Re: GPL openssl
On 20.07.2014 06:46, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Remmina does not use openssl. It uses libssh, which is linked against openssl. Must Remmina also have the license exception? Yes. This is transitive. As soon as one portion of the executable uses GPL code resulting in a running system that uses OpenSSL eventually, you must ask the authors of the GPL portion for a exception to make this work together. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Urgent: could anyone please sponsor upload of policyd-weight due to RC-Bug _before_ package will be removed?
Hi, On 13.07.2014 20:13, Werner Detter wrote: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/policyd-weight/policyd-weight_0.1.15.2-8.dsc I uploaded your package as is, as the diff is very small. Please follow-up on the bug next time, if you'd like to ping us. That being said, I wonder about the purpose of that hunk, but meh: @@ -12,7 +20,7 @@ * Add 09_fix_net_dns_usage.patch which fixes infinite loop when dns resolver is reachable only via IPv6 (Closes: #726670) - -- Werner Detter wer...@aloah-from-hell.de Sun, 8 Dec 2013 15:23:19 +0100 + -- Werner Detter wer...@aloah-from-hell.de Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:05:19 +0100 policyd-weight (0.1.15.2-5) unstable; urgency=high Anyway, I think I told you like two years ago already that you can ping me directly if you need a policyd-weight upload, didn't I? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Splitting a package
Hi Ole, On 12.01.2014 13:30, Olе Streicher wrote: However, now I get a bug report http://bugs.debian.org/734917 that the new -doc package has files that would overwrite parts of the old base package. How should I solve this problem? Should I set Conflicts and Replaces: to cpl-plugin-fors (=...-1) for both new packages? I am not sure whether two packages can replace (together) the old one, or if they then are alternatives? Please use Replaces in conjunction with Breaks (not Conflicts). See Policy §7.6.1 which explains your use case: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: correct packaging of web applications
Hi, On 23.07.2013 10:16, Sebastian Tramp wrote: Hi Arno, thank you for clarifying this. Is there a similar document for apache 2.2 ? you can stop worrying about Apache2 2.2 right now. Any new package you are going to upload will go through Sid into Debian which will have Apache 2.4 only. That being said, there is no such document for 2.2. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: correct packaging of web applications
Hi, On 23.07.2013 20:08, Russ Allbery wrote: Hm, how do you deal with the conf.d vs. conf-available change and the completely different maintainer script actions? there are several possibilities, but I suggest something like [1] which I wrote for that purpose. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Apache/PackagingFor24#Making_web_applications_compatible_to_both.2C_Apache_2.2_and_2.4 -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: correct packaging of web applications
Hi, On 22.07.2013 22:02, Paul Wise wrote: Unfortunately there is no discussion on how to reload the apache configuration? I guess the right thing here is to use `invoke-rc.d apache2 reload` as per the usual for init stuff. Please refrain to interface with the web server directly when enabling a web application. In particular, never call invoke-rc.d apache2 from a maintainer script. Moreover, conf.d is not used anymore as other people said already. As Russ says, we have detailed instructions shipped in the Apache packaging you can consult by reading /usr/share/doc/apache2/PACKAGING.gz though I encourage you to use dh_apache2. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mentors.d.n upload issues
Hi, On 18.07.2013 10:38, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: You could: $ dcut --input xalan_1.11-2_source.changes mentors does not support dcut as it does not run debianqueued Bill, your package was rejected in lack of a signature. You should have gotten that by mail, too: 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,196 DEBUG [debexpo.importer.26427] Determining user from 'Changed-By:' field: William Blough de...@blough.us 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,196 DEBUG [debexpo.importer.26427] Changed-By's email address is: de...@blough.us 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,380 ERROR [debexpo.importer.26427] Rejected: Your upload does not contain a valid signature. Output was: gpg: Signature made Di 16 Jul 2013 02:04:25 UTC using RSA key ID 566D2F19 gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,383 DEBUG [debexpo.lib.email] Getting mail template: importer_reject_maintainer 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,396 DEBUG [debexpo.lib.email] Starting SMTP session to localhost 2013-07-16 + 02:09:45,469 DEBUG [debexpo.lib.email] Sending email to de...@blough.us -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to get rid of superseded uploads to experimental
Hi, On 10.06.2013 14:06, Andreas Tille wrote: Do I need to file a ROM bug to ftpmaster for every single package that should vanish from experimental? Yes. That. Having that said, if you want to move a package from experimental to unstable, just upload a newer version to sid, and it will be removed (semi-) automatic as that's detected by the cruft report. That's not going to help if you want to remove a package altogether though, which is when you need a RoM bug. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Sign source packages for mentors.debian.net
Hi, On 21.03.2013 21:08, Felix Natter wrote: Do I have to follow (some of) these steps? http://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning yes, the first one is enough though. This is not covered by docs, because that's a generic OpenGPG problem not specifically related to Debian (Mentors). You need to create a key satisfying the Debian keyring maintainers [1]. See any tutorial for OpenGPG for detailed instructions. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/09/msg3.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#700296: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.8-1 [ITA] -- GeoIP support for apache2
Hi Prach, On 11.03.2013 09:07, Prach Pongpanich wrote: * Please consider upgrading to new style (dh = 7) rules style. It makes life easier to you and is more forward oriented. That said, your rules file looks ok but you could ease life to all of us, including you. * While you're at it, remove the boilerplate copyright messages in debian/rules. They are not needed. Done Nice thanks. By the way, it's up to you, but you may want to parse the version from dpkg-changelog, i.e. instead of VERSION = 1.2.8 do something like VERSION := $(shell dpkg-parsechangelog | perl -ne 'print $$1 if m/Version:\s*([\d\.]+)-\d+/') Note that get-orig-source targets are supposed to be called from an arbitrary directory though. Thus be careful where you expect debian/changelog for such jobs. I wrote a similar snippet recently, you are welcomed to steal [1] if you'd like. * Please consider using the copyright format formerly known as dep5 for debian/copyright: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Updated. Thanks. But the license does not seem to match. Note that you seem to have used the original Apache license, whereas MaxMind modified it to match their corporate/product name in the no-advertising clause debian/copyright: 5. Products derived from this software may not be called Apache, nor may Apache appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation. vs. mod_geoip.c: * 4. The names MaxMind and GeoIP must *not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this *software without prior written permission. For written *permission, please contact supp...@maxmind.com. * Despite of them calling it Apache 1.1 license which is what may have confused you. While it's acceptable I discourage you use the same license for debian/ though. You're not MaxMind and thus there is no point to re-use the same non-advertising clauses for your contributions. This repo is already in GitHub, I can''t access Alioth collab-maint. Let's get this done later then. For now you can use GitHub as well. By the way: If you want, we can do another upload to experimental for Apache 2.2 with you as a maintainer set. OK, Thank you very much. Do you want to do so? That would imply a package for unstable pushed to version 1.2.8 with you as maintainer set. You can leave the remaining bits as is, because it will work with the 2.2 version of the package and is for a timely limited use. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/kpcli.git;a=blob;f=debian/rules;h=8d7f51393d05142a503f02bd8885010dd5f91355;hb=HEAD -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#702909: RFS: unblock policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5
On 12.03.2013 21:19, Werner Detter wrote: * Add 08_del_dnsbl.njabl.org.patch which removes dnsbl.njabl.org list due to servuce shutdown on 2013-03-01 * Bumped standard versions to 3.9.4 The RT does not feel very comfortable to push standards at this stage. But given there are no real changes, they may generously ignore that while reviewing your debdiff. btw. there is a typo in your changelog and you may want to close #702838 with the upload. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Runtime directories: in package or by scripts?
On 10.03.2013 13:53, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 04:47:42PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote: What is the best way to ship such a diretory: in package (d/foo.dirs) or create in postinst script? Why postinst? Because on removal there will be a message cannot remove directory, if there are file in that directory. Purge them too. Or leave it alone and ignore the dpkg warning, if you consider the data is user contributed. Think of the SQL database use case which preserves database data. Most of them are using debconf to ask the user whether the data shall be removed. That might, or might not overkill for your package. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#702909: RFS: unblock policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-5
On 13.03.2013 00:46, Werner Detter wrote: The respective dsc file for the stable package can be found at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/policyd-weight/policyd-weight_0.1.15.1-2+squeeze2.dsc Please file a pu bug against the release.debian.org pseudo-package along with a debdiff. For s-p-u the RT needs to acknowledge your changes before one uploads your package. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#700296: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.8-1 [ITA] -- GeoIP support for apache2
Hi Prach, as promised here is a review for libapache2-mod-geoip. * Please consider upgrading to new style (dh = 7) rules style. It makes life easier to you and is more forward oriented. That said, your rules file looks ok but you could ease life to all of us, including you. * While you're at it, remove the boilerplate copyright messages in debian/rules. They are not needed. * debian/compat 7 is fine, but not up to date. Please verify if your package works fine with debhelper 9 and if so, raise the compatibility level. Don't forget to push the debhelper dependency because Lintian needlessly may warn you otherwise. * Please consider using the copyright format formerly known as dep5 for debian/copyright: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ * Since you build a single binary package only, there is no need to call the debhelper files libapache2-mod-geoip.apache2.suffix in debian/. You can just omit the package name if you want. This is entirely up to you though. * Your watch file does not work: $ uscan --report-status uscan warning: In debian/watch, no matching hrefs for watch line http://www.maxmind.com/download/geoip/api/mod_geoip2/mod_geoip2_([\d+\.]+|\d+)\.tar\.gz * There is no policy version 3.9.3.4. You either mean 3.9.3 or 3.9.4, with the latter being the most current one. * Please consider using a VCS for your packaging By the way: If you want, we can do another upload to experimental for Apache 2.2 with you as a maintainer set. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Remove old Changelog
Hi, On 07.03.2013 23:11, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote: Is it allowed to remove old changelog entry's ? why do you want to do so. Disk space is cheap these days and having them is beneficial for archiving purposes. Some packages have a long history of changelogs [1] and that's very helpful if you want to track down when an issue was introduced for example. Having that said: Yes, you're allowed to. [1] e.g. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apache2/current/changelog -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#700296: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.8-1 [ITA] -- GeoIP support for apache2
owner 700296 ! thanks Hi Prach, I will review and sponsor your upload once I uploaded Apache2 2.4.4 in a few days. You'll hear from me then :) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packaging virtual machine images .ova?
On 02.03.2013 14:34, adrelanos wrote: What about having let's say for example an OpenBSD virtual machine image in Debian repository? At least for Debian proper that's highly unlikely, because you'd need to build the image from source and make sure its DFSG compliant, which is pretty hard to show for full disk images. If you want to do it yourself and put it to a private repository, there is nothing to stop you. In fact, it's easy just to install an image to any given location through a package. However, be aware that updates in the package /will/ overwrite the image, and that's typically not what people expect when they start to write to virtual machine disk images during the guest system runs. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packaging virtual machine images .ova?
Hi, On 02.03.2013 03:17, adrelanos wrote: is it possible to package Virtual Machine images, such as Virtual Box .ova images? Possible? Surely. What would the benefit be, though? What are you trying to achieve? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why is it so hard to get sponsors.....?
On 27.02.2013 20:57, Anton Gladky wrote: First - a weighted sponsorship priority queue - all packages get a rating and higher-rated packages will get sponsored sooner than others. I agree with that. On my opinion the package weight should be calculated, considering the following parameters: a) Number of closed bugs with the uploads. b) ITA-ITP, ITA should get more points, than ITP. c) Number of packages, maintained by applicant, his experience. d) Number of days the package hangs in the queue. Not sure about coefficients between these parameters. Something like that is planned for Debian Mentors. It's just nobody found time to implement it. Volunteers? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why is it so hard to get sponsors.....?
Hi, On 26.02.2013 22:31, W. van den Akker wrote: I understand [1] and [2]. I meant uploading to unstable and not testing. But none of the DD was ever answering the emails.. Be patient and don't give up. I know this can be frustrating and annoying, and we're slowly trying to improve the situation, but we all agree the situation is still all but optimal to sponsorees. Moreover, personally I'm always keen to hear about ideas how to improve the situation though. So let us know if you got good ideas. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#694778: A little test message to see whether our filters work now
Sorry for the hijack of your RFS, I'm testing our new mail filter. Please ignore me :) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Announcement: New mail filters and subscription in place
Hello, now that our BTS driven sponsorship request tracking seems to be widely adopted and used, we finally finished the final step. Most of us seemed to like and prefer the BTS driven approach, but we found the control traffic useless and noisy for a discussion list. Hence we originally tried to convince list masters to filter out control traffic on the server side [1], but we came out with a new solution [2] which went live now. Here is a summary of the current working functionality: 1) debian-mentors@l.d.o is and will remain the home of all packaging and mentoring related questions. Sponsorship requests and following discussions are automatically forwarded to this list 2) package-sponsorship-requests@l.d.o [3] will track /all/ sponsorship requests messages but is not thought as a discussion list. It will act as an owner of the sponsorship-requests [4] pseudo-package and will collect all sponsoring related messages, including control messages, for archiving purposes. This means: You do not need to subscribe to a new list if you are a debian-mentors reader, all relevant (human contributed) content will be forwarded to that list, but the complete noise^W^W^W^W^Winformation is available through package-sponsorship-requests@l.d.o only. If you prefer to get all of it, subscribe to that list as well. Thanks for all involved people for their help. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658498 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677277 [3] https://lists.debian.org/package-sponsorship-requests/ [4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Comments on mentors.debian.net
Hi On 15.01.2013 11:20, Boris Pek wrote: Since RFS bug reports via sponsorship-requests pseudo-package is widely used now, is not it the good idea to disable feature Comments on package pages? this was discussed already. In the long term we are trying to make the difference between a bug report reply and a on-site comment disappear, but that's not implemented yet. While I personally agree that the comment function is rather useless as it is today, others in the mentors team seem to like it :-) If not, then could you fix notifications about new comments? They are not sent to email now. [1] That should be working, but I'll see if I find a problem. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Fwd: Package compat-wireless-3.5.4 was rejected
Hi, On 16.12.2012 12:22, Jayen Ashar wrote: Upload failed: 403 Forbidden this means, at that time a package matching the names you tried to upload was already found in the incoming queue. It's not allowed to upload packages. However, by now the problem should be resolved automagically as the input queue was processed. The problem is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665986 by the way. Using dput-ng solves this problem. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: git-buildpackage: can it recreate the orig.tar.gz without the pristine-tar?
Hi, On 03.12.2012 13:44, Miguel Telleria de Esteban wrote: and it works !! so why does not git-buildpackage do this? Try: md5sum $orig_tarball_from_pristine_Tar vs md5sum $orig_tarball_recreated_from_the_upstream_branch While the /contents/ of the tarball are identical, the tarball is not bit-by-bit the same as the original. However, it needs to be in order to be accepted by dak for follow-up uploads, as it can't ensure changes are in meta data only. As far as I know, the delta in pristine-tar is mainly to ensure file ordering, permissions and time stamps. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainer address for collab-maint team maintained packages
Hi, On 11/19/2012 03:28 PM, Marc Haber wrote: package@packages.debian.org seems to add that header automatically before forwarding to the PTS, but using that address as Maintainer: is a lintian _error_ (not even a warning) (Severity: serious, Certainty: certain). Thanks for trying! I originally implemented that check out of a stupid idea Paul Tag. came up with, but I'm glad it really helped someone to find an error! :-) Thing is, you can't use the QA forwarder because it relies on your source control field to learn about actual forwardings. If you would add right that address, the result would be an infinite loop because you would essentially forward mail to package@packages.debian.org to package@packages.debian.org. I hope it is clear why this won't work. To answer your question: Yes, you really need a top level Alioth project if you want your own mailing list (or any other third party hosted service). That said, I'd be very glad to have some mailing list Debian service different to lists.d.o for such lightweight list management purposes. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainer address for collab-maint team maintained packages
On 11/19/2012 08:10 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2012-11-19, Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: That said, I'd be very glad to have some mailing list Debian service different to lists.d.o for such lightweight list management purposes. wasn't there a teams.dn ? Does not seem to be alive anymore and definitively B.D. (before daemonkeeper). Aside, I think there also was a similar concept driven by dba as debian-maintainers.orgorso. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: debian/bug-control: report bug against unofficial debian packages
Hi, On 05.11.2012 17:43, bilibop project wrote: The questions: what can happen if a user reports a bug against one of my packages by using 'reportbug' ? Must I explicitly add 'Send-To: quid...@poivron.org' in debian/bug-control to avoid conflicts with Debian BTS ? If you want people to use reportbug to submit bugs to you, this is the way to go, yes. Alternatively you could tell people on the page where you inform about your repository where they are supposed to report bugs. The .dsc and .tar.gz files in the personal repository are exactly the sames than those I have uploaded on mentors.debian.net. If the answer to the previous question is YES, must I send a different version on mentors, even if the package is not sponsored (because if it is sponsored a day, the source will be modified and the personal repository will disappear) ? Yes, you may need to do so. Alternatively you can just upload the package including the debian/bug-control file you mentioned to mentors and hope your future sponsor will hopefully detect it and ask you to remove it by then. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mentors site: uploading fails - 403 Forbidden
Hi, On 30.09.2012 14:30, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Can someone please let me know if this is my fault or a server issue? There is already turnserver 0.6-1 on the mentors incoming queue, did you try to upload it twice? Yes, I made another change and then tried to upload again You cannot make a new upload until the old one has been processed. True, but the actual problem is #665986. Using FTP or getting dput to ignore HTTP/403 errors solves the problem for incomplete uploads. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Package removed from Mentors without notification
Hi, On 27.09.2012 15:56, Robert James Clay wrote: Bart closing the hwb RFS sponsorship bug this morning because hwb had been removed from the Mentors site was the first I knew that it had been removed. I thought there was something in place to notify people about things like that? Mentors sends you an email when a package is removed (after a timeout of 20 weeks that is). Bart may not follow that tightly, so that the package may have been removed quite a lot of days before already. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Package removed from Mentors without notification
Hi, On 27.09.2012 20:08, Robert James Clay wrote: Arno, On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 11:32 -0400, Arno Töll wrote: On 27.09.2012 15:56, Robert James Clay wrote: Bart closing the hwb RFS sponsorship bug this morning because hwb had been removed from the Mentors site was the first I knew that it had been removed. I thought there was something in place to notify people about things like that? Mentors sends you you as in who uploaded the archive to the Mentors site? As that should have come to me here and so far I've not found such an email... yes, you as in the user having uploaded a package which was recognized and accepted into your personal package list. an email when a package is removed (after a timeout of 20 weeks that is). 20 weeks after what? I do recall some discussion about something like that but I don't recall details. 20 weeks after the last activity (within mentors.debian.net). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#673223: RFS: ipset/6.14-1 -- administration tool for kernel IP sets
Hi, Bart noticed, you uploaded a new version to Mentors. Should it be uploaded? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#673223: RFS: ipset/6.14-1 -- administration tool for kernel IP sets
On 26.09.2012 01:59, Neutron Soutmun wrote: My intention is waiting until the Wheezy released, but is it OK if it be uploaded to 'experimental' first ? You're the boss. : (as I said last time, you can also contact me directly, if you want to get something sponsored. You do not need to file a RFS bug.) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#673223: RFS: ipset/6.14-1 -- administration tool for kernel IP sets
On 26.09.2012 01:59, Neutron Soutmun wrote: My intention is waiting until the Wheezy released, but is it OK if it be uploaded to 'experimental' first ? You're the boss. : (as I said last time, you can also contact me directly, if you want to get something sponsored. You do not need to file a RFS bug.) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS - pu: package policyd-weight/0.1.15.1-2+squeeze1
Hi, On 22.09.2012 11:41, Werner Detter wrote: Therefor I've recreated the package from stable with the mentioned patches applied. The relevant bugreport against release.debian.org can be found here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688266 An upload to squeeze for this package is confirmed. Sponsored, thanks. Please file a RFS bug for future sponsorship requests as described in [1] :) [1] http://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#688411: sponsorship-requests: Please convert my DM upload permissions to new format
On 22.09.2012 16:28, Gabriele Giacone wrote: Attached file should grant me upload permissions according to new interface [0] for packages I currently can upload [1]. ... Allow: critterding gnash jedit jinput jutils jxplorer lwjgl sunflow sweethome3d ubiquity-extension pidgin-skype Uhm. I don't think this meant that way. Instead you should ask your previous DMUA sponsor(s) individually for the package(s) they advocated you. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to re-add removed packages
Hi, On 19.09.2012 11:02, Tz-Huan Huang wrote: I'd like to maintain some packages, which are removed in sid now. (scim-hangul, scim-sunpinyin, scim-pinyin, scim-array). How should I do? Should I send a WNPP bug report as a usual new package, or just package it, change the maintainer to me and upload it to mentors.debian.net to find a sponsor? Thanks! Yes. Removed packages can be re-introduced like any other package using the same procedures. Please check the reason for the removal, however. You new package should fix that problem as very least. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#688111: RFS: git2cl/2.0+git200808271242-2
Hi, On 19.09.2012 15:22, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: * Standards to 3.9.3. I didn't look at your package, but at a first glimpse while looking through my mailbox, this came to my attention: Yesterday a new policy version was released, making this standards version outdated. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#688111: RFS: git2cl/2.0+git200808271242-2
Hi, On 19.09.2012 15:22, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: * Standards to 3.9.3. I didn't look at your package, but at a first glimpse while looking through my mailbox, this came to my attention: Yesterday a new policy version was released, making this standards version outdated. (resent, I wrote the wrong destination :) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to remove a package from unstable
On 17.09.2012 21:41, Jakub Wilk wrote: AFAIK freeze doesn't affect removals in any way. So: s/ in non-freeze times// I can confirm that. This is what Niels and Adam confirmed a few days ago. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to remove a package from unstable
Hi Ole, On 15.09.2012 16:04, Olе Streicher wrote: I accidently uploaded a package to unstable (python-cpl) that should have gone to experimental. How can I remove that from unstable but not from testing? ftpmaster removals do only affect Sid. They are not propagated to Testing (even less during a freeze). You can use the reportbug tool to report a ftpmaster removal bug - pick the ftp.debian.org pseudo-package. If you want to have a package removed from Testing, or even Stable, you need to get in touch with the Release Team instead. Moreover, it is not an ideal situation if a package is in Testing only, but not in Unstable. Hence you could just upload a newer version to Unstable, which is actually a downgrade (say, you have uploaded 1.0, but Sid should have 0.99, upload something with a release number such as 1.0.really.0.99). That does not need any removal request. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to remove a package from unstable
On 15.09.2012 16:13, Arno Töll wrote: ftpmaster removals do only affect Sid. They are not propagated to Testing (even less during a freeze). Just for the archives: I meant: They are not removed straight from Testing by a ftpmaster removal, but Britney may propagate the change in Testing in non-freeze times. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
tags 686679 + moreinfo thanks Hi Eugene, On 04.09.2012 18:23, Eugene Seliverstov wrote: A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of adopters. Current package is based on original package and includes several new patches to conform with latest Debian Policy. this is a review of your package. * Do not install Lintian overrides for manpage-has-errors-from-man. The warning is legit, but of minor importance. Either fix it, or ignore it. * You are missing several uploads of asn1c which were in Debian at some point after Squeeze's version. You can find the latest package in [1]. Consequently your version number is too low. 0.9.21.dfsg-1 was in Debian already in 2007 (uploaded 21 Jun 2007). Please use at very least 0.9.21.dfsg-5. Moreover, please import the delta of changes since then to your package. * There is a SVN repository for the packaging [2]. Please update that and add it to your control file [3] * In debian/rules, please remove the boilerplate blind text. * At your choice, either document how to build a repacked tarball (you need to remove the IETF files from the tarball as you probably know) in debian/README.source [4] or make a get-orig-source [5] target (or both). * I couldn't find the source for the PDF files you install from doc/ (the preferred form for modification that is). Please include it in your source package, or remove it while repacking the tarball. * Please add a DEP-3 header to your patches [6]. Also consider sending it upstream, unless you did already. * debian/copyright wrongly claims, the package would be subject to the BSD-2-clause license. Actually it is 3-clause. [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/asn1c/0.9.21.dfsg-4/ [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/collab-maint/deb-maint/asn1c/ [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-vcs [4] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource [5] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules [6] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: debian/rules stamp-* targets
Hi, On 03.09.2012 18:55, The Wanderer wrote: I have not been able to find any documentation on these stamp-* targets, although searching has revealed that they or something like them appear to be (or to have been) used in a number of other packages as well. What are they used for, and how necessary are they? They are entirely optional, in fact. It's a custom behavior to work around issues with pseudo-phony targets which aren't declared as such for some reason [1]. That's just one way (among many) to implement a debian/rules file. There are deprecation warnings in the package which could be fixed either in a way which retains the stamp-build target or in a way which removes it. Which one would be more appropriate? If it is your package, do it the way you like more. Modern rules files (as in dh(1)) are typicially much easier to read. [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Phony-Targets.html#Phony-Targets -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Re-inserting package with name change
Hi, On 27.08.2012 12:34, Olе Streicher wrote: Shall I just ignore this error? Or shall I assign the bugs to the new (still unknown to the system) package name ftools-fv? yes, in your case it is fine to ignore that error. Another question is whether I need to somehow propagate the name change. in debian/control, I have set Conflicts: fv; Replaces: fv Should I also set Provides: fv? This would pollute the package namespace again with a virtual package of this short name which was the main reason to change it. No, no special care is needed [*]. Technically you could even omit the Conflicts/Replaces as fv wasn't part of Squeeze either. Having that said it is a good idea to keep it for people who could have kept that package installed since 2004 (which may, or may not still work). At very least you can omit the relation for the release which is supposed to make it into Jessie+1, if Jessie features your package with Conflicts/Replaces. Providing fv does not make any sense unless there are packages which depend on it (there must not), or people might be upgrading with a fv package installed to hint apt but there is no support for upgrades beyond one release at time. [*] Your upload needs to clear NEW, however. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: policyd-weight
Hi, On 19.08.2012 12:38, Werner Detter wrote: I've recreated a new version of my package policyd-weight (previous version 0.1.15.2-2 was already uploaded to unstable. did you try to contact your previous sponsors? Could you reach Hauke? This version includes a little bugfix and updates standard versions from 3.9.2 to 3.9.3. Hence I'm looking for a sponsor for my package policyd-weight You don't try to get this into Testing, do you? I haven't looked at your package yet, but this does not sound like something which is targeting Testing at this stage. That's fine, of course, just telling you. If nobody steps in, I may take care of it this week. By the way, did you notice the RFS bug workflow [1]? [1] http://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: upstream upgrade capable of running in parallel with old version.
Hi, On 12.08.2012 13:16, Paul Elliott wrote: ITP a whole new package? Change the control file to allow it? Yes. Look at packages like Python, automake, the kenrel and so on. They are installed from versioned packages like python2.6 and install binaries like /usr/bin/python2.6. Depending on your use case you may want to install a compatibility symlink to the default version or you may consider using the alternatives system (update-alternatives(8)). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Minutes from Getting your packages into Debian
Hi, On 02.08.2012 05:07, PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote: this stupid DM process only make debian packagin more slower to evolution, i have a problem uploading a debian mentors sig file and nobody respond and solves my problem I cannot see how the DM process is related to sponsoring in the first place. Actually, being a DM makes sponsoring unnecessary in many cases. Having that said: Criticizing is easy, but do you have actual suggestions how to improve? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Correct way to copy files to /home/$user?
Hi, On 25.07.2012 17:21, adrelanos wrote: What is the correct way to copy files to /home/$user? the answer is simple: Don't do it. There is no supported or predictable way to get files into a user's home directory. Even less, it is forbidden by policy to touch configuration files. As a workaround you could install/divert your files when a user starts a program, in your example xchat. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Taking over maintainership of gringotts
Hi, On 23.07.2012 22:19, Bart Martens wrote: The package at mentors is marked needs sponsor = yes so an RFS bug is not really needed. but it certainly won't hurt. Not too many people care about that flag (you know, even less than about RFS bugs). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: automatic removal of packages from mentors
Hi, On 20.07.2012 01:47, Asheesh Laroia wrote: Curious to hear the thoughts of the current mentors.debian.net maintainers, especially on the reasoning behind the deletion, so I can better understand and see if I can come up with an alternative I like more. well, packages consume space and resources. Disk space is not infinite either. Opening the packages list in the browser already lasts a substantial amount of time. That's because lots of data needs to be retrieved for every package listing the more packages are in the database. I do also wonder what the benefit to keep packages forever would be. 5 months is a lot of time to keep packages around. Packages can be uploaded any time again, and we try to avoid deleting packages which are in an active review process (yes, this needs to be improved i.e. implemented). Things change in Debian, packages change, packages may need an update and someone who cares about. But we remove packages which weren't touched or even sponsored over a long time. This is more of a problem of Debian's sponsoring process than mentors.debian.net I'd say. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: modifications by sponsors
Hi, On 11.07.2012 13:34, Bart Martens wrote: Is it OK that a sponsor adds modifications to a sponsored package ? I see it regularly that sponsors do little modifications of packages before uploading them. They may fix spelling errors, fix formatting, do cosmetic fixes and so on before uploading a package. Typically they do so to save both parties some time, as they would like to avoid the usual ping-pong game which goes like if you fix X, Y, Z I will upload your package, wait for a response and a new package and start looking again. Instead they just do such minor changes, upload and send the sponsored people a debdiff/git patch or whatever. Typically they do not add such changes to debian/changelog though and I think that's all fine. Is it OK that a sponsor adds him/herself to Uploaders ? That depends. Personally I did not have a reason to do so, but I know some people do. While I think it is clearly the wrong thing to add yourself to uploaders _just_ for sponsoring a package, there are cases where it makes sense. Imagine you are sponsoring a package because you are personally interested to use it. Chances are you might find yourself to find some bugs or other issues with it you would like to _fix_ yourself. Then it makes sense that you are in Uploaders as well and you eventually form a packaging team with your sponsoree. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship
Hi, On 02.07.2012 17:06, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bart Martens wrote: Comments on these suggestions ? Perhaps use wheezy-ignore for stuff that shouldn't be in wheezy? I guess that might be stepping on the release team's tags, so maybe setting up usercategories and usertags for the sponsorship-requests metapackage would be good. Indeed. Please do not set wheezy-ignore without permission from the Release Team [1]. Having that said, one should note that uploads to unstable not targeting Wheezy are acceptable during a freeze, but it does not make much sense. Also the FTP team might not process NEW regularly during a freeze. [1] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Who maintains manpages.debian.net?
Hi, On 29.06.2012 23:01, Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote: today I had a look at a section 3 manpage for unstable. I was offered an outdated version. Where is the right place to complain - to suggest importing an up to date version? you could ask Javier, the maintainer [1] (CC:ed). Granted having contact details on the home page directly would help a lot. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to rebuild binary package to fix bugs?
Hi, letting alone the problem beyond, as I am not qualified to comment on that: On 28.06.2012 13:13, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: In such case, what do I prepare for NMU patch? Or, are there another option to rebuild package on the archive? you do not need to prepare binNMU patch. A binNMU is built from the same source package and thus does not need a patch at all. Just someone who triggers a rebuild. See [1] for instructions to request a binNMU. Having that said I find it strange - to say the least - that reverse dependencies were being removed without triggering a binNMU back then. That's why the Release Team does transitions. Just to avoid such things. [1] http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to build flavored package if upstream doesn't grok OOT build
Hi Marc, On 23.06.2012 15:17, Marc Haber wrote: How can I build two flavors of a program with different configure parameters if upstream does not properly handle out-of-tree building and I do not want to ditch dh? You copy the source tree as a preparation and recurse into all flavors for the configure/build/(install) stages. Take a look at the Apache 2.2 source package for a (complex) example. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#677277: lists.debian.org: new list: sponsorship-reque...@lists.debian.org
(bouncing to debian-mentors, as I forgot to CC the list) Hi, On 12.06.2012 23:43, Michael Gilbert wrote: I'll just try this selectricity poll for now so we don't get billions of votes here: http://selectricity.org/quickvote/debianrfslist what's the status here? After Bart enjoyed us 100+ mails today, I think quite a few of us recall this bug again. :-) Also your poll seems to support our/my argument after a reasonable voting period. (Just for the archives: Quite a few messages in this bug are missing as they were sent to the debian-mentors mailing list only.) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#677277: lists.debian.org: new list: sponsorship-reque...@lists.debian.org
Package: lists.debian.org Severity: wishlist Hello, upon rough consensus and after discussing with formorer [1] I'd like to to request a new list dedicated to sponsorship requests. The list would be used to manage sponsorship-requests bug traffic as a pseudo-package owner [2]. Name At your choice, sponsorship-requests@l.d.o or debian-sponsorship-requests@l.d.o. I guess, I'd prefer the former. Rationale The rationale is denoted in the mailing list discussion referenced under [1]. The basic idea is to restrict automated bot traffic to the debian-mentors mailing list to reduce the signal/noise ratio. In the end, sponsorship-requests should be used as a no-discussion (beyond actual bug discussions) web-archive mailing list. That is, we would like to tell apart mentoring questions (help me with packaging problem) from bug control traffic (see #658498) and bug notifications. For the sake of completeness you, as a listmaster, demand that every traffic sent to a list actually ends up there. Yet, debian-mentors would be subscribed via PTS for bug traffic _only_. Therefore, to make a long story short: * debian-mentors: leave as is, subscribe to bug reports for the the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package. * sponsorship-requests: send _all_ sponsorship-requests bug traffic there (including control messages) and configure that list as a package owner * sponsorship-requests pseudo-package: Change packge owner to sponsorship-requests@l.d.o. Don, do you want me to file a separate bug for that, assuming you create the requested list? Long description Track upload requests for packages about to be sponsored into Debian archives (feel free to change/improve with a native speaker hat on) Category Developers Subscription Policy open Post Policy open (or, at your choice moderated, as we expect no posters but the BTS, and humans should be redirected to debian-mentors instead) Web Archive yes [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/05/msg00459.html [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.3.0-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- 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/20120612202603.5560.89545.report...@snowball.fritz.box
Re: GPL and OpenSSL
Hi, On 04.06.2012 23:07, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote: Is this md5 function compatible with GPL license? If it isn't, are there any other implementation compatible with GPL2? No it is not. The OpenSSL crypto routines are under the same terms as the whole OpenSSL project. The OpenSSL license is not compatible to any GPL software which makes the whole approach a GPL violation. This is a problem on the GPL code side, however. Thus you have two alternatives: a) Do not link against OpenSSL but GnuTLS b) Tell the upstream authors of your software (i.e. those who provide the GPL software) to make an OpenSSL linking exception [1][2] I find it quite strange that the upstream authors are aware of this problem but do not care to violate their own licensing terms by the way (this makes alternative b) quite appealing to them I guess). [1] http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl [2] http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL and OpenSSL
Hi, On 04.06.2012 23:27, Игорь Пашев wrote: It could be replaced via Debain patch. AFAIK something similar is done for Apache (or APR?) Both, Apache and APR is licensed under the terms of the Apache 2.0 Software License which is GPL compatible. There is no need to do such things for ASF software. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL and OpenSSL
On 04.06.2012 23:41, Arno Töll wrote: Software License which is GPL compatible. There is no need to do such ^ that should read: OpenSSL compatible -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Getting rid of control messages revisited
Hi, Jakub asked me to forward his comment from IRC to thhis list (where he's not subscribed anymore as some might remember): 14:14 jwilk IME the problem with mailing lists that nobody reads is that from time to time some misguided people will post to them. Worse, they'll expect that somebody answers them... 14:15 jwilk But yeah, separate list + forwarding bugs to d-mentors is certainly better than status quo. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: hardening with non-C compilers
Hi, On 27.05.2012 15:19, Paul Gevers wrote: Can somebody point me at relevant information about hardening of non-c based compilers (in Debian). I have read http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening but as far as I can see it assumes C. Something specifically about FPC/Lazarus would be even better of course. since nobody else seems to answer, I'll share my no-knowledge: Pascal binaries are not using the libc and and are not using the ABI calling conventions all C programs do use. Therefore, Pascal binaries can't make use of gcc stack protectors, as Pascal programs might simply be using another stack layout. Other problems like format string vulnerabilities are specific to C anyway. Hence you can't just enable hardening flags and you're done. This is something which needs implemented in your pascal compiler if necessary. There are, however, libraries in Pascal which are interfacing with C libraries (including libc I think). It needs to be carefully checked if hardened stacks (e.g. stack canaries) are compatible with that. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: flashcache
Hi, On 27.05.2012 08:12, Liang Guo wrote: When the new package is ready, I'd like to sponsor your package. I have currently no intentions to maintain flashcache anymore and everyone else interested to pick it up may do so. The package was ready to use in November, so updating it to a newer version shouldn't be much of a deal. See RFP #635504 for details and [1] for the corresponding repository. If you care enough, you can just pick it up yourself. I do not need a sponsor anymore by the way. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/flashcache.git -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: new powertop version
Hi, On 26.05.2012 20:11, Julian Wollrath wrote: Also, I'm not sure about new upstream releases via NMU. Have you offered to co-maintain ? No I have not, because I was under the impression, that it is not possible for a non Debian developer to co-maintain a package. But if this impression was wrong I would willingly offer to co-maintain. Since I am new to all of this, please accept my apologies if I offended somebody with the approach I have taken, which now seems kind of rude in my view. Everyone - including you - can maintain packages. You are not only allowed to co-maintain them, but also all alone. You still need a Debian Developer to sponsor your packages, but that person is not responsible for the package. Having that said, it is fine to NMU a package when doing so fixes two release critical bugs and there is no need to apologize if that makes Debian better(tm). Co-maintaining the package is even better, but this requires an acknowledge by the current maintainer(s) and if they are not responsive that's not going to help you. Therefore I would suggest you, that you can try to get in touch with Patrick and offer your help with the package but you still prepare a NMU meanwhile. If you obey the NMU rules [*] I do not see a problem in doing so. [*] See the document bremner linked. Basically you are supposed to make minimally invasive changes only. Do not change packaging style, do not do cosmetic changes which are a matter of taste and try to keep the differences low. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: flashcache
Hi, On 27.05.2012 10:18, Liang Guo wrote: Do you still use it ? to some extent: yes. I was using it mostly as a file system read cache but I found kFreeBSD + ZFS does a much better job. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Getting rid of control messages revisited
Hello, some (most?) of us found the signal/noise ratio on the debian-mentors list significantly worse since we switched to a BTS based workflow. Having that said, I am sitting next to formorer, one of our list masters, on the LinuxTag right now and we ended up to discuss this problem again (c.f. #658498). He still thinks it would be a bad idea to filter out control messages, but he made an alternative offer which sounds like a good deal to me: What about creating a list as owner of the pseudo-package dedicated to BTS traffic (including control messages) named sponsorship-requests@l.d.o. Furthermore, the mentors list should still get bug traffic (only). Therefore we would subscribe that list via PTS subscription to bug reports only [*]. How does that sound to you? [*] jwilk looked into the code and it /seems/ to me, the bts subscription does not contain control messages, whereas bts-control control does. Can anyone verify this? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: termit : hijack or adoption with permission
Hi, On 23.05.2012 18:15, Bart Martens wrote: Did you get permission from Tomas Fasth to adopt the package ? http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/termit.html http://mentors.debian.net/package/termit he did (somewhat). See [1]. [1] 4fbc0bcc.6050...@gmail.com / https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/05/msg01057.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: resiprocate/hardening-no-fortify-functions problems
On 21.05.2012 17:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: After building, I check the binaries, it seems to think they were hardened, but some intermittent issues with `Fortify Source functions' and lintian (on mentors) complains The hardening-check tool (which is used by Lintian, too) is known to emit false positives. See #673112 for an up to date discussion for that problem. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#659522: RFS: prelink
Hi, On 21.05.2012 22:51, Daniel Martí wrote: I did not know we could have orig's packaged in any other format other than .tar.gz. I suppose renaming it to prelink-20111012.orig.tar.bz2 would be enough? All the patching is done via *.debian.tar.gz as usual. Yes, you should just use a properly named, untouched upstream tarball. Regarding your question, read dpkg-source(1): Format: 3.0 (quilt) A source package in this format contains at least an original tarball (.orig.tar.ext where ext can be gz, bz2, lzma and xz) and a debian tarball (.debian.tar.ext). It can also contain additional original tarballs (.orig-component.tar.ext). component can only contain alphanumeric characters and dashes (-). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Workflow documentation [was: Re: Bug#665980: RFS: evilvte/0.5.1-1 [updated package]]
Hi Sven, On 20.05.2012 16:21, Sven Hoexter wrote: Arno: Could you link that page from mentors.d.n? I'd add it in mentors.d.n/qa in the Getting started section as What does the current workflow look like? we do already include our own copy of these guidelines at [1], which is also shown (mostly) filled-out to sponsorees for their respective packages. Of course we could still add another reference to it in the QA section. [1] http://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainer of GNS3 Missing-in-Action, I volunteer
Hi, On 16.05.2012 00:41, Alexey Eromenko wrote: GNS3 package is Debian has not been updated in the last year, and the Debian maintainer, Erik Wenzel, went MIA. (doesn't answer to emails for last few months) are there any traces of your approaches, e.g. in bug reports publicly available? Having that said, Erik uploaded a package just recently [1] as Charles rightfully said. Uploaded my packages to: http://forum.gns3.net/post15311.html Can you please use a dgetable location at least? [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aggregate/news/20120501T004711Z.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#670176: RFS: kismet/2011.03.R2-1 [ITA]
Hi Nick,
this is a shallow review of your package. Unfortunately I am lacking
experience with CDBS packages and your package is quite complex. Hence I
am unsure if I will sponsor it eventually. That said, I'd love to see
kismet in shape in Debian.
* Please clarify the license of these files in your debian/copyright file:
+ apple80211.h: the header states: From MacStumbler, which is under GPL
+ extra/*: Lacks copyright header. Given all other files do, I suspect
this is by purpose which means it is not known whether these files are
distributable.
+ Likewise for packaging/dpkg* (I would also hope, this script is
burned with fire)
+ Likewise for ruby/*. No fire this time, though
Consider repackaging the tarball if you cannot find any clarifcation
regarding these files as they mostly seem irrelevant to me. Moreover,
please note you are linking against OpenSSL but the package is licensed
under the terms of the GPL-2. However, only a few files do have a
OpenSSL linking exception. Note, the GPL is not compatible to the
OpenSSL license [1]. Ask upstream for clarification on that matter.
* Where does this package come from? Did you base your work upon the
Ubuntu package? I'm asking because of kismet (2008-05-R1-4.3build1)
precise; urgency=low for the previous upload. If the only difference to
the Debian version is this Ubuntu binNMU, please remove this changelog
stanza.
* What is debian/kismet-plugins-restricted.install? These refer to a
binary package you don't build. Were they split to a non-free package
previously? If yes, what did change to make this split unnecessary?
License of the plugin-ptw/* stuff seems DFSG free to me (but it is
listed in kismet-plugins-restricted as
debian/tmp/usr/lib/kismet/aircrack-kismet.so I think).
* Please fill out copyright headers of debian/po/templates.pot properly.
While you are it, the po translation files are not complete. Moreover,
do not prompt in question style in debconf templates. Formulate the data
you want to get from the user in an open way (give me $foo:).
* You do not depend on adduser, but you use it in your postinst
maintainer script. Same for libcap2-bin and setcap. Moreover, the
maintainer script does not look very sane. See [2] and policy §6.5 [3]
to see how maintainer scripts are invoked and change it to something
properly. I am referring to the way you are determining whether you are
upgrading. Do also set -e in your maintainer scripts.
* Likewise you are blindly adding users provided by user input to
usermod like this:
for x in ${RET}; do
usermod -a -G $GROUP $x
done
You should at least verify whether the supplied user(s) exists before
passing random inputs to usermod.
* The postrm script looks acceptable, but note it is consensus not to
remove users anymore once created. There is no safe and sane way to
determine whether the site administrator hijacked the created group on
purpose.
* Maybe you should bump the debhelper compatibility to v8.
* Consider writing man pages for your binaries lacking these.
* Lintian says:
E: kismet: su-wrapper-without--c usr/share/applications/kismet.desktop
su-to-root
E: su-wrapper-without--c
N:
N: The menu item command or desktop file uses an su wrapper such as
N: su-to-root without the -c flag. This is a syntax error.
N:
N: Refer to the su-to-root(1) manual page for details.
N:
N: Severity: important, Certainty: certain
N:
N: Check: menu-format, Type: binary
[1] http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/MaintainerScripts
[3]
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-mscriptsinstact
--
mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Arno Töll, BSc.
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Wavecon GmbH | Ludwigstrasse 2 | 90763 Fuerth
Web: wavecon.de | Mail + Jabber a...@wavecon.de
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#672394: RFS: ipset/6.12-1 -- administration tool for kernel IP sets
tags 672394 + moreinfo owner 672394 ! thanks Hi Neutrom, this is a review of your package ipset. * Do not set DM-Upload-Allowed: yes on your own. It's your sponsor's domain to do so. It's hard enough to find sponsors as is, no need to scare off even more potential sponsors by adding DMUA for packages which show up on debian-mentors without prior agreement. * You declare the debhelper compat[ibility] to be 9, but you build depend on debhelper (= 9). Please use a version which actually supports the finalized level 9. That is 9.20120115. * Do not start with uppercase characters in libipset-dev's description. You did it correctly for the other binary package, though. * Why do you use dh_autoreconf? You do not patch automake stuff and a brief test seems to confirm it is not needed. * Are you sure about the location of the binary in the file system? iptables is in /sbin, why do you install ipset to /usr/sbin? I am willing to sponsor your package if you fix the fist two concerns at very least. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#672133: [pkg-bacula-devel] Bug#672133: RFS: webacula/5.5.1-1 [ITP]
Hi Luca, On 14.05.2012 13:48, Luca Capello wrote: Changes since the last upload: * Initial release (Closes: #614554). I would say that you should close this bug as well ;-) Should i close it now or only after package will be builded and uploaded? I would add both numbers to the line above, so when the package will be uploaded both bugs are *automatically* closed. note, by convention we discourage sponsorees to close their own RFS bugs in debian/changelog. If someone (e.g. you) uploads the package it's not the maintainer to close the bug by uploading the package, but the sponsor (i.e. you). Thus, we would like sponsors to close the bug along their notice that they have uploaded the package which the sponsor is likely going to send anyway. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: is wheezy frozen already?
On 15.05.2012 00:26, Charles Plessy wrote: when the NEW queue is long, this leaves us some time to make a pre-review to ease the work of the FTP team, by reducing the number of errors they have to deal with. how would you do that, given packages in NEW aren't publicly accessible on purpose? Yes, I realize debian/copyright is shown on [1], but the most time consuming part of NEW processing (I guess) is to verify whether a debian/copyright file actually reflects the state being of a package. You know it's not like people write into debian/copyright sorry, not distributable by Debian. Your idea only makes sense for packages going through mentors.d.n where you can actually access them beforehand I fear. [1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#667902: RFS: downtimed/0.5-2
Hi, is there still anything left to come from you? -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: how to adopt a non-orphaned package?
Hi, On 25.04.2012 11:28, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: Sadly this is exactly the case when inactive maintainer had his packages sponsored so there is no information in database. you can try to NMU it as a start. There are lots of fixes and patches available in the BTS which are worth to be included in Debian. Just obey the usual NMU rules for now (i.e. don't do things like Jari does in #668077 for your targeted package which is sadly what he regularly does). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Modifications of the changelog.
On 21.04.2012 09:35, Charles Plessy wrote: are there concrete problems caused by modifying previous changelog entries ? I do it from time to time, of course not when the diff has to be carefully inspected by others as it would be a distraction, and I have not found it causing breakages. The whole point of a changelog is a time dependent frozen point of view at your package. Once you released a version of a package, you should consider it untouchable as it would confuse people _a lot_ if you force them to read a full backlog of changes every time they upgrade because you /could/ have modified more than the latest entry. Generally speaking it may be ok-ish in important cases to change previous entry if you restrict yourself to spelling fixes and formating changes, but it is completely unacceptable [to me, at least] to reformulate entries, add entries, remove entries and such. Of course that's nothing which should be advocated on a mailing lists where the purpose of it is to assist people to make proper, well made and clean packages. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669609: sponsorship-requests: NMU mod-gnutls/0.5.10-1.1
Hi, On 21.04.2012 09:22, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote: Fixed the isues and uploaded a new version it looks all fine now. Please file a NMU bug so that I can sponsor your upload afterwards. You can use the nmudiff tool to assist you filing such a bug. I would upload to DELAYED/7. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669609: sponsorship-requests: NMU mod-gnutls/0.5.10-1.1
owner ! tags +moreinfo thanks Hi Bastiaan, please rework your changelog. Only by reading the changelog I wouldn't know why it would be appropriate to NMU it. Did you try to contact the maintainer? The problem was reported yesterday. On 20.04.2012 14:11, Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg wrote: * Fix default-tls file for apache Added default-tls file (Closes: #558232) * Fix configure: *** memcache library not found. added build-depensie to libapr-memcache-dev (Closes: #497097) * apache2-dev is releplaced by apache2-threaded-dev There is a typo. Moreover, you should mention the two bugs this fixes. * upgrade to standards-version 3.9.3 don't do this in a NMU. Please send an updated package and I'll see what I can do, given I broke it at the first place. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669609: sponsorship-requests: NMU mod-gnutls/0.5.10-1.1
Hi, On 20.04.2012 22:02, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote: The nmu is about #497097 I realize that, but I won't NMU a package because of a less severe bug. I will, however, because you accidentally fix a serious bug along (but you don't mention this in the changelog, see #667626 and #669476) unless the maintainer steps in first. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669609: sponsorship-requests: NMU mod-gnutls/0.5.10-1.1
Hi, On 20.04.2012 22:27, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote: Do you want me the change the changelog also ? Yes, of course you should mention things you fix in an upload. Moreover, you shouldn't push the standards version in a NMU. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669609: sponsorship-requests: NMU mod-gnutls/0.5.10-1.1
Hi,
now, that you've updated your package I finally reviewed it. These are
my comments:
* Do not set urgency=high. There is no point in doing so unless you fix
a critical security issue.
* There is an invalid changelog.dch file left over. Please remove it.
* Do not modify previous changelog entries, especially not in NMUs. I
mean this hunk:
mod-gnutls (0.5.10-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release (Closes: #602957)
- -- Jack Bates ms...@freezone.co.uk Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:38:29 -0700
+ -- Jack Bates ms...@freezone.co.uk Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:38:29 -0700
+
* It's acceptable to update the DEP-5 URL since you are going to work on
the package anyway. However, mention this in your changelog.
* In the default-tls file, please remove extra white spaces (line 1,
line 4, line 41 and line 42)
* Remove the /doc alias and associated configuration from the
default-tls file. See DSA 2452-1 for more background on that
* Do not hard code the error log path in the very same file. Instead use
${APACHE_LOG_DIR} as a prefix. Likewise for the access.log.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] how to create a debian watch file for tarballs hosted on the OBS.
Hi, On 16.04.2012 16:35, Adrian Schröter wrote: Am Samstag, 14. April 2012, 20:01:49 schrieb Paul Elliott: How to create a watch file for a tarball found on the OBS (Open Build Service). What is a watch file? Where is it defined and what exactly is it supposed to do? A watch file is a file within a Debian source package which is describing based on URL patterns where upstream release tarballs can be found and retrieved. This is useful to track upstream development and get notified if a new release was published. The file is being read by uscan(1) [1] and other Debian core services. [1] http://manpages.debian.net/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=uscan -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Upload to mentors.debina.net disappeared without a trace.
On 16.04.2012 23:26, Paul Elliott wrote: Uploading libreoffice-converter_3.3-2.debian.tar.gz: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/dput, line 926, in module ... File /usr/lib/python2.7/socket.py, line 553, in create_connection for res in getaddrinfo(host, port, 0, SOCK_STREAM): socket.gaierror: [Errno -2] Name or service not known err, as much as I like to get the blame, but /this/ is not a problem we're responsible for. Both, HTTP and FTP uploads are generally working and your problem appears to be local. The problem is either dput (although I couldn't reproduce it) or there is something broken with your network connection. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Upload to mentors.debina.net disappeared without a trace.
Hi, On 15.04.2012 09:39, Paul Wise wrote: Please consider using HTTP to upload since it results in immediate feedback. just for the record: That's not true anymore. Both, FTP and HTTP uploads are simply queued and being imported by a dedicated importer now. Thus the upload hash we used to use is not used anymore either. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#667902: RFS: downtimed/0.5-2
Hi,
On 10.04.2012 13:15, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
I have not
used the switch --export from dpkg-buildflags. Thus version 1.15.7
is the correct level.
You are right. I wasn't looking careful enough.
and in addition insserv is never admitting the new starting links
in /etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/S??downtimed. Ideas to resolve this?
In my experience you can hint insserv by using X-Start-Before/Stop-After
if the usual dependencies do not seem to result in the order you hope to
get.
I want to keep this in order
to have the service detect a booted system at the earliest possible
time.
Yes, your explanation makes sense and I agree to get downtimed to be
started as early as possible. I was just hoping to avoid the override, I
guess you will try to address that a bit more, let me know if you do not
find a way to achieve that in proper LSB headers.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#667902: RFS: downtimed/0.5-2
owner 667902 ! tags 667902 +moreinfo thanks Hi Mats Erik, as promised a took a look at your package. I am willing to sponsor you if you address these corrections: * You use dpkg-buildflags but you didn't declare a versioned build-dependency against dpkg-dev which explicitly supports --export *FLAGS (1.16.1 I think). My rule of thumb is to declare build-dependencies against build-essential packages if you use features not satisfied in stable. Otherwise you break backports and such without notice. * Please document why you are overriding init.d-script-possible-missing-stop. For the other Lintian tag you override I can see your point, but I personally wouldn't bother since you require $remote_fs in start anyway. If you want, that's fair enough. * Not sure about your rationale to override dh_installinit either. The whole point of LSB headers is to determine the dependencies out of them. Otherwise you did good work as I used to know from you. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#667902: RFS: downtimed/0.5-2
Hi, On 07.04.2012 12:42, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: downtimed - monitor of downtime, shutdown, and crashes this sounds quite interesting. I'll likely have a look at this at some point this weekend unless someone beats me on it or Sven finds time. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ITAs on packages you intend to remove
Hi Adam, On 03.04.2012 11:37, Adam Borowski wrote: Should I bother you with sponsoring an upload fixing the FTBFS (with the package likely going away soon), file a RM immediately, or ignore it for now? A removal is not conclusive. A package can be reintroduced anytime if someone cares enough for it. Thus I'd suggest you to file a RM bug, point out reasons why the package should be removed and stop bother (don't forget to update the WNPP bug). If someone cares enough he can re-upload the package later as said. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -- 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/4f7acbdd.7060...@debian.org
Re: Bug#667092: RFS: tcng/10b-4 [RC, QA]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Adam, On 04.04.2012 00:50, Adam Borowski wrote: * Orphan the package. if your intention is to orphan the package you should set the maintainer to Debian QA Group packa...@qa.debian.org, too. I didn't look any further but this was drawing my attention. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPe4H8AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtAjQP/14wpz+D/ErD7WOPdFwmIsCe dQuYmtPOTeSKIuzyt5hR14tl8+fI0FRNVEqLhhlqSryB5wefCNbH/xLEYcKlIi8X G8PnxIwV2zLcQmiWoGg4ntv/D6or2sWXWO0UTcAhWbQTzKxhOmT0bae7O9YFD0uv /A5C/a9k84164f/zRutWTSWuqd2tSHHGhohsg64/CGJhFoaWgPmTGezici9Z6dFO eM8X7rXwk3rSaX99yfOCalCDQxdHI4HTtMmVrudJ0QXpNsgaUb5fKdZkPFVwRxsl 90p4Ircl0xUDlcxAVFA1xgWlUogIIYuuLv8CztC9TtsSAtNM5sLI9XbKdKsjYroT 62CE7WXMCOscbyQ8111F9xFDfBY++cKwkARP/ywekU/k2D5Dc8Dou5r0cXVMmWDr lX5UexLkXx09nZFTOxLq9DPQHjUZ7E8mAnI9ImtZ5XYWeDLFcEmILdACLyeBfBSn QDBmWFiClbLDAosWP0EocsEbFwPAkHY/qabIqsLXb74u+OXR2MrxqR5cMqVNUrOw mbiWMk2IBgzfru1A6Xq0Dk7KoMM/hDWZM8GergFMD1+azDiCaXEeOaPaO4gUtJkX O1PObH+z5Ul9cSzvDKkD7TUqLS9DWw3lr6FNasjPd5pEGWVeC6YlGvEhXz3sRZ3c SsaHcbBBCTJWa2xdu/CM =cTJ+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f7b81fc.2040...@debian.org
Re: Signing a .deb later?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Christopher, On 04.04.2012 01:01, Christopher Howard wrote: So, my first question: Is there some nifty command or trick to (properly) GPG sign a .deb package /after/ I've finished making it? [..] but I'm not sure what the proper procedure would be. you can use debsign(1) to sign packages. However, you seem to misunderstand some concepts. .debs aren't signed, the meta-data is (e.g. the .dsc and .changes files). If you want to publish these to a private repository you offer, this signature is irrelevant to apt and such, instead the archive-wide meta-data needs to be signed (there are tools like reprepro which can help you to achieve that). This can, but does not need to be same key. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPe4XOAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtlacQAJBdfRGIf/rPtoiYn84LJ6Nu niEE+a/PO8FHCPEMYqT7M2lnV3u2G6+cIS1/mKrBzkaws0aGxeeh319BH2jiSYHb SyV9nqRaO29HGGLJJJQ/Bb23CiF0CiH1V7Rpcwuk7X5/rDsgEyplQB2jGjTyD0mt AIHn94EQmNKbaMotdv5wVB40s4z5ZgNjAFc6KHpeR9H/FMEi2SHowLo1VW0K/Col zy6IKZim0wNuQRT+yhsu6OIMzjLNk/P6xCLWUEhAFoXAxs5gl42Y40p61SioFVqt FFSVJoj5aazqLnTiH70Sai76IzYE/bFNHqDwlIlFzlJIuYg3q5z8fFuZoEOyNc8q JitPJGJFCysxXNVfE0IJr5Cy1dtl9hwKqBYCkRiqPnctgjiHeIXV64hUQDnqYJHA R1nUigNXmNwxVnjrvhPo5K3BO3Cz7KOwkQvTMF887iPg6cQW0WzNzYbi85aHW9s4 +ZRYhBCvWFbuLHAHGffDEn3StbNAZAilstii0MVX725VcaJucGdRGaDSwAlnBvQ3 WjZNHcSNdHCCJ62/vwoNQbod32zMa4x7eiGemCxqyyof5Q5boAUOwgRi3S6Rec5e m7kmX8DmALvvkF81E95HwaObfemMRZNn0HMcAKUPbZBA60FK6WWqntVUi3uw3K/r w4fQG76+nXobDRFp/G5N =U9Sb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f7b85ce.1060...@debian.org
Re: Bug#667092: RFS: tcng/10b-4 [RC, QA]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Adam, On 04.04.2012 01:19, Adam Borowski wrote: Lintian now complains: W: tcng source: changelog-should-mention-qa but this seems wrong -- it's this very upload that is orphaning the package; lintian has no real way to know that, though. Just add * QA Upload to the changelog entry to make Lintian shut up. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPe4YTAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNth/0P/2oUrjlQtuuag25fBYB5nz4g hzcU3CV9ruyY6zs5xPf9IMHYxSBfrE81T4wXijp4X8KlHriqgDzlMNtcF87cxsC7 d6AzxSEbtHIfVZdV5zY/VcFccoOAuQIXdISsOtdh75OjZ2DYMDHCOmOskg26o/i8 83zvQKjxBwnnkud9ODLhRa6L8B8zgMXPcbHKfGMTAvpafINyLaqcpKoAmnFa3vLE CCbmSUOFFQC22ryaH70CHprTWHTxYoAmHEPFzZVqi39TvfXHUX3NxSew0+tHKQ+f InqDls/KTn0/kIkSqfIfL0G8ovDHt7cyU0CCaaAz6JtLg58gibGa3fLlZVM/d+7H +AWP4iMHHurdaJI7jx8+wAfy+x1nR4TMEq58/5b+drIWSN+fR+Do4LFKhoG0YE7r rMrUFmkVs1o5QAh/zRHP9mUu3polGGZkDYSr2GIj5tUZWOEpMx6f4aKX7URynDnZ x9GCnNCMEuN18FagdQoM1KK15Jhh4UMzziwUa6SYYTi9G6FdtVQQpXXPOjxbKI/o oRROGjG+lQEgugN9ICCB6S5/8CPg/PTekJG0KdBuweWCthSRAWY4/aUSpZhBiCh5 UD2CGU7yGro6z/LuSGul+8PS2hLXNta3b6ZBMx4PVMtqrO7+x4AnKJy3RvNRkPyK 4ivO1QhF5iXxq3Yve2nM =heWQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f7b8613.1070...@debian.org
Bug#665823: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.7-1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Nigel, On 26.03.2012 14:05, Nigel Jones wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package libapache2-mod-geoip thanks for your contribution. As I can't sponsor packages, take the following hints as a review only: First, let me inform you, you should prepare another version of your package which works with Apache 2.4, available in experimental. That one is going to replace Apache 2.2 in Debian Sid pretty soon. However, this breaks all module packages and they need some source tweaks. Please read [1][2][3] for more information about this as this is going to affect you really soon. I think it would be best to get this version into Wheezy now, and focus on the 2.4 module package afterwards, perhaps even by doing an upload to experimental. mod_geoip probably does not work without GeoIP database installed. You should recommend the geoip-database at least. I realize there are proprietary databases available, thus my suggestion to use a weaker recommends constraint. Do you have any public version control system to maintain your package? If yes, add Vcs-Browser and Vcs-(Git|Svn|...) fields to your control file. In your maintainer script you should call a2enmod/a2dismod with the -q argument. And while you're at it you could perhaps safe some CPU cycles by changing the shell to /bin/sh (you need to avoid bashisms then of course). Your debian/rules file looks fairly ok, but wasn't updated in this century. Maybe upgrade to the newer short dh format which makes it much less probably that you're forgetting something or your package breaks in a unforeseeable future. Maybe you could also omit the last sentence in the package description as we're not shipping anything but Apache 2 since almost a decade or so. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg00013.html [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Apache/PackagingFor24 [3] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-apache/apache2.git;a=blob;f=debian/PACKAGING;hb=next - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPcHIeAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtDeIQAM535PKtLP0gf3SiktOHX6bo NjlSN7jpz9FSihZ929lsmtbafW/SLe9H48RKjlEk691jFw6KvJXhs5l+ga2VPisv lRSj+0QNi46J03iCnqvlCqt2OKP2hw48fyllPmHzW0O8ZnRPt61ITvEwLLcRc1+I KAMrPaZnZkbpLvQMrXthjvyeV4VyHTjgxsWyoIwgJURQjevv61WhSMbzu5xFCqGu WVgdikswLXkwRZQoBDMtwdZ5fQxJ7TITRqBiMFiVOcRZkCaM77yEDEfe+Fj5uEDf WAU3f6qPYVjpM3niGfCp15NKyUF23wktpwcRd+kn51WfjXZ5jeeWKXVrbodGlxI4 TeSOZpjWfw5JAnksn8rmMt3glcyI3JNLxnumMnCQSyPu0KD8XFf3sj57p0OIWVFv /7v+dGjjs8Gui7cSYlqCFn0fnCZzQKGIMHiNLgzFiNPddcoEL++15gFXrt7+EZI9 Vw/yNRKQVrbrKd8IkAS7RPOIjE+/4Q/8AMYgAkQRzme/dLui4q/Ovqduus9FjLAf PuwiDoFUFn/S4h4zGFGcjjrF+xHoZS/HvBE5C0TKJ+Tt+CTBXVB3kSlaWB4PZQcP TsKE28suYrypKFVGEyeiCcjUD+zh0SITiZiNQMvun2BOuuJgBsRInyRyasoG7waI RqDrECJaljsypevyO4C2 =CjWl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f70721e.2040...@toell.net
Re: Bug#665823: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.7-1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nigel, On 27.03.2012 00:52, Nigel Jones wrote: The database stanzas are commented out completely (and I'm not going to change this behaviour), and not having them installed will not cause issues for Apache installations. Well, but letting it commented out or not, mod_geoip relies on that that database and not having any database around makes mod_geoip a void no-op module. That should be expressed by means of package relations. I guess that could be a fairly unsettled user experience otherwise. Everything else I mentioned are fairly nitpicking suggestions I admit. Moreover you can ignore me anyway, as you don't need to convince me as I can't sponsor you after all. :) - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPcQCLAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtY44P/RPog/KNpzXIt5orG9H9w7FG Z5cyaBaA3IMUAgnPBoukoU755Uyh4xISZfx9PidsxL0EZK1AyUOqC5eCEwdhgFBY 2maLsl7+FEN/WtoClp/Ug7AZ58dKpZ3+aodnweAprwiaE8iet8PNSYlO0SkSKc/6 8JP+2d8N+GZlANogeejsWGZBveE+hLGhXaNlZ2p9cylI/cgPsyKjB4F3LXaYhTLF kfoxzkLZDNMNeRQrDOa/Fi9UpmzfJZWiic1HtLvO/9NSiwWSXeuzJzvqED3HovoZ L3Q1AzFVJR5yCZfGfrkzKThiNm4xF5dt3WmvKH2ifFtKcUb+l+pBVn9LbQ+uetzn lUgrurYI5aaFaFoak/CsweznM5eXTdYmwv4vPaUN5nyHDxq+axGEL/eyT1VDXiwy Nu/SZkC01owmVk9GzU3YDv/21be/DhXtCRJIrbtRjbMkzQAtLYJJpIvgDMSywBJ1 16ohHk+Pzkt/PL0al2/AAn+Hsv0/A6b10a5Z3Ed0wgZugjitfTDv/GiG8b6ncggW 5Gs4mDumARDYHUyrXem5Vr/kwiMegUOiRqu4Irvco6TQE8EFfgjo+h7QfCI6TduF 5Q8T+ytlqNDiwMOyT5TTD4pYnc9vkvG1ibMfBhIyhhsqrZ7Emn8PK3ASr4CItUYi mxB4Y4i4NvwvjImymAus =xh16 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f71008b.9060...@toell.net
Bug#665823: RFS: libapache2-mod-geoip/1.2.7-1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nigel, On 27.03.2012 00:52, Nigel Jones wrote: The database stanzas are commented out completely (and I'm not going to change this behaviour), and not having them installed will not cause issues for Apache installations. Well, but letting it commented out or not, mod_geoip relies on that that database and not having any database around makes mod_geoip a void no-op module. That should be expressed by means of package relations. I guess that could be a fairly unsettled user experience otherwise. Everything else I mentioned are fairly nitpicking suggestions I admit. Moreover you can ignore me anyway, as you don't need to convince me as I can't sponsor you after all. :) - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPcQDMAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtxCkQAMQy2cUh08a/KwyKRKHpKkZv XbWoOzdFAxPQlQkVc7smHRlRj/Racj9nwrvo0S/L+lktR5jv4FskQqUee28dp81z 1EcHKUnDxB9NSlGEU3yb8UiUrnGOF7h05UGdEoIiapukA1LUVIruU3QdhbxDV56E a6TQkynYULZmhSQErYKodEx8l7vvYS77vItsjCVmmrkUR6BV100SnAZz2oV3zK6B 59TJVefl2IfR8+yaE43BIuQsAg6PG/rdRWJtnnc47DNc2X6iZeXVlD1wvEX1eWan Y76FebWysH1g5nuJ77RxWZojSbEieX6pcpz0UZfUXsRbBq5R/MH+D4TDLXx+Qicp r8QdSqXSHbSiz/YdK3wJedgXItKmUnb906Y2ZbUs+fy6GhY0rKYlRBSTt8069kJg C7xifSMqhrpgNp58/ZzaDRS/V94hixuwIYpAhPL6iuoAqiKFkIw3p/IgcnNjLtxH 9Xp2Sf2ZxItWtl0q47W4KbS2pJl1z/hOX0rjCx7FbpUTzznj1Dlneu4k4fgYC+b7 UZqMe3iwfKJgu0lQ+sDotTB6BSeuCmVCJ5E+ZtkB5MIKmb2RUa+vISxoqE7ORg6D uLSpcBCY6FlEL25xNwJYbm0RP5jdf2xMfNALcspr6XEfNnBrGPiv7e6URFk2N/dY 11Z6ObToRQFwHOYRd6cb =4zcu -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f7100cc.2040...@toell.net
Re: How to provide a helper script to be sourced by maintainer scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Malte, On 25.03.2012 14:29, Malte Forkel wrote: Actually, I had read those before my post. I'm afraid I still don't see where they describe how to handle an extra script like the one I'm thinking about. Well you covered the problems pretty well already. To use such a library, it must be guaranteed to be present on your system. You can achieve that by depending (or even pre-depending if you need preinst/prerm scripts) but there is no guarantee at all for postrm/postinst scripts. Once you realized that, you can think how to make it available to your package. There your solution to depend on another package sounds feasible (and, well, over-engineered). As another alternative which comes me in mind is a pseudo-shared library. You would put the common functions into debian/maintscripts-common and copy its contents at build time to a defined position in your maintainer script (e.g. just like debhelper does with #DEBHELPER#). - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPbxFEAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtXuQP/jICuWA8nTt9/B01pRuPGro5 Ydboc4UnqgVSD+LAdN+nr0HplBGdJRc/TXeFD0zTcy/JePbgCBAvWJd9aOMZ7KUl dD9hj8abxSb2uLQBZq1cJycGkowZ9x9FUf8j2c8g9xKvWao2ZGGy4TX+PjCskhK2 Oux7FWF59pamn4nsfq24wRIe3QHPiTB/LCET/cSHWXY7Q/pordmRnOPwu6GYA5jV Pylx194jAyDh722I724DLeQUTXNLttLcE4sYEGF8gbJeIjwceGYflaa1mWKLHmAx sFo6MARZh20sijZW0dzJ9A+2d00VGmc9ASxr6szlVKwkO9wXo+aeNDu7yLtWRKCK szWWR2pKwHZJT71150noGMRyq4W6H/LSTdGDna8aq4SNQ4Nt1OezGxlRwhGxayZ6 e4sX0S/DEiustxqG5jF5P1W8hNDxtyn+EcwRKCqcyQsuuevxAhElg9MgomDb/PlL YDNrht7FYzbum0fllDTCjYMebAh/hFA2mXNAa6keel/H55Fx92d2OWxVAaGvaJP9 EYlvjJBzSmx+oRbT9LWdiN5Cy9eMkMvClQXFqE3EUR0mw7NqJxie8lKjobU7CCey tOloiLv4fb3DLPLyowYU99ZhXPqXU5snwpoa6w6BjSDNqlQHDFSIO+7dejUMVe4O JbEpk36kY3GYNt1QIjAd =UUuC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f6f1144.2020...@toell.net
Re: How to provide a helper script to be sourced by maintainer scripts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 25.03.2012 15:55, Malte Forkel wrote: I know that one of the problems with debhelper is that everyone would like to see a program added to it to handle some special-purpose thing (http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debhelper/). Could it be that dh_maintinsert is something that at least has not been suggested before? Ask Joeyh :) I could imagine dh_installdeb could be taught to parse such a magic line in addition to #DEBHELPER#, but that's up to Joey, really. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPbygIAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNt1QMP/24WxW0XEC6VrL2H1MBdKbML ZnP7VUKDkm6rTs63YHm0ApQF5OsgE5DlatmzWBfPN73J2tOkftR74vpn/92WJpXu 9P9IQegRYACj/lZ+tl7RvuPg6HY+WnBZyp29Uj+rNocpINlSphRDE1OC2nQ56zNm WumpHJPK6gAEV8zvZPWpa2AsgaTgaPJ0kNkig8PuiDAb0/D2FepLhkGek0tJi9vh tQY1O5u9MwJvOco33jtnDNXk4T11sgX8oNsyArWYDaG1zQNtR6Q8psrEt00v7DpK KAJdp5ueS6DmkqGTumka1/I8cYmkt57rZzBbVhavFdWWXlktjOWIDQ8hMNTxYvfY Db8kA+/AA5UhX9UGfYciVoWxRS0Gy1Mc6DKCYQUK3OYUVBmrUfr4bvD+s0KHP64G K+S9PTN1lalmv38eGaMiQ8xpY7dCWYlSf/iQHKg3HrxmYT/OFSI2knzKSukUV6jJ t9igmcC9xA8DVIGFTy5ooMP3Lkumf3QNsJBixp9k8+tZOQ+ktuZUe7o6TSwgZaE7 M2zWmCV+QxquAsrooUJSmFTD938qpclZvuSEuGVrafSq1tLf9JSh3cKpZU88tQRC FOb9gzzzKqjECELsCVT/2mKj+Xi/JSPYiQIaSNOElyn31W251LRRB8bjpre0qy9q 3DlRRwh6SQdMgJHaQ1Kk =4O1A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f6f2808.6080...@toell.net
Re: A Review Mentor team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, On 15.03.2012 18:50, Thomas Goirand wrote: A sponsor would, on his side, select what type of tags he is interested in. For me for example, I'd be selecting server type of software, so I'd for example select system::server. Then I would receive on my mail all request for sponsoring server related RFS only, saving me the loss of time browsing -mentors which is flooded with X-Window / GUI software that I care less about. that's exactly what we're working on. Or rather: We'd like to work on. See [1] and [2][3]. Other than that I've been working on consolidating sponsoring guidelines [4] to allow DD's to give certain preferences of packages they care for. Of course we have many people to improve the Debexpo code base, but less manpower ... [1] http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#Semantic_Package_Review_Interface_for_mentors.debian.net [2] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313252group_id=100127atid=413115 [3] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=313253group_id=100127atid=413115 [4] http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7996/bootstrap40.png - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPYjIhAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtiP0P/RvfDMZpvoqgyYin6FOBWpdl aVK1RB52Lqg4X9r/hqh4pIkRpU2/M6ruucTYlnEc28TvvOEUKvSStkcXVFc6Nqxi CLAnoYOFzb1H9OqPAkloe/OVo17jmktPjuXgn4QcbBcrEKvWZLNCDS7iOjMsFdAN AaBiLzseA5xii7fWE82WjcmDeZXNTxguHRzC76pAMDPQcrQYXIBiMzvgCax8RVyI uy+nI0SZ93pNSYNcVY9ljm7vdmuU2aubkfLW8Kj9indFJKW6yXw6r9cD4itVpzKG joYDW0nIagbk/3VcbEJKcM+HSy7sWh7p48ZaKws3O1gm5vBu2GthzI89Chss9alR 4+QGUnA1FZEO9UFJYFj2TER3iZ8bQIAopO5PL/vBAz9LqfUYyxUcGdblKJqEvwhg YsqtdeUBp5VczX1fNAXLoljQiKdDrLCv1QkT8PTSIAXLp5DXZOdAAedFRYg0liaZ XTVKCjf6gqLzyAH3C0yMIsIIKE9R9ThmbX15C15+DoVj1nO96jursI2iv3cis3hZ QYxrYXuz0MGNmPc3HZzZJog70DpjIfno9dfw/wUG4jvhev+gYeUH1DI5lq/5PEZV zkwR8MTFCc+3mGbFxhNC3rYMDxJzamZCRW0oqf/FV0euMFkcPS4dNl9lwDspxHHy ITHZQl1lCySX7aXzKlr0 =Cayq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f623221.9090...@toell.net
