Bug#1055798: marked as done (RFS: a2d/2.0.3-2 -- APRS to DAPNET portal)
Your message dated Sat, 11 Nov 2023 23:53:55 -0500 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1055798: RFS: a2d/2.0.3-2 -- APRS to DAPNET portal has caused the Debian Bug report #1055798, regarding RFS: a2d/2.0.3-2 -- APRS to DAPNET portal 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.) -- 1055798: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055798 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: kd8...@gmail.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "a2d": * Package name : a2d Version : 2.0.3-2 Upstream contact : Yogeswaran Umasankar * URL : https://github.com/NGC2023/a2d * License : MIT, CC-BY-3.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/yogu/a2d Section : hamradio The source builds the following binary packages: a2d - APRS to DAPNET portal To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/a2d/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/a2d/a2d_2.0.3-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: a2d (2.0.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Resolved build dependencies conflict in poetry. (Closes: #1055794) Regards, -- Yogeswaran Umasankar --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package has been uploaded to Debian. Closing this bug report.--- End Message ---
Bug#1055821: RFS: zope.event/5.0-1 -- Very basic event publishing system
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zope.event": * Package name : zope.event Version : 5.0-1 Upstream contact : Zope Foundation and Contributors * URL : https://github.com/zopefoundation/zope.event * License : Zope-2.1 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/zope.event Section : python The source builds the following binary packages: python3-zope.event - Very basic event publishing system To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/zope.event/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/z/zope.event/zope.event_5.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: zope.event (5.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream version 5.0 * debian/control: - Bumped Stanrds-Version to 4.6.2. * debian/copyright: updated packaging copyright years. Regards, -- Daniel Lenharo Curitiba - Brazil www.sombra.eti.br 31D8 0509 460E FB31 DF4B 9629 FB0E 132D DB0A A5B1 OpenPGP_0xFB0E132DDB0AA5B1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1054561: RFS: qnetload/1.3.6-1 [ITP] -- Graphically display network speed and usage
Hi, On 11 Nov 2023 at 18:07:24, Tobias Frost wrote: Thanks very much for reviewing the package. > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:24:13AM +0100, Carles Pina i Estany wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name : qnetload > >Version : 1.3.6-1 > > (Review of Upload #3 Uploaded:2023-10-25 23:09) > > - autopkgtests: thanks for having one, but this test should be marked > superficicial. Done: https://salsa.debian.org/carlespina/qnetload/-/commit/5382611266f7481650cdd74522aca783f59b0c88 > (optional: For a non superficial test, you could run your test suite > in autopkgtest.) I think that I will skip this for now. I would like to run, in autopkgtest, a proper integration test that tests /usr/bin/qnetload (those tests do not exist yet), instead of building the unit tests in autopkgtest and running them (it's done in the build step). I will check the options for the future. I might get in touch in a relevant mailing list or to you to share some thoughts. > - d/copyright should have the complete license boiler plate for GPL-3 Oops, thanks, and I will ammend somewhere else (another package) where I also missed that. https://salsa.debian.org/carlespina/qnetload/-/commit/0afc0046d3fd8ad251a35e6b2b3983f46575bf88 > Otherwise, package looks good. Please fix those two issues and I'll upload. Excellent! I've also updated debian/changelog timestamp: https://salsa.debian.org/carlespina/qnetload/-/commit/44b25c13490c6010b5d26e444c58d144a83ab17d New build: https://mentors.debian.net/package/qnetload/: Upload #4 Uploaded: 2023-11-12 00:55 https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qnetload/qnetload_1.3.6-1.dsc > Remove the moreinfo tag when ready! Will do! -- Carles Pina i Estany https://carles.pina.cat signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
On 2023-11-11 19:36 +0530, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: > when I run dpkg --print-architecture it says arm64 but when I run the > command arch it says aarch64. > Am I doing something wrong here? how do I get it to build for aarch64? Just to clarify your confusion: arm64 is the debian (and kernel) name for the architecture aarch64 is the manufacturers/GNU-toolchain name for the architecture They are the same thing, just different nomenclatures. dpkg-architecture -aarm64 will show you the various names/features. amd64 has the same situation with 'amd64' and 'x86_64' None of this has anything to do with your actual lintian error, as you have worked out :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1054918: marked as done (RFS: python-disptrans/0.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Dispersion-Compensated Algorithm)
Your message dated Sat, 11 Nov 2023 20:42:15 +0100 with message-id <5b7c16cd-291c-451a-b87c-7b662143d...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: python-disptrans/0.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Dispersion-Compensated Algorithm has caused the Debian Bug report #1054918, regarding RFS: python-disptrans/0.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Dispersion-Compensated Algorithm 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.) -- 1054918: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054918 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: kd8...@gmail.com Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-disptrans": * Package name : python-disptrans Version : 0.0.1-1 Upstream contact : John Garrett * URL : https://github.com/garrettj403/DispersionTransform * License : MIT * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/yogu/python-disptrans Section : python The source builds the following binary packages: python3-disptrans - Dispersion-Compensated Algorithm To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-disptrans/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-disptrans/python-disptrans_0.0.1-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: python-disptrans (0.0.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release. (Closes: #1054916) Regards, -- Yogeswaran Umasankar --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- This was moved to IRC #debian-python's RFS list.--- End Message ---
Bug#1054561: RFS: qnetload/1.3.6-1 [ITP] -- Graphically display network speed and usage
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:24:13AM +0100, Carles Pina i Estany wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name : qnetload >Version : 1.3.6-1 (Review of Upload #3 Uploaded: 2023-10-25 23:09) - autopkgtests: thanks for having one, but this test should be marked superficicial. (optional: For a non superficial test, you could run your test suite in autopkgtest.) - d/copyright should have the complete license boiler plate for GPL-3 Otherwise, package looks good. Please fix those two issues and I'll upload. Remove the moreinfo tag when ready! -- tobi signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1055798: RFS: a2d/2.0.3-2 -- APRS to DAPNET portal
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: kd8...@gmail.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "a2d": * Package name : a2d Version : 2.0.3-2 Upstream contact : Yogeswaran Umasankar * URL : https://github.com/NGC2023/a2d * License : MIT, CC-BY-3.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/yogu/a2d Section : hamradio The source builds the following binary packages: a2d - APRS to DAPNET portal To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/a2d/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/a2d/a2d_2.0.3-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: a2d (2.0.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Resolved build dependencies conflict in poetry. (Closes: #1055794) Regards, -- Yogeswaran Umasankar
Bug#1051397: About the RFS for ukui-greeter, ukui-biometric-auth and ukui-screensaver
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi liudun, the package tracker does not list you as uploader, so I wonder if this upload has been discussed with the packaging team beforehand? (please remove the moreinfo tag when that has been clarified) -- tobi
Bug#1053565: RFS: openvpn3-client/20+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- virtual private network daemon (version 3)
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Marc, On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 03:03:02PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > * Package name : openvpn3-client >Version : 20+dfsg-1 >Upstream contact : OpenVPN Solutions LLC > * URL : https://openvpn.net/ > * License : Gnu Affero General Public License 3 > * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/televic-team/openvpn3-client >Section : net > (...) > > openvpn3-client (20+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Initial release. (Closes: #904044) >* d/control: do not depend on openvpn2 dev headers >* d/postinst: create user before chown >* d/README: add comment on lintian-warning unicode-impl.hpp >* d/README: update dfsg motivation >* remove sum files (see d/README.source) > > Additional discussion on the packaging with upstream can be found here: > https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn3-linux/issues/193 The issue and ITP talks about there being two packages, a library part and the client part. Has this changed (I cannot find the library part.) - changelog for an initial release should be only the first line, (as there are no changes to the debian package on the initial upload) - you are creating an user. [1] - As per Debian polic 9.3, the username shouldbe an invalid user and start with an "_" - If I am not mistaken, you can use tmpfiles.d to specify the directory /var/lib/openvpn to be owned by openvpn:openvpn, so that snipped in postinst might not be needed. (please verify) [1] https://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts - unicode-impl.hpp I'm not convinced that this (license) issue is a non-issue. It might be solved in later versions of the file, but the version in the tarball does not allow modification. As you are anyway dfsg repacking (at least the version indicates this, see also below), hows' about removing the file and then reintroducing a fine one with a patch? - files installed in /usr/include --> you want a -dev package. - d/copyright - is not DEP-5 format. - There is no indication why it is dfsg, and there id no Files-Exluded section.. so are you repacking at all? - For praticality reasons, it is recommended to keep the license of the debian the same as upstream. Otherwise, package upstreaming might get more difficult than needed. (GPL2 is anyway incompatibel with Affero GPL 3; your "or later" safes the day.) - There is license text for the Gnu Affero General Public License 3, and it should be probably "AGPL-3" abbreviated. - Note: I did not do a license review of the source files. - lintian overrides - you need to comment the overrides WHY you overrode them. - postinst - remove the useless comment about utf-8, or let me know what you want to say with it. - the python part - I think this should be in a dedicated python module package? - S-V could be updated. - There is no watch file. - The package is in a team namespace on salsa, but d/control does not indicate that it is team maintained. As usual, remove moreinfo when you are done updating your package. Cheers, -- tobi
Re: lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
Thank you, that seems to have resolved it. I changed it to arch:any and multiarch:same. On 11/11/2023 20:10, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: dpkg-deb: building package 'libmagicenum-dev' in '../libmagicenum-dev_0.9.3-1_all.deb'. [...] E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] So you are shipping files in /usr/lib inside an arch:all package. You need to change it to arch:any. OpenPGP_0xFC7E951A7BEF0836.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: > dpkg-deb: building package 'libmagicenum-dev' in > '../libmagicenum-dev_0.9.3-1_all.deb'. [...] > E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 > instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] So you are shipping files in /usr/lib inside an arch:all package. You need to change it to arch:any.
Bug#1054987: marked as done (RFS: python-gradientmodel/0.0.2-1 [ITP] -- Gradient Model)
Your message dated Sat, 11 Nov 2023 15:29:41 +0100 with message-id <205cb646-f023-4a31-bbbc-c721f8184...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: python-gradientmodel/0.0.2-1 [ITP] -- Gradient Model has caused the Debian Bug report #1054987, regarding RFS: python-gradientmodel/0.0.2-1 [ITP] -- Gradient Model 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.) -- 1054987: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054987 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: kd8...@gmail.com Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-gradientmodel": * Package name : python-gradientmodel Version : 0.0.2-1 Upstream contact : John Garrett * URL : https://github.com/garrettj403/GradientModel * License : MIT * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/yogu/python-gradientmodel Section : python The source builds the following binary packages: python3-gradientmodel - Gradient Model To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-gradientmodel/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gradientmodel/python-gradientmodel_0.0.2-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: python-gradientmodel (0.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release. (Closes: #1054986) Regards, -- Yogeswaran Umasankar --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- The package was moved to the Python Team and was sponsored.--- End Message ---
Re: lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
Hi Shriram, debian/control file has a field "architecture". By default it's set to "any". Try setting it to "all" On November 11, 2023 7:46:05 PM GMT+05:30, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: >I just realized that I misread the error message. My apologies. It seems to be >expecting all instead of arm64. So how might I build it for all? > >On 11/11/23 7:36 pm, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: >> Dear Mentors, >> >> I am trying to build a multiarch package (ITP #1055706) for debian on a >> raspberry pi. The package builds fine, however, there is a lintian error >> like so: >> *Output from *debuild*:* >> dpkg-deb: building package 'libmagicenum-dev' in >> '../libmagicenum-dev_0.9.3-1_all.deb'. >> dpkg-genbuildinfo -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.buildinfo >> dpkg-genchanges -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes >> dpkg-genchanges: info: including full source code in upload >> dpkg-source --after-build . >> dpkg-buildpackage: info: full upload (original source is included) >> Now running lintian magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes ... >> E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 >> instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] >> Finished running lintian. >> >> *Output from *lintian -i -I --show-overrides*:* >> E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 >> instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] >> N: >> N: This package contains a directory under /lib or /usr/lib which doesn't >> N: match the proper triplet for the binary package's architecture. This is >> N: very likely to be a mistake when indicating the underlying build system >> N: where the files should be installed. >> N: >> N: Please refer to File System Structure (Section 9.1.1) in the Debian >> Policy >> N: Manual for details. >> N: >> N: Visibility: error >> N: Show-Always: no >> N: Check: files/architecture >> >> when I run dpkg --print-architecture it says arm64 but when I run the >> command arch it says aarch64. >> Am I doing something wrong here? how do I get it to build for aarch64? > >-- >Shriram Ravindranathan >ters > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
I just realized that I misread the error message. My apologies. It seems to be expecting all instead of arm64. So how might I build it for all? On 11/11/23 7:36 pm, Shriram Ravindranathan wrote: Dear Mentors, I am trying to build a multiarch package (ITP #1055706) for debian on a raspberry pi. The package builds fine, however, there is a lintian error like so: *Output from *debuild*:* dpkg-deb: building package 'libmagicenum-dev' in '../libmagicenum-dev_0.9.3-1_all.deb'. dpkg-genbuildinfo -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.buildinfo dpkg-genchanges -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes dpkg-genchanges: info: including full source code in upload dpkg-source --after-build . dpkg-buildpackage: info: full upload (original source is included) Now running lintian magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes ... E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] Finished running lintian. *Output from *lintian -i -I --show-overrides*:* E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] N: N: This package contains a directory under /lib or /usr/lib which doesn't N: match the proper triplet for the binary package's architecture. This is N: very likely to be a mistake when indicating the underlying build system N: where the files should be installed. N: N: Please refer to File System Structure (Section 9.1.1) in the Debian Policy N: Manual for details. N: N: Visibility: error N: Show-Always: no N: Check: files/architecture when I run dpkg --print-architecture it says arm64 but when I run the command arch it says aarch64. Am I doing something wrong here? how do I get it to build for aarch64? -- Shriram Ravindranathan ters OpenPGP_0xFC7E951A7BEF0836.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
lintian error due to arm64 and aarch64 mismatch on raspberry pi
Dear Mentors, I am trying to build a multiarch package (ITP #1055706) for debian on a raspberry pi. The package builds fine, however, there is a lintian error like so: *Output from *debuild*:* dpkg-deb: building package 'libmagicenum-dev' in '../libmagicenum-dev_0.9.3-1_all.deb'. dpkg-genbuildinfo -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.buildinfo dpkg-genchanges -O../magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes dpkg-genchanges: info: including full source code in upload dpkg-source --after-build . dpkg-buildpackage: info: full upload (original source is included) Now running lintian magic-enum_0.9.3-1_arm64.changes ... E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] Finished running lintian. *Output from *lintian -i -I --show-overrides*:* E: libmagicenum-dev: triplet-dir-and-architecture-mismatch is for arm64 instead of all [usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/] N: N: This package contains a directory under /lib or /usr/lib which doesn't N: match the proper triplet for the binary package's architecture. This is N: very likely to be a mistake when indicating the underlying build system N: where the files should be installed. N: N: Please refer to File System Structure (Section 9.1.1) in the Debian Policy N: Manual for details. N: N: Visibility: error N: Show-Always: no N: Check: files/architecture when I run dpkg --print-architecture it says arm64 but when I run the command arch it says aarch64. Am I doing something wrong here? how do I get it to build for aarch64? OpenPGP_0xFC7E951A7BEF0836.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
