Bug#940070: RFS: wolfssl/4.1.0+dfsg-1 [RC] -- wolfSSL encryption library
Hi Felix, > 'license-file-needs-no-entry-in-debian-copyright'. I will send you a > Lintian merge request with a suggestion. Thanks. I think it is often a sign of people just blindly grepping for "Copyright". I've even seen some d/copyright with placeholder "Acme, Inc", "Yoyodyne, Inc." or even "FIXME"... Let me know when you have a new package ready. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#940070: RFS: wolfssl/4.1.0+dfsg-1 [RC] -- wolfSSL encryption library
Hi Felix, > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wolfssl/wolfssl_4.1.0+dfsg-1.dsc Did you spot the unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright Lintian warning? Indeed, remarking of the copyright of the copyright notice itself is really superfluous and just introduces noise into debian/ copyright IMHO. Happy to upload once this is resolved. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#932866: RFS: elpy/1.29.1+40.gb929013-1 -- Emacs Python Development Environment
tags 932866 + pending
thanks
Hi Nicholas,
> I tagged a new upstream snapshot which included my spelling fix, and
> defends against broken tests that upcoming parso/jedi updates will
> cause (78aea0e).
Neat; uploaded.
> The new grammar and spelling errors will be resolved in the next
> Debian upload based off of a stable upstream release.
Sure thing. Would seem a poor use of one's efforts to patch these
locally, after all...
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#932866: RFS: elpy/1.29.1+31.ge61540b-1
Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > I have commented on mentors.debian.net. > > Replied :-) As have I... Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#932866: RFS: elpy/1.29.1+31.ge61540b-1
tags 932866 + moreinfo thanks Hi Nicholas, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elpy". (I have commented on mentors.debian.net.) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: RFC: endorse debian-mentors as entrance to our infrastructure projects
Adrian Bunk wrote: > […] I'm not sure whether this particular sub-thread is salvagable but I thought I might briefly share the below in order that it might prevent parallel cases elsewhere. There exists a particular argument style where one participant in the discussion asks a collection of essentially reasonable "devil's advocate" questions to the group. Whilst this can superfically appear to be an instance of the Socratic method this can unfortunately be inadvertently and subconsciously interpreted as passive-agressive. This is due to the way it can mask provocative positions as "mere" questions but it generally shifts the burden of proof and — as it requires an asymmetric level of energy to "answer" the implied viewpoints — it can make as others feel cornered, leading to a defensive and ultimately unproductive discussion. Naturally, if there was any perception that this tactic was deployed deliberately this will only heighten any antagonism felt by the group. Do note that that it is not necessarily the questions themselves that are considered the problem but rather that the response is constructed predominantly of them. Personally, I have been over-indulgent in using such "devil's advocate" positions in the past, but after some feedback I realised that it did not have the intellectually stimulating quality I was hoping for and merely distanced myself from whom I wished to convince. After reducing my usage and spending moretime & effort adopting alternative modes of argument I found my attempts to connect with and ultimately persuade others to be far more effective. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#929740: RFS: elpy/1.28.0-2
tags 929740 + moreinfo thanks Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/elpy/elpy_1.28.0-2.dsc Uploaded; thanks. :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922951: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.20.1-2~bpo9+1
Hi Nicholas, > Here is another one that has been awaiting sponsorship for a while. Uploaded: Uploading btrfs-progs_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1.dsc Uploading btrfs-progs_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1.debian.tar.xz Uploading btrfs-progs-dbgsym_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading btrfs-progs-udeb_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.udeb Uploading btrfs-progs_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.buildinfo Uploading btrfs-progs_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading btrfs-tools_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfs-dev_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfs0-dbgsym_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfs0_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfsutil-dev_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfsutil1-dbgsym_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading libbtrfsutil1_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading python3-btrfsutil-dbgsym_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading python3-btrfsutil_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.deb Uploading btrfs-progs_4.20.1-2~bpo9+1_amd64.changes Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922938: RFS: python-css-parser/1.0.4-1~bpo9+1
Hi Nicholas, > Done. Updated backport available here: Thanks: $ dput python-css-parser_1.0.4-1\~bpo9+1_amd64.changes Uploading python-css-parser using scp to ssh-upload (host: ssh.upload.debian.org; directory: /srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue/) running allowed-distribution: check whether a local profile permits uploads to the target distribution running protected-distribution: warn before uploading to distributions where a special policy applies running checksum: verify checksums before uploading running suite-mismatch: check the target distribution for common errors running gpg: check GnuPG signatures before the upload SCP is deprecated. Please consider upgrading to SFTP. Uploading python-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1.dsc Uploading python-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1.debian.tar.xz Uploading python-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1_all.deb Uploading python-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1_amd64.buildinfo Uploading python3-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1_all.deb Uploading python-css-parser_1.0.4-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922938: RFS: python-css-parser/1.0.4-1~bpo9+1
Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > If you have a minute would you please sponsor this backport > > > > Please drop the "new-package-should-not-package-python2-module" > > override and move the justification to the changelog. > > > > It should be clear from this tag's description that this is override > > is inappropriate and, IIRC, explicitly not requested. > > > > Oops, I missed that :-$ Just to confirm: you'd like me to make this > change to the stretch-backport (after which it will no longer be a > no-change backport), and also the branch for sid, which would not be > uploaded until buster is released? Sure. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922938: RFS: python-css-parser/1.0.4-1~bpo9+1
Nicholas, > If you have a minute would you please sponsor this backport Please drop the "new-package-should-not-package-python2-module" override and move the justification to the changelog. It should be clear from this tag's description that this is override is inappropriate and, IIRC, explicitly not requested. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#923209: RFS: heaptrack/1.1.0+20180922.gitf752536-3.1 [NMU]
Hi Nicholas, > Maybe it's obvious, but perhaps the developer's reference and > wiki/PackageSalvaging would benefit from the addition of "Things to do > before NMUing…for a team maintained package, […] It's a > trivial bit of work I'd be happy to do... Go for it :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#923209: RFS: heaptrack/1.1.0+20180922.gitf752536-3.1 [NMU]
Hi Nicholas, > Well, I packaged memleax because I couldn't find heaptrack, and when > memleax was abandoned upstream I discovered heaptrack via memleax' > issue tracker. I certainly would agree that this is a bug. That is not the question here. > So are NMUs only justified for fixing RC bugs Yes, or least something of "Severity: important" (or similar in spirit). Our difference, if any, is that I don't feel that is warranted here. :) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#923209: RFS: heaptrack/1.1.0+20180922.gitf752536-3.1 [NMU]
Hi Nicholas,
> heaptrack (1.1.0+20180922.gitf752536-3.1) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> * Non-maintainer upload.
> * Update description to make heaptrack more discoverable to users.
> (Closes: #915241)
>
> -- Nicholas D Steeves Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:44:03 -0700
Whilst I agree about the poor visibility I don't think this
warrants a non-maintainer upload (or even a "normal"-level
severity…) especially during a freeze so I will not be sponsoring
this upload. Apologies.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#920775: RFS: python-css-parser/1.0.4-1 [ITP]
Hi Nicholas, > No one has responded to this RFS since it was filed 12 Jan. Would you > please sponsor and review this NEW package Sure. python-css-parser_1.0.4-1_amd64.changes uploaded. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#918450: RFS: elpy/1.28.0-1
Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > elpy (1.28.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium … uploaded. Regarding: ifneq ($(filter nodoc,$(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)),) echo -e "\nnodoc profile enabled, building without sphinxdoc..\n" dh $@ --with elpa,python3 --buildsystem=pybuild else dh $@ --with elpa,python3,sphinxdoc --buildsystem=pybuild endif ... is there a bug report (or similar?) against sphinxdoc that will do the right thing by default? Very ugly IMHO to do this in debian/ rules and, of course, this essentially has to be copy-pasted into every package that uses sphinxdoc... Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#914856: RFS: elpy/1.26.0-1
Control: -1 tags + pending Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests […] > elpy (1.26.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium > > > > * New upstream version. > > * Drop 0002-Handle-sphinx-warnings-linked-to-indexnode.patch. > > (merged upstream) > Sure: Uploading elpy_1.26.0-1.dsc Uploading elpy_1.26.0.orig.tar.xz Uploading elpy_1.26.0-1.debian.tar.xz Uploading elpa-elpy_1.26.0-1_all.deb Uploading elpy_1.26.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Uploading elpy_1.26.0-1_amd64.changes By the way, thanks for filing: https://github.com/jorgenschaefer/elpy/pull/1503 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#910898: RFS: elpy/1.25.0-1
tags 910898 + pending thanks $ dput elpy_1.25.0-1.dsc Uploading elpy_1.25.0-1.dsc Uploading elpy_1.25.0.orig.tar.xz Uploading elpy_1.25.0-1.debian.tar.xz Uploading elpa-elpy_1.25.0-1_all.deb Uploading elpy_1.25.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Uploading elpy_1.25.0-1_amd64.changes Enjoy. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#909811: RFS: muttrc-mode-el/1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1 [previously part of emacs-goodies-el]
tags 909811 + pending thanks Hi Nicholas, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "muttrc-mode-el". Uploading muttrc-mode-el_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1.dsc Uploading muttrc-mode-el_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a.orig.tar.xz Uploading muttrc-mode-el_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1.debian.tar.xz Uploading elpa-muttrc-mode_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1_all.deb Uploading muttrc-mode-el_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1_amd64.buildinfo Uploading muttrc-mode-el_1.2+git20180915.aa1601a-1_amd64.changes ^ Uploaded, thanks… Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#909057: Fwd: calibre_3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear Mattia, > Sorry for clashing! Not at all; my apologies for doing zero research into why this version already existed - I was going to leave that investigation to Nicholas. (We can close #909057 now, right? Please go-ahead if so…) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#909057: Fwd: calibre_3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
tags 909057 - pending thanks (Forwarding for completeness) - Original message - From: Debian FTP Masters To: la...@debian.org, Norbert Preining , Nicholas D Steeves Subject: calibre_3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes REJECTED Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:04:06 + Version check failed: Your upload included the source package calibre, version 3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1, however stretch-backports already has version 3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1. Uploads to stretch-backports must have a higher version than present in stretch-backports. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#909057: RFS: calibre/3.31.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1
tags 909057 + pending thanks Hi Nicholas, > I am looking for a sponsor for my update to the "calibre" > stretch-backport. Uploaded. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#897072: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.17-1~bpo9+1
Nicholas,
> [I] wrote the attached convenience script ;-) Unfortunately the
> script requires a manual 'apt policy package'
Codswallop. *grin*
How about (untested):
$ rmadison --suite=stretch-backports $(dpkg-parsechangelog -SSource) \
| awk '{ print $3 }' | grep . || echo '0~'
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#897072: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.17-1~bpo9+1
Chris Lamb wrote: > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.17-1~bpo9+1.dsc > > Thanks; uploaded. Ah drat, I did not pass "-v4.13.3-1~bpo9+1" and this hit backports-NEW (ie. possible REJECT coming our way). Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#897072: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.17-1~bpo9+1
Hi Nicholas, > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.17-1~bpo9+1.dsc Thanks; uploaded. > Gianfranco, who usually sponsors these uploads hasn't replied to this > RFS since it was opened in April (I hope he's ok!) Me too. He's about (eg. https://bugs.debian.org/908741) but probably just busy.. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#907914: RFS: elpy/1.24.0-1
Nicholas,
> > If it's an genuine exception that just happens to trigger the
> package regex, then a lintian override could be justified.
>
> Aha! Yes, I agree, that sounds like the best way forward. WRT to
> "genuine exception" shouldn't someone ACK the official section change
> in Bug #900212 before I remove the lint/reminder with an override?
If you are unsure, yes, I would wait.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#907914: RFS: elpy/1.24.0-1
Nicholas, > To address the last TODO list submitted for this package: I have not > yet pursued changes to lintian about the Informational message on > "wrong section". I will ask an Emacsen and Policy team member about > where the appropriate place to pursue this issue would be, because I > believe lintian is currently doing the right thing in providing > Informational-level nagging, as if to say "Are you really sure the > declared section is more appropriate?" Yes, I am certain that section > "devel" is most appropriate for an IDE addon ;-) If it's an genuine exception that just happens to trigger the package regex, then a lintian override could be justified. 11 # docs are not generated without this override 12 override_dh_auto_build: 13 dh_auto_build 14 PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -bman docs/ build/man # Manpage generator … this does not obey 'nodoc' build profile. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#907838: RFS: 2 pkgs once part of emacs-goodies-el: bm-el/201808-1, mutt-alias-el/1.5-1
Nicholas, > If you would still prefer that I not reply post-RFS, please let me > know and I'll stop :-) I don't have any problem with replies per se, I'm just getting the impression from the verbosity of your responses that extensive rationalisations dissecting your thought process that led to something is required. > What approach would you prefer for future RFSs? No strong preference. Staying with the team norm seems more sensible. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#907838: RFS: 2 pkgs once part of emacs-goodies-el: bm-el/201808-1, mutt-alias-el/1.5-1
Nicholas, Please separate upload requests for different packages regardless of their origin. > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bm-el/bm-el_201808-1.dsc Uploaded. For your next upload please address: * Isn't: Files: bm-sync.el Copyright: 2016 Jo Odland License: GPL-2+ .. superfluous, given: Files: * Copyright: 2000-2016 Jo Odland License: GPL-2+ * Standards-Version: 4.2.0 → Standards-Version: 4.2.1 > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mutt-alias-el/mutt-alias-el_1.5-1.dsc Uploaded. For your next upload please address: * s/mutt/Mutt/ in description(s). * Standards-Version: 4.2.0 → Standards-Version: 4.2.1 * Drop DH_VERBOSE=1 * Tidy the long description; there is a de facto standard of sorts for such lists here or at least prettier ones. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#905750: RFS: elpy/1.23.0-1
[Not prematurely sending mail this time] Nicholas, Alas I wrote before, whilst I appreciate the sentiment, please spend any limited time you have for Debian work writing such things in suitable venue(s) and not in an adjunct sponsorship bug. Otherwise I fear the effort expended in such a voluminous and detailed response will be in vain. > > * Please fix "wrong-section-according-to-package-name" on your next > >upload (or otherwise fix Lintian). > > This is currently an Informational level message. When it was a > Warning I declared Section: lisp, even though I do not believe that > this is accurate. Please strive to be Lintian clean not fuss about "warning" about "informational" which are not subject to strict scrutinity and classification by the Lintian maintainers as you seem to infer. > Re: fixing Lintian, this will require a discussion and a more clear > definition of Section: lisp. Most Emacs modes should probably be in > Section: editors, because they are interactive extensions to an > editor. Magit is definitely in the right section eg: vcs. Emacs > packages that enable IDE modes should be in Section: devel. > > Section: lisp should be reserved for libraries like dash-el. This is a topic for elsewhere. > > * gzip -9 might need to be gzip -9n for a reproducible build > >(unchecked) but I'm surprised it's not compressed by another tool > >too (unchecked). > > Thank you for pointing this out. I've reverted @commit:9095c18 > because README.rst is only 2.8k and dh_compress already does the > right thing automatically; that is to say, README.rst is not > "larger than 4k in size" and should not be compressed. ?? I was talking about -n, not -9. Nothing to do with 4k limits but rather reproducibly. > > On the topic of reproducibility, generating an info page made Elpy > unreproducible! > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/elpy.html > > This will take time to look into. Possibilities are: > 1) sphinx-build is at fault > 2) makeinfo is at fault > 3) something is missing how I'm using 1 and/or 2. > - if this is the case then it's also a case of incomplete >documentation Likely #2 or something similar. https://bugs.debian.org/826158? But again, this is really the wrong venue for these 4/5 topics as it will quickly get lost.. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#905750: RFS: elpy/1.23.0-1
Nicholas, > > For your wishlist/TODO: > > > > * Please fix "wrong-section-according-to-package-name" on your next > >upload (or otherwise fix Lintian). > > This is currently an Informational level message. When it was a > Warning I declared Section: lisp, even though I do not believe that > this is accurate. > > Re: fixing Lintian, this will require a discussion and a more clear > definition of Section: lisp. Most Emacs modes should probably be in > Section: editors, because they are interactive extensions to an > editor. Magit is definitely in the right section eg: vcs. Emacs > packages that enable IDE modes should be in Section: devel. > > Section: lisp should be reserved for libraries like dash-el. > > > * You should probably avoid building the documentation too if the > >nodocs build profile is enabled. > > I've added it to my TODO and will start learning about how to do > this. > > > * gzip -9 might need to be gzip -9n for a reproducible build > >(unchecked) but I'm surprised it's not compressed by another tool > >too (unchecked). > > Thank you for pointing this out. I've reverted @commit:9095c18 > because README.rst is only 2.8k and dh_compress already does the > right thing automatically; that is to say, README.rst is not > "larger than 4k in size" and should not be compressed. That's not what I was talking about, ie. "reproducibility". > On the topic of reproducibility, generating an info page made Elpy > unreproducible! > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/elpy.html > > This will take time to look into. Possibilities are: > 1) sphinx-build is at fault > 2) makeinfo is at fault > 3) something is missing how I'm using 1 and/or 2. > - if this is the case then it's also a case of incomplete >documentation > Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#905750: RFS: elpy/1.23.0-1
tags 905750 + pending thanks Nicholas, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elpy" Uploaded elpy_1.23.0-1_amd64.changes. For your wishlist/TODO: * Please fix "wrong-section-according-to-package-name" on your next upload (or otherwise fix Lintian). * You should probably avoid building the documentation too if the nodocs build profile is enabled. * gzip -9 might need to be gzip -9n for a reproducible build (unchecked) but I'm surprised it's not compressed by another tool too (unchecked). Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#905398: RFS: wolfssl/3.15.3+dfsg-2 [RC]
Hi Felix, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wolfssl" Uploaded. In future, please use X-Debbugs-CC instead of an explicit BCC, otherwise I must find the bug number myself in order to respond here. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#902949: RFS: elpy/1.22.0-1
tags 902949 + pending thanks Hi Nicholas, > dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/elpy/elpy_1.22.0-1.dsc elpy_1.22.0-1_amd64.changes uploaded. FYI: * No need for "[ Nicholas D Steeves ]" sections if you are the only person in the changelog. * wrong-section-according-to-package-name lintian warning. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#889854: RFS: lxml/4.2.1-1~bpo9+1 [intent to maintain bpo]
Nicholas,
> It seems like ${python:Depends} is taking care of pulling in
> bin:python-lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1 for
> bin:python-html5-parser_0.4.4-1~bpo9+1, so there's no rush to upload
> an html5-parser_0.4.4-2, no?
It FTBFS if you don't have 3.8.0 installed as the testsuite fails so
won't it fail on the builds?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#889854: RFS: lxml/4.2.1-1~bpo9+1 [intent to maintain bpo]
Nicholas, > > Okay, I've re-uploaded lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes. Did > > html5-parser make it though yesterday? Let me know if not. > > If https://ftp-master.debian.org/backports-new.html is up-to-date, > then no, it didn't. Rebuilt and uploaded html5-parser_0.4.4-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes. You might want to make the following change to the Builds-Depends: - python3-lxml + python3-lxml (>= 3.8.0), > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lxml/lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1.dsc This did make it according to backports-new.html. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#889854: RFS: lxml/4.2.1-1~bpo9+1 [intent to maintain bpo]
Nicholas, Okay, I've re-uploaded lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes. Did html5-parser make it though yesterday? Let me know if not. > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > > calibre-build-deps […] > This issue sounds like "Using backported debhelper considered tricky" > ( https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2018/06/msg00037.html ). Ew. Okay, "fixed" and uploaded calibre_3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#889854: Fwd: lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Not sure what I did... Just forwarding here to keep the converation altogether. - Original message - From: Debian FTP Masters To: la...@debian.org, Matthias Klose , Nicholas D Steeves Subject: lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes REJECTED Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:35:43 + lxml_4.2.1.orig.tar.gz: Does not match file already existing in the pool. binary:python-lxml is NEW. binary:python-lxml-dbg is NEW. binary:python-lxml-doc is NEW. binary:python3-lxml is NEW. binary:python3-lxml-dbg is NEW. binary:python-lxml-doc is NEW. binary:python-lxml-dbg is NEW. binary:python3-lxml is NEW. binary:python-lxml is NEW. binary:python3-lxml-dbg is NEW. source:lxml is NEW. === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#889854: RFS: lxml/4.2.1-1~bpo9+1 [intent to maintain bpo]
tags 889854 + pending thanks Hi Nicholas, (Shame to spend effort where upstream is so toxic, alas...). Anyway, I've uploaded: lxml_4.2.1-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes html5-parser_0.4.4-1~bpo9+1_amd64.changes .. to -backports. Calibre does not install its build-dependencies, even after installing the results of the above builds: dpkg-deb: building package 'calibre-build-deps' in '../calibre-build-deps_3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.deb'. The package has been created. Attention, the package has been created in the current directory, not in ".." as indicated by the message above! Selecting previously unselected package calibre-build-deps. (Reading database ... 24786 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack calibre-build-deps_3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1_amd64.deb ... Unpacking calibre-build-deps (3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1) ... Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies...Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1 Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1 Investigating (0) debhelper:amd64 < 11.3.2~bpo9+1 @ii mK Ib > Broken debhelper:amd64 Breaks on qt5-qmake:amd64 < none -> 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uN > (< 5.9.2+dfsg-8) Considering qt5-qmake:amd64 1 as a solution to debhelper:amd64 7 Added qt5-qmake:amd64 to the remove list Fixing debhelper:amd64 via keep of qt5-qmake:amd64 Investigating (0) qtbase5-dev:amd64 < none -> 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uN Ib > Broken qtbase5-dev:amd64 Depends on qt5-qmake:amd64 < none | 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uH > (= 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1) Considering qt5-qmake:amd64 1 as a solution to qtbase5-dev:amd64 1 Holding Back qtbase5-dev:amd64 rather than change qt5-qmake:amd64 Investigating (0) qtbase5-private-dev:amd64 < none -> 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uN Ib > Broken qtbase5-private-dev:amd64 Depends on qtbase5-dev:amd64 < none | 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uH > (= 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1) Considering qtbase5-dev:amd64 1 as a solution to qtbase5-private-dev:amd64 0 Holding Back qtbase5-private-dev:amd64 rather than change qtbase5-dev:amd64 Investigating (0) calibre-build-deps:amd64 < 3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 @iU mK Nb Ib > Broken calibre-build-deps:amd64 Depends on qt5-qmake:amd64 < none | 5.7.1+dfsg-3+b1 @un uH > Considering qt5-qmake:amd64 1 as a solution to calibre-build-deps:amd64 -2 Removing calibre-build-deps:amd64 rather than change qt5-qmake:amd64 Done Done Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 0 Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 0 Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: e2fslibs qtchooser Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them. The following packages will be REMOVED: calibre-build-deps 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 10.2 kB disk space will be freed. (Reading database ... 24790 files and directories currently installed.) Removing calibre-build-deps (3.26.0+dfsg-1~bpo9+1) ... mk-build-deps: Unable to install calibre-build-deps at /usr/bin/mk-build-deps line 402. mk-build-deps: Unable to install all build-dep packages No time to debug, sorry... > Other URLS: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/lxml > https://mentors.debian.net/package/html5-parser > https://mentors.debian.net/package/calibre Not sure why you linked these. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#900664: RFS: yaml-mode/0.0.13-1 [ITA]
Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "yaml-mode" Uploaded. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#867731: RFS: smart-mode-line/2.11.0-1 [ITP]
Hi Nicholas,
> OTTO documentation
(Hm?)
> I'm thinking about a mini-project that could save a lot of people time and
> that might encourage every maintainer to provide a README.source ;-)
Only if it contains genuinely useful info specific to that package --
would really love to avoid the "boy who cried wolf" with that file.
See, for example, this bug report from 2009:
https://bugs.debian.org/543260
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#900214: RFS: elpy/1.21.0-1
tags 900214 + pending thanks > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elpy" Uploaded. :P) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#867731: RFS: smart-mode-line/2.11.0-1 [ITP]
tags 867731 + pending thanks Nicholas, > If you have time, would you please sponsor this one too? Done. > […] FYI, there is really no need for lengthy explanations, descriptions of the changes and your history with the package here. Indeed, please redirect that effort — if any — into putting documentation into the package itself (changelog?); the comments on this RFS are essentially ephemeral and thus seems a misdirection of well-intentioned effort. Linking directly to the .dsc would be helpful from my point of view, however. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#883218: RFS: elpy/1.20.0-1 [ITP]
Hi Nicholas,
> > Anyway, thank you for your kind comments. Do let me know if/when
> > you have any updates to the package, particularly one that fixes the
> > FTBFS twice-in-a-row.
>
> This was solved in #896998 "python-pip: missing required _vendor
> module. Broken ${python:Depends}?".
Hm? I think you misparsed - your package FTBFS when built twice in a
row right now AFACIT. Nothing to do with tests or pip or anything..
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#880612: RFS: imenu-list/0.8-1 [ITP]
Hi Nicholas, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "imenu-list". It is a > > dependency for the spacemacs packaging effort and should also be a > > recommended dependency for fountain-mode (see blocking bugs for more > > info). Uploaded. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#893919: RFS: yasnippet-snippets/0.2-1
Hi Nicholas, > In the next few days I'll take a second look at src:yasnippet, to see > if there are any quirks that should be imported […] Sure thing. Feel free to email me for sponsorship. :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#883218: RFS: elpy/1.20.0-1 [ITP]
Dear Nicholas, > the experience I gained while investigating them will make diagnosing > potential future autopkgtest failures faster I trust I'm not hearing any kind of apologetic subtext in your reply.. If I look think about anything that I might be vain enough to claim I "know", I usually learnt it when something broke. Or I broke it. :) Anyway, thank you for your kind comments. Do let me know if/when you have any updates to the package, particularly one that fixes the FTBFS twice-in-a-row. This interaction has made me think that a Debian Maintainer application should be on your TODO as well. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#893919: RFS: yasnippet-snippets/0.2-1
Hi Nicholas, > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yasnippet-snippets/yasnippet-snippets_0.2-1.dsc Uploaded :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#893919: RFS: yasnippet-snippets/0.2-1
Hi Nicholas, > If you have time to sponsor it I'd very much appreciate it :-) Link? :) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb, Debian Project Leader `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#884740: RFS: pokemmo/1.4.2-1 [ITP] -- Multiplayer online game based on the Pokemon universe
Hi Tobias, > Description: Installer and Launcher for the PokeMMO emulator > This program downloads and installs the PokeMMO client to a user's home > directory and provides a launcher script for a convientient starting > of the emulator. > . > PokeMMO client is an emulator of several popular console games with > additional features and multiplayer capabilities. > . > This launcher assists with the download, installation, and maintenance > of the game client. LGTM, although would s/Launcher/launcher/. Please additionally mention in debian/copyright at the top why it's in contrib even though it's kinda obvious from the package long description. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#884740: RFS: pokemmo/1.4.2-1 [ITP] -- Multiplayer online game based on the Pokemon universe
Hi Tobias, > I'm not sure if it enough to remove the term from the short description, > but if we need to say something that the installer is a installer and > not the game. To make really clear that there is no connection between > this package and PokeMMO beside that this will download the installer > and bootstrap the game. Why not simply package the game? > (CC'ing chris so that he can share his thoughts.) All of what you wrote sounds pretty reasonable but will hinge on the final result. The more verbose in debian/copyright the better, tbh :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#850704: fortune-zh: please make the build reproducible
lumin wrote: > Control: block -1 by 850704 > > Fixed in 2.1 . Waiting for sponsor now. Many thanks! Trying to upload package to ftp-master (ftp.upload.debian.org) Checking signature on .changes Uploading to ftp-master (via ftp to ftp.upload.debian.org): Uploading fortune-zh_2.1_all.deb: done. Uploading fortune-zh_2.1_amd64.buildinfo: done. Uploading fortune-zh_2.1_amd64.changes: done. Successfully uploaded packages. (btw should this really be a native package?) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#844035: RFS: hylafax/3:6.0.6-7 [RC] -- Flexible client/server fax software
No, it's fine. I am still not 100% sure what happened here though, could you
explain? :)
—lamby
Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> >lets see my test :)
>
> it seems to have worked, let me know if I have to leave it or
> you want me to cancel it
> (I signed the version on mentors)
>
> G.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#844035: RFS: hylafax/3:6.0.6-7 [RC] -- Flexible client/server fax software
Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I would do this to fix:
> $ dcut ftp-master rm --searchdirs -f "hylafax*"
> # wait for dcut
Log of processing your commands file
/dcut.Chris_Lamb__lamby_debian_org_.1479120511.22075.commands:
rm --searchdirs --searchdirs -f hylafax*
-f did not match anything
hylafax* did not match anything
No files to delete
Alas...
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#844035: RFS: hylafax/3:6.0.6-7 [RC] -- Flexible client/server fax software
Chris Lamb wrote: > Well, I've successfully uploaded ~10 packages in the last few days > so I've no idea what is special about hylafax... :/ Oh, it's almost certainly because we already have a package in DELAYED/X from me. I wonder which will end up in the archive. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#844035: RFS: hylafax/3:6.0.6-7 [RC] -- Flexible client/server fax software
Joachim Wiedorn wrote: > It seems the address of the ftp-master changed in > the last time. I read mails of 'debian-announce' > about that: > > ssh.upload.debian.org > ftp.upload.debian.org Well, I've successfully uploaded ~10 packages in the last few days so I've no idea what is special about hylafax... :/ Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#839650: RFS: xloadimage/4.1-24
Dominik George wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version of my package "xloadimage" Uploaded :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#805439: RFS: visualboyadvance/1.8.0.dfsg-3 [RC]
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "visualboyadvance"
[..]
> dget -x
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/visualboyadvance/visualboyadvance_1.8.0.dfsg-3.dsc
Uploaded:
Successfully uploaded visualboyadvance_1.8.0.dfsg-3_amd64.changes to
ftp.upload.debian.org for ftp-master.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#778729: (no subject)
Actually, the upstream project name is git-tools as there's a bunch more utilities included. I dropped three that were obsolete or redundant, and bundled three others, yet the package name I used reflects only what I consider to be the main meat. I would strongly recommend the source package name be git-tools (or similar) to match upstream, even if the binary package is, for example, git-restore-mtime (although even here I am not sure that is wise). Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1424311789.1230025.229501449.52215...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: Modifying existing packages
Matthew Palmer wrote: A quick Google search has found a couple of things that might be of use to you: http://www.joachim-breitner.de/blog/archives/282-How-to-fork-privately.html .. was on Planet earlier this year. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: urbanterror-data
Goneri Le Bouder wrote: I wonder if it's not a better solution to provide a script in the urbanterror package that download urbanterror files. Please don't do this. :( * There is plently of prior art in including large -data packages for games (nexuiz-data, for example). * It's unfair on people with low bandwidth or no internet access, especially as it won't even appear on Debian DVDs. * It bypasses existing mirroring setups, such as local mirrors or APT caches: If I host a LAN party, my local Debian mirror can provide most of the games we want to play at ~50MiB/s. However, if a game package was merely a wrapper, my guests would then start to--perhaps concurrently-- downloading large files from the internet at a relatively awful speed. It would, of course, be possible to provide a means of supplying the file manually instead of downloading, but this is really awkward, and is no better than just providing the .deb of the -data package. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: urbanterror-data
Paul Wise wrote: The ftpmasters (specifically Ganneff) suggested it be done with a download script. Mainly this was because it is non-free anyway. [...] 700 Mb .deb plus 700 Mb duplicated in the orig.tar.gz isn't acceptable Ah, I had assumed it was free software and about the ~100MB mark. I agree with you. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: mother
Antonio De Luci wrote: I have followed your advice, please check the new package. * debian/control seems to have lost its Homepage field. Cyril suggested that you use the dedicated field, which means: Source: mother Section: python [...] Standards-Version: 3.7.3 Homepage: http://example.com/ * The long description in debian/rules (ie. the text beginning Mother is a Python module...) seems to contain a few spelling, gramatical and formatting errors. I would also suggest you split the description into a couple of paragraphs. This is possible by: |Description: foo bar baz | First paragraph. |. | Second paragraph * Should you really be depending on python-psycopg2 | python-apsw? I would guess that these should be Recommends instead. * README.Debian seems to contain instructions on how to build the Debian package, which seems somewhat superfluous and not-very-useful for users. I would suggest completely removing this file. * debian/copyright: Please don't anti-spam email addresses, it makes searching extremely difficult. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Building a package for a web application
liran tal wrote: I've uploaded everything to: http://daloradius.sourceforge.net/packages/debpkg/ From a quick glance: * daloradius_0.9.3.tar.gz includes the immediate subdirs debian/ and usr/ - you should really avoid trying to create a 'native' package. * Wrong 'Architecture:' in debian/control * Incorrect spacing and indentation of description in debian/control * Incorrect punctuation in debian/control * Missing Homepage: line in debian/control * Missing ITP number from debian/changelog * Old debhelper debian/compat compatibility number * 'apache' and 'php' as dependencies is probably not what you want * Freeradius should probably not be a Suggests: * Why does it create a database called 'radius'? Why can't this be the same name of your package? Do you have to create it at all? * Lots of pointless and incorrect stuff in debian/rules. For example, build-stamp ends up in /usr/share/daloradius. * Documentation in /usr/share/daloradius (eg. FAQS, etc.) Regards, -- Chris Lamb GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: truncate
Mike Hommey wrote: Very frankly, this should go into coreutils. Or bsdmaintutils/bsdutils? -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UK GPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Creating a source tarball for repackaged source using dpkg-source -b
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is what you should do *if* you need to repackage upstream source. That is only necessary if it: - contains non-DFSG-compliant material, and you want to upload to main - is not a gzipped tarball - is divided into multiple tarballs It is not necesssary to repackage merely to change the directory name (dpkg-source -x deals with that automatically) or to improve compression. Mmm. Mentors should (and do!) reject packages that have been unnecessarily repackaged by checking their MD5 or SHA1 sums against the upstream version. -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: cakephp
Chris Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package cakephp. I have found a sponsor and the package has been uploaded. Thus I am no looking for a sponsor. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: cakephp
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package cakephp. * Package name: cakephp Version : 1.1.13.4450-1 Upstream Author : Larry E. Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://cakephp.org * License : MIT Section : web It builds these binary packages: cakephp- MVC rapid appplication development framework for PHP cakephp-scripts - additional helper scripts for the CakePHP framework The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cakephp - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cakephp/cakephp_1.1.13.4450-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: trac-bzr
Chris Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package trac-bzr. This has now been uploaded and I am no longer looking for a sponsor. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: trac-bzr
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package trac-bzr. * Package name: trac-bzr Version : 0.2+bzr31-1 Upstream Author : Aaron Bentley [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yann Hodique [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jelmer Vernooij jelmer.at.samba.org, Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : https://launchpad.net/trac-bzr * License : GPL Section : python It builds these binary packages: trac-bzr - provides Bzr version control backend for Trac The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trac-bzr - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trac-bzr/trac-bzr_0.2+bzr31-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libphp-simplepie
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please mention, that you've modified demo/*.php and the reason for it in the changelog. Updated on mentors.debian.net: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libphp-simplepie/libphp-simplepie_1.0beta3.2+svn458-1.dsc Thank you for your time so far. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Cambridgeshire, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libphp-simplepie
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good, waiting for you to answer again when you've sorted out. The offending function has been now removed from upstream. The updated package can be found on mentors.debian.net: URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libphp-simplepie Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free dget: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libphp-simplepie/libphp-simplepie_1.0beta3.2+svn458-1.dsc Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Cambridgeshire, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: libphp-simplepie
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libphp-simplepie. * Package name: libphp-simplepie Version : 1.0beta3.2-1 Upstream Author : Ryan Parman and Geoffrey Sneddon * URL : http://simplepie.org/ * License : LGPL Section : web It builds these binary packages: libphp-simplepie - Fast and easy to use feed parsing class for PHP The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libphp-simplepie - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libphp-simplepie/libphp-simplepie_1.0beta3.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Cambridgeshire, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libphp-simplepie
Daniel Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * should: please mention the reason for the action you did in README.Debian * should: mention the repackaging in copyright, not in README.Debian-source * tipp: remove the useless empty line at the end of the changelog file. Corrected in my local copy. * wondering: why do you prefere php4 over php5 in the depends/recommends? I copied this from other PHP library packages. Maybe alphanumeric sort order looks nicer? :) * should: the Homepage entry in control should have two leading spaces. * tipp: dirs is not required as you copy the files with a install file * tipp: do not prefix some helper files and some not when you have only a one-binary package. * tipp: remove the useless commented things in the watch file. Corrected in my local copy. * must: your copyright is incomplete, there are other files with different copyright holders. I looked a bit more closely -- one function is licensed under the Open Publication License, which is not DSFG free[0]. I'm talking to upstream about replacing it and will upload a new copy and reply to this message when the issue has been resolved. Regards, -- Chris Lamb, Cambridgeshire, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00029.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature
