 is not >= 2.28.0.
> > >
> >
> > Fixing.
> You've changed it to >= 2.25-5. Why? Also, why this restriction is needed?
>

I don't know what the guidance is for versions, so I picked the versions
for Jessie (oldstable). There's nothing in the code that would prevent it
from being built with older versions of these dependencies. However, if you
have better guidance, lead on. Should I pick all the versions from testing?

I've run license-reconcile on the package, it shows a lot of copyright
> mismatches and asks you to name the pcre.* license "BSD-3-clause". I've
> alos noticed src/wild.cpp says "This code is hereby placed under GNU
> copyleft" which is not clarified, not mentioned in debian/copyright and
> may be problematic in conjuction with Artistic 1.0.
>

Glad to make the BSD-3-clause change.

The wild.cpp code is very old (on the order of 20-25 years), and it has
changed little in that time. Code that old has been licensed and
re-licensed by the original authors, starting with GNU but eventually
landing under Artistic 1.0. There is a long and complex history, and it is
possible that someone contributed code that I don't know about, but I know
for certain that all of the primary maintainers have agreed to put their
work under Artistic 1.0 (not only for TinyMUX but for the entire family of
MUSH-style servers). If you want to read about this complex history, check
out http://wiki.tinymux.org/index.php/History.


Stephen

Bug#871693: RFS: tinymux/2.10.1.14-1 [RC]

2017-08-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin 
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:05:26PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote:
> > By the way, binutils (>= 2.28.0) is wrong, as 2.28-1 is not >= 2.28.0.
> >
> 
> Fixing.
You've changed it to >= 2.25-5. Why? Also, why this restriction is needed?

I've run license-reconcile on the package, it shows a lot of copyright
mismatches and asks you to name the pcre.* license "BSD-3-clause". I've
alos noticed src/wild.cpp says "This code is hereby placed under GNU
copyleft" which is not clarified, not mentioned in debian/copyright and
may be problematic in conjuction with Artistic 1.0.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#872358: RFS/ITP: node-is-module/1.0.0-1

2017-08-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
>  * URL : https://github.com/component/is-module
404

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#872358: RFS/ITP: node-is-module/1.0.0-1

2017-08-16 Thread Julien Puydt 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-is-module"

 * Package name: node-is-module
   Version : 1.0.0-1
   Upstream Author : Jonathan Ong
 * URL : https://github.com/component/is-module
 * License : Expat
   Section : web

  It builds those binary packages:

node-is-module - Node.js code to check if a string is an ES6 module

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/node-is-module


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

dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/node-is-module/node-is-module_1.0.0-1.dsc

 It will be maintained within the Debian Javascript Maintainers team:
Vcs-Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-is-module.git
Vcs-Browser:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-is-module.git

Thanks,

Snark on #debian-js

Bug#872340: RFS: golang-github-dlclark-regexp2/1.1.6-1

2017-08-16 Thread Diego M . Rodriguez 


Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "golang-github-dlclark-regexp2"

 * Package name: golang-github-dlclark-regexp2
   Version : 1.1.6-1
   Upstream Author : Douglas Clark 
 * URL : https://github.com/dlclark/regexp2
 * License : Expat
   Section : devel

  It builds those binary packages:

golang-github-dlclark-regexp2-dev - Regex engine for Go based on the .NET 
engine

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/golang-github-dlclark-regexp2


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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/golang-github-dlclark-regexp2/golang-github-dlclark-regexp2_1.1.6-1.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

* new upstream version.


  Regards,
   Diego M. Rodriguez

Bug#872060: marked as done (RFS: gnome-recipes/1.6.2-1 [ITP])

2017-08-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:22:57 -0400
with message-id 

and subject line Re: RFS: gnome-recipes/1.6.2-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #872060,
regarding RFS: gnome-recipes/1.6.2-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
872060: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872060
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnome-recipes"

* Package name: gnome-recipes
  Version : 1.6.2-1
  Section : gnome

It builds these binary packages:

   gnome-recipes - Recipe application for GNOME
   gnome-recipes-data - Recipe application for GNOME (data files)

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/gnome-recipes

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnome-recipes/gnome-recipes_1.6.2-1.dsc

Or from git at

https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-gnome/gnome-recipes.git

The ITP bug is https://bugs.debian.org/854951

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
gnome-recipes has been uploaded to the NEW queue--- End Message ---

Bug#872329: RFS/ITP: node-rollup-plugin-commonjs/8.1.0-1

2017-08-16 Thread Julien Puydt 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-rollup-plugin-commonjs"

 * Package name: node-rollup-plugin-commonjs
   Version : 8.1.0-1
   Upstream Author : Rich Harris
 * URL : https://github.com/rollup/rollup-plugin-commonjs
 * License : Expat
   Section : web

  It builds those binary packages:

node-rollup-plugin-commonjs - Node.js plugin for rollup to convert
CommonJS modules to ES6

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/node-rollup-plugin-commonjs

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

dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/node-rollup-plugin-commonjs/node-rollup-plugin-commonjs_8.1.0-1.dsc

  It is packaged within the Debian Javascript Maintainers team here:
Vcs-Git:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-javascript/node-rollup-plugin-commonjs.git
Vcs-Browser:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-javascript/node-rollup-plugin-commonjs.git

  You might also want to dak-allow me on that one too.

Thanks,

Snark on #debian-js

Bug#869198: RFS: golang-github-shibukawa-configdir/0.0~git20170330.0.e180dbd-1 [ITP]

2017-08-16 Thread Diego M . Rodríguez 
Hello Andreas,

> Your watch-file seems to be not working:

thanks for noticing, and for taking the trouble to re-send the mail to
the BTS as I did indeed miss the one on the mailing list! The
"debian/watch" file was generated by "dh-make-golang" automatically,
but it seems to have incorrect syntax indeed.

> And since on that github-page there aren't any releases, a watchfile doesn't
seem to be needed and could just be removed?

I have opted for fixing the syntax [1] and keeping the file, even if
it will not found a result for the time being - the (weak) rationale
being that if upstream decides to make releases, they will be picked
up by uscan. Would that make sense?

I would actually welcome some input or information about the consensus
in that matter, as there seems to be quite a variance on the packages
maintained by the golang team [2] in regards to the watch files!

Best regards, and thanks again,

[1] 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-go/packages/golang-github-shibukawa-configdir.git/commit/?id=0856d3fee390948bc805a4523469e4b46b32
[2] https://pet.debian.net/pkg-go/pet.cgi

---
Diego M. Rodríguez

Bug#872147: RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2 NMU

2017-08-16 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:41:10AM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > > They was fixed by the experimental 0l.10.0-rc3 upstream release, which
> > > eventually became 0.10.0 by upstream and pushed to sid as 0.10.0-1. This
> > > should have been mentioned in -1, but was not, hence the -1 note.
> > If they are fixed in an old version, why are they mentioned in this upload
> > entry? Please read
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.en.html#bpp-debian-changelog
> 
> Just because I missed to document it in the correct -1 entry. Would it be
> better to update the -1 changelog entry?
debian/changelog doesn't usually document upstream fixes at all, unless
they have corresponding Debian bug reports.

> > > > I haven't looked at the package itself, but wtf is happening in prerm?
> > > Removing files not owned by the package any more (but left on install to
> > > niot remove anything user-edited).
> > Why are they not owned by the package?
> 
> Basically because the package from 0.9.4 is systemd-centric.
> 
> > Obsolete conffiles should be
> > removed by dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile.
> 
> Looking at rm_conffile at [1] this  doesn't look  relevant here (?) The
> current code is basically a left-over from the disruptive change from 0.9.0
> which is several versions beyond current version. So the checksums from
> previous version is not available.  Current code just makes sure everything
> is cleaned up on a final remove.
I still don't like it, but I'll leave it (and a full package review) to
someone who will upload it.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#872320: RFS: golang-github-dop251-goja/0.0~git20170430.0.d382686-2

2017-08-16 Thread Diego M . Rodriguez 


Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "golang-github-dop251-goja"

 * Package name: golang-github-dop251-goja
   Version : 0.0~git20170430.0.d382686-2
   Upstream Author : Dmitry Panov 
 * URL : https://github.com/dop251/goja
 * License : Expat
   Section : devel

  It builds those binary packages:

golang-github-dop251-goja-dev - ECMAScript 5.1(+) implementation written in 
Go

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/golang-github-dop251-goja


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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/golang-github-dop251-goja/golang-github-dop251-goja_0.0~git20170430.0.d382686-2.dsc

  More information about hello can be obtained from https://www.example.com.

  Changes since the last upload:

  * Mark as autopkgtest-able, add tzdata build-depend (Closes: #871203)
  * Bump Standards-Version to 4.0.0

  Regards,
   Diego M. Rodriguez

Bug#870621: closing 870621

2017-08-16 Thread Boyuan Yang 
close 870621 
thanks

Sponsored by szlin@. Thanks!

Regards,
Boyuan Yang

Bug#872147: RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2 NMU

2017-08-16 Thread Alec Leamas 
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:01:12 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin  
wrote:


> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:32:55PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > > Why does the report title say "NMU"?
> >
> > Perhaps it shouldn't - large parts of the debian workflow is still 
a mystery

> > for me.
> Please read
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu
> If you are the package maintainer you don't do NMUs, but plain uploads.

Done, got it. I was confused by the fact that while I am the maintainer, 
I havn't done the uploads myself.


> > > How are those two upstream bugs fixed?
> >
> > They was fixed by the experimental 0l.10.0-rc3 upstream release, which
> > eventually became 0.10.0 by upstream and pushed to sid as 0.10.0-1. 
This

> > should have been mentioned in -1, but was not, hence the -1 note.
> If they are fixed in an old version, why are they mentioned in this 
upload

> entry? Please read
> 
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.en.html#bpp-debian-changelog


Just because I missed to document it in the correct -1 entry. Would it 
be better to update the -1 changelog entry?


> > > I haven't looked at the package itself, but wtf is happening in 
prerm?
> > Removing files not owned by the package any more (but left on 
install to

> > niot remove anything user-edited).
> Why are they not owned by the package?

Basically because the package from 0.9.4 is systemd-centric.

> Obsolete conffiles should be
> removed by dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile.

Looking at rm_conffile at [1] this  doesn't look  relevant here (?) The 
current code is basically a left-over from the disruptive change from 
0.9.0 which is several versions beyond current version. So the checksums 
from previous version is not available.  Current code just makes sure 
everything is cleaned up on a final remove.


> I've also noticed the priority: extra field, which means when you updated
> Standards-Version to 4.0.1 in the previous upload you haven't actually
> consulted
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.html

Indeed, I was not aware of it. Checking, updated Priority: to optional.

Thanks for pointers to relevant documents, very helpful! Uploaded a new 
version to mentors, for  now with irrelevant sources included. Have not 
been able to verify the upload, but sends this reply anyway - will be 
way for the day and cannot send it until this evening otherwise.



Cheers!

--alec