Re: config file name and format change

On jeudi 4 février 2021 22:37:18 CET Christoph Biedl wrote: > Still in my experience it's > better if the maintainer spends time on a sound automated solution > than leaving figuring out the gory details to the users. This is one of the use cases I had in mind when I designed cme and

Re: Copyright review for salsa project debian/gensio

On Wednesday, 25 November 2020 20:35:15 CET Marc Haber wrote: > I am not sure how much of my packaging would need adapting to > Config::Model to just use the copyright generation mechanism, You can use "cme update dpkg-copyright" to handle only copyright file. With this command, only

Re: Using d/copyright to exclude a directory EXCEPT certain files

On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 05:58:26 CEST Olek Wojnar wrote: > However, upstream also includes a configuration file or two required for > Package A in a directory containing several dozen Package B files. In this case, I would politely ask upstream to move the configuration files in another

Re: Filling debian/copyright

On Friday, 29 November 2019 16:15:31 CET Sepi Gair wrote: > How to correctly fill debian/copyright file? For instance, I have a > software mostly written by one author, however, some other contributors > who also made commits in existing files, yet not added their names to > the corresponding

Re: How to properly drop an obsolete directory from a package

On Friday, 23 August 2019 23:04:30 CEST Francesco Poli wrote: > Please take into account that the postrm script, when called with the > "purge" argument, removes the directory, along with all its content, > with the following command: > > rm -rf /var/cache/apt-listbugs/ > > Should this

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

On Friday, 19 April 2019 08:38:59 CEST Mo Zhou wrote: > The simplest way is to modify automatically generated copyright file: > > $ licensecheck -r --deb-machine . >> debian/copyright This can yield a verbose copyright file. You can also generate a consolidated file with $ cme update

Re: Debian copyright file and contributors

On Friday, 19 April 2019 00:04:03 CEST Tong Sun wrote: > What is the simplest way to put all contributors into the Debian copyright > file? Please don't. Contributors are not necessarily copyright owners. Debian policy [1] requires: > Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its

Re: new maintainer for package 'urlscan'

On Monday, 8 April 2019 15:21:48 CEST Boruch Baum wrote: > Package 'urlscan'[1] in debian is ten point releases and over three > years behind the developer's latest release[2], the listed debian As urlscan is a python script, you may want to reach out to Python packaging team. The Python page

Re: Bug#919413: cascade of FTBFS

On Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:54:12 CET Andreas Tille wrote: > I'm > not sure how to deal with the jquery.js one since this is potentially an > issue with lots of dependencies - I remember discussions about this > which I did not followed. Fortunately, jquery is available as a Debian package.

Re: My debian/control and possible-unindented-list-in-extended-description

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 19:02:04 CET Tong Sun wrote: > > What if you put another space in front of each item in the list? See > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/lib/libxcb/blob/debian/unstable/debian/ > > control > > > > for an example of something similar. > > THANK! That's a much

Re: Copyright: in d/copyright - Questions about writing copyright info

On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 00:23:08 CEST Jongmin Kim wrote: > I'm new to packaging, and I am currently trying to write 'd/copyright' > file. I am watching some other repositories for studying the > conventions. Note that the copyright file can be generated from sources:

Bug#890382: RFS: libbusiness-isin-perl/0.20-1 [ITP]

On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 10:30:10 CET Laurent Baillet wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libbusiness-isin-perl" > > * Package name: libbusiness-isin-perl >Version : 0.20-1 >Upstream Author : David Chan > * URL :

Re: Bug#862875: RFS: libzc/0.3.1-1 [ITP] -- fast zip cracking library

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 01:09:23 CEST Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > d/copyright says "License: GPL-3" instead of GPL-3+. > lib/pthread_barrier.h and m4/ax_pthread.m4 should have separate entries in > d/copyright. > Otherwise the package looks good. For what it's worth, the issues you reported

Re: Bug#858538: fadecut package review

On Friday, 28 April 2017 22:13:38 CEST Anton Gladky wrote: > I do not understand, what you mean with "killed my orbis-tools|lame rule". > As far as I see, dependencies were just aligned. Marco meant that running "cme fix dpkg" removes "vorbis-tools|lame" from the Dependency list of fadecut.

Re: Bug#858538: fadecut package review

Hi On Saturday, 22 April 2017 16:27:46 CEST Marco Balmer wrote: > cme fix dpkg [2] has > * killed my vorbis-tools|lame rule That's a bug. I need to fix this. Please log a bug against libconfig-model-dpkg-perl so I don't forget about it. > * removed Depends bash (>=3.2-4) > But fadecut needs

Re: rejection

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:53:41 +0200 Paride Legovini wrote: > I asked on IRC, didn't get a definitive answer, but my feeling is that > there is a preference for giving attribution when possible. I wrote a > simple shell script that generates the copyright entries for the

Re: Help with systemd to start shiny-server needed

On Friday, 24 March 2017 16:21:39 CET Andreas Tille wrote: > Process: 22239 ExecStart=/bin/bash -c /usr/bin/shiny-server > --pidfile=/var/run/shiny-server.pid >> /var/log/shiny-server.log 2>&1 > (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) I think that bash actually forks the shiny server process, hence you

Re: Help with systemd to start shiny-server needed

On Friday, 24 March 2017 16:21:39 CET Andreas Tille wrote: > Process: 22239 ExecStart=/bin/bash -c /usr/bin/shiny-server > --pidfile=/var/run/shiny-server.pid >> /var/log/shiny-server.log 2>&1 > (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) I think that bash actually forks the shiny server process, hence you

Re: Help with systemd to start shiny-server needed

On Friday, 24 March 2017 16:21:39 CET Andreas Tille wrote: > Process: 22239 ExecStart=/bin/bash -c /usr/bin/shiny-server > --pidfile=/var/run/shiny-server.pid >> /var/log/shiny-server.log 2>&1 > (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) I think that bash actually forks the shiny server process, hence you

Bug#847210: shutter: Window list does not show non-latin characters

Hello Boyuan First of all, many thanks for taking care of shutter. That said, the patch you propose to fix utf8 issue has a problem. > +my $win_name = $win->get_name; > +Encode::_utf8_on( $win_name ); > +my $window_item =

Re: reproducible-builds

On Monday, July 18, 2016 6:20:51 PM CEST Herbert Fortes wrote: > dvbackup Is this package worth the effort ? Is there anyone left who use DV tapes to perform backups when a 16GB thumb drive has more capacity and is more practical for this purpose than a DV camcorder ? All the best --

Re: add missing pristine-tar

On Friday 20 May 2016 10:19:19 Nico Schlömer wrote: > I've got a git-managed repo where an upstream version was included (via the > upstream branch, merged into master), but adding a corresponding > pristine-tar was omitted. How can I retroactively add a pristine-tar > corresponding to an upstream

Re: Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

On Wednesday 27 April 2016 13:01:20 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >So in this case, how to update copyright? Just for src/lzma? Or for all > >other embedded libraries even when they are not used and needed? > > you have to list *every* copyright and license on copyright file, regardless > of it

Re: Bug#818974: packaging

On Saturday 23 April 2016 10:10:28 Roderick MacKenzie wrote: > I've now used license-reconcile and a bit of copy and paste from > hedgewars to sort out the copyright file. You can also try "cme update dpkg-copyright". See

Re: How to find out why debuild -S dislikes dpkg-source --commit ?

On Monday 30 November 2015 18:33:22 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > All is well as long as i have no debian/patches. I can build > and install the .deb files (debuild -S, debuild -b, dpkg -i). > > But if i make changes to the upstream files and run > debclean > dpkg-source --commit > then afterwards

Re: Copyright of composite Makefile.in files

On Monday 30 November 2015 21:06:17 Ferenc Wagner wrote: > I know of licensecheck, > but this area really cries for more automation and checking. I'm working on it. You can try 'cme update dpkg-copyright' or 'scan- copyrights' provided by libconfig-model-dpkg-perl. Hopefully these commands will

Announcing a new Debian packaging tool: cme with dpkg plugin

Hello cme and its dpkg plugin provide a new tool to to help maintain Debian packages. This tool aims to help beginners as well as more experienced Debian contributors. "cme" stands "config model editor" and is a generic tool to edit configuration files. cme requires plugins like dpkg to work.

Re: lintian errors: source-is-missing though is present

On Monday 14 September 2015 15:21:56 Sabniveesu Shashank wrote: > Running lintian on '.dsc' says: > > E: variety source: source-is-missing data/panoramio/underscore-min.js > > However, I do see that the path shown is right and it is present in > the source tarball. > Am I reading it wrong? This

Re: Not able to pull dependencies for tests ran on ci.debian.net.

On Tuesday 16 June 2015 20:11:57 Charles Plessy wrote: Does anybody spot what I have been missing ? from the logs, tabix package is not installed. Neither samtools or samtools-test depends on tabix. Looks like ci does not install build dependencies... Hope this helps --

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

On Tuesday 09 June 2015 17:22:30 Tony Houghton wrote: Depending on its size, it may be better to keep roxterm-common: this package is arch:all and this would avoid duplication these data for each arch. IIRC I was thinking of doing that a long time ago (before the GTK2/3 split) but was

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) roxterm (virtual package depending on roxterm-gtk3) I want

Bug#787120: RFS: par2cmdline/0.6.13-1

Uploaded. Thanks for maintaining this package. All the best -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org

Re: Bug#783529: RFS: spacenavd/0.6-1 [ITA]

On Sunday 17 May 2015 14:24:24 Rodolphe PELLOUX-PRAYER wrote: You're also missing Thomas Anderson t...@nextgenengineering.com as the copyright holder for a number of files in src/magellan/. (In case you haven't done so already, please take the time to do a thorough license/copyright check

Re: GBP and moving to a new upstream release...

On Thursday 09 April 2015 09:21:24 Darryl L. Pierce wrote: I've been following the steps as best I can here [1] to upgrade my package (qpid-proton) to the latest upstream release (0.9). However, these steps result in a merge commit (actually, they result in a huge set of conflicts) and that

Re: Bug#777463: RFS: shutdown-qapps/1.7.0-1 [RC]

On Sunday 22 February 2015 13:50:37 Christian M. wrote: I've added a new feature to qshutdown and re-uploaded the package. The watch file now also checks for the signing key. I still hope to find a new sponsor... Since this is not a new package, you probably have better luck at finding a

Re: `apt-get source` and recompile and gerenate deb

On Friday 30 January 2015 17:24:52 Mohsen Pahlevanzadeh wrote: I don't decide to you help me how to do them, I need to introduce me a good documenation above apt-get source and make package from apt-get source. You may start with this doc:

Re: Bug#766982: RFS: plowshare4/1.0.6-1

On Monday 27 October 2014 23:26:10 Paul Wise wrote: Cannot find license text for BSD-3-clause Bummer. That's a message coming from Software::License which cannot find license text in the system. Software::License does not scan debian/copyright. This message is irrelevant and must be confusing

Re: Help for watch file needed

On Sunday 29 June 2014 14:22:18 Daniel Lintott wrote: I don't know if this is the best method... but it seems to work. uversionmangle=s/(\d)-(\d-\d)/$1.$2/g This will break as soon as any field of the version goes beyond 9: a \d alone does not match '10'. Given that upstream version begins

Re: netcdf packages

On Thursday 27 March 2014 22:21:55 Nico Schlömer wrote: The question remains on how we can move this forward in a sensible way. One possibility is to split the existing netcdf package into three separate ones netcdf-c, netcdf-fortran, netcdf-cxx, to reflect the upstream structure. What is

Re: path of config-files logs - special case - package sbnc

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 20:42:29 Stefan Bauer wrote: The old patches are changing the path for log files and configuration-files hardcoded to /var/log and /etc. Which is correct if sbnc is run as a daemon (may be as root). As this binary can run individually by different users, there

Re: Weird conffile case

On Monday 03 March 2014 17:56:38 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: The part undo damage I do not understand. From what I understand dpkg compares the new config with the existing one. So to upgrade from stable properly I would have to replace my new config with the identical to the existing one,

Re: Weird conffile case

On Monday 03 March 2014 08:59:01 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: It is upstream's choice. But I will include such a patch, it is quite trivial. But this is not the case here. The problem is that installing the package asks for users' decision (keep config, replace with maintainer, etc). Applying

Re: Weird conffile case

On Monday 03 March 2014 16:23:28 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: I agree this is a nice solution with a patch, I will integrate it for sure. However what should be done in such situation with bug 740332 ? Should I close it with the new release? ok, I did not realize that the upgrade test is done

Re: Volunteer in need of a mentor

On Monday 23 September 2013 20:17:23 Beco wrote: [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/index.en.html Good! I'll start with that. But without a mentor it will be hard to

Re: Bug#723583: RFS: avt/0.2-1 ITP

On Thursday 19 September 2013 19:41:12 Tobias Frost wrote: *d/copyright is missing. Lintian told that already, but when you create it, use the dep5 format. (https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat) the command 'cme edit dpkg-copyright' will help you do this task. This command is

Re: issue with pbuilder (Can't locate strict.pm)

On Monday 16 September 2013 11:13:48 olivier sallou wrote: However, recently, it failed with an error on dpkg-source: Cannot locate strict.pm, permission denied at dpkg-source Looks like an issue with the perl installation within your chroot. You should try to login into your chroot to get

Re: Any script to populate debian/copyright file ?

On Monday 16 July 2012 04:00:17 Aliaksei Sheshka wrote: You still have to look through your debian/copyright file manually to check for any mistakes or inconsistencies, but at the very least, the syntax would be correct. There's also a DEP-5 parser that you can use to check the syntax

Re: Any script to populate debian/copyright file ?

On Monday 16 July 2012 14:59:51 Aliaksei Sheshka wrote: I don know any real life proper multi-license new format Debian package to use as a reference, which makes packaging for beginner even harder. Here's one that was not trivial to write:

Re: copyright

On Friday 22 June 2012 12:58:42 Paul Gevers wrote: I don’t specify every file in package witch file is written bye who right ? That is exactly the purpose of that file. So, no, you are wrong on this. Policy [1] says: Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright

Re: d/copyright for mrtg-ping-probe (ITA)

On Saturday 26 May 2012 22:44:56 gregor herrmann wrote: My shell history finds licensecheck -c . -r . | /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 but I don't remember if I was impressed by the result or not :) I've used a similar command to update padre package (or was it pan?). Since this

Re: d/copyright for mrtg-ping-probe (ITA)

On Wednesday 23 May 2012 02:25:11 Robert James Clay wrote: Please inspect the source files of the program to see what they state themselfs. It is not uncommon to see a statement in the source that it is licensed as GPL version 2 or any later value, while the COPYRIGHT file is just the GPL

Re: dep5: Two licensing / One file

Hello Mathieu Sorry for the late reply. I hope it's not too late... On Saturday 19 November 2011 16:08:45 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: I am trying to get the d/copyright file in good shape for one of my package: pylibtiff. This python binding to libtiff is shipping a patched file tif_lzw.c from

Re: syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright syntax error in section 4 after the tag license

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:17:39 Jan-Pascal van Best wrote: This hit me also and it took some time to figure out. - indent multi-line fields with a space - use 'space dot' - ' .' for empty lines in a multi-line field. This formatting is also taken care of by DEP-5 parser/editor mentioned

Re: New software revision on mentors.debian.net

On Friday 30 September 2011 17:30:49 Arno Töll wrote: Or would you say: it's ok, we use mentors.d.n anyway, just go on? It's fine. Thanks for your work. :-) Dominique -- http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont -o-

Re: RFS: bino

Le Wednesday 28 September 2011 19:04:51, Daniel Schaal a écrit : I also bumped the debhelper compat to 9 to get the values from dpkg-buildflags New package uploaded to [2] Reviewed, rebuilt, rebuilt in a chroot, tested, tested with piuparts and uploaded. Now we wait for FTP master to do

Re: RFS: bino

Le Wednesday 14 September 2011 06:44:11, Daniel Schaal a écrit : I uploaded an updated package to http://mentors.debian.net/package/bino Here are some comments: - debian/copyright: In fact the simple All-Permissive License you mention is very close to BSD 2-clause license [1]. To respect

Re: RFS: oggfix

On Monday 09 May 2011 09:27:49 Gunter Königsmann wrote: - No copyright and license information in source files. Is there any fixed or recommended format for doing this? You should contact upstream and ask them to clarify copyright and license. Ideally, this info should be somewhere in

Re: RFS: aqemu (new version 0.8.1)

On Monday 24 January 2011 00:58:52 gregor herrmann wrote: - debian/control: libqt4-dev (= 4.4): the version is not necessary, lenny has already 4.4.3 (and etch with 4.2.1 is archived) Note that these unnecessary versioned dependencies can be detected by latest version of libconfig-model-perl

Re: RFS: aqemu (update)

On Sunday 21 November 2010 22:41:07 Ignace Mouzannar wrote: Looks much better now, but I think there's another (hopefully last) problem in d/copyright (yes, that's often the hardest file ...): Definitely.. Ignace, could you please send me your copyright file? It does sound like an

Re: RFS: aqemu (update)

On Monday 22 November 2010 16:17:39 Ignace Mouzannar wrote: It does sound like an interesting test case for my DEP-5 parser based on Config::Model ;-) I hope it will be helpful. :) Well, DEP-5 parser found : - french and english for license was mixed up (e.g. licen*c*e instead of

Re: Adopting: maintainer change in debian/changelog

On Saturday 06 November 2010 15:38:01 Robert James Clay wrote: You would add yourself to that section, including the appropriate copyright date(s) for whatever work you do in the debian/ directory... And you can use config-edit-dpkg-copyright from libconfig-model-perl to check the

Re: conffiles

On Tuesday 31 August 2010 05:54:26 Russ Allbery wrote: Zvi Dubitzky d...@il.ibm.com writes: Is there a way to put something in DEBIAN directory that will trigger the poped up question when overwriting config files (during package installation) before running dpkg-deb --build to

Re: Default Configuration Issues

Le samedi 14 août 2010 14:16:14, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit : In general, a change in behavior can be handled gracefully with some time for transitions, so that they users can adapt to that (before that becomes the default) and with a conspicuous notice (say, in NEWS). Hurmm. This makes

Re: Default Configuration Issues

Le mardi 31 août 2010 19:17:17, Dominique Dumont a écrit : I can come up with a scheme to upgrade fluxbox config file, but I wonder if modification of /home/*/fluxbox/ files is acceptable when upgrading a package? I've seen in a more recent thread that user files are off-limit... I guess

Re: RFS: go

On Thursday 18 March 2010 16:50:03 Brian Nelson wrote: '-lang' is commonly used in package names to refer to spoken languages (e.g. texlive-lang-*). I actually prefer the google-go suggestion since I think that's the least ambiguous. Good point. Going back to the package description, I see

Re: RFS: go

On Thursday 18 March 2010 11:27:16 Ivan Wong wrote: * Package name: go Version : 2010.03.15-1 Upstream Author : Google * URL : http://golang.org/ * License : BSD Style Section : devel It builds these binary packages: go - Google's Go

Re: Renaming config files

On Saturday 27 February 2010 22:57:16 Ivan Jager wrote: It is conceptially the same file. suspend2.conf got renamed to tuxonice.conf because Software Suspend 2 got renamed to TuxOnIce. Some of the configuration directives (the ones containing Suspend2 in their names) got renamed, so I'm a

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

-- Dominique Dumont Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they need, not what they want. Kurt Bittner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: config file tool

/ -- Dominique Dumont Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they need, not what they want. Kurt Bittner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]