Bug#551860: Upstream AUTHORS not listed correctly.
Subject: Upstream AUTHORS not listed correctly. Package: libdc1394-22 Version: 2.1.2-1 Severity: minor -- The latest packages still are missing the correct list of Upstream AUTHORS (as it is in the authors file). This is a violation of the LGNU 2.1 and the copyright laws and should be fixed.
Bug#542789: why do we need this
Just wanted to ask for some reasons,.. as I see some ubuntufication of Debian ;) Well, we have to make sure that there are no ubuntufications there. The Debian reasons are that the ubuntu-dev-tools contains some scripts/apps that are useful with sbuild tool (like bootstrapping, lvm images, etc.). It is about those tools and some others[1] that could be a good contribution to debian tools. [1] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev- tools/+bug/439906/comments/1 Cheers, Peter BOFH excuse #321: Scheduled global CPU outage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#543315: mk-sbuild-lv does not export http_proxy to schroot environment
Package: sbuild
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.28 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
mk-sbuild-lv script does not export the http_proxy environment variable. This
makes it impossible to run the script behind a proxy server.
Patch:
@@ -352,6 +352,7 @@
#!/bin/bash
#set -x
set -e
+export http_proxy=${http_proxy}
# Reload package lists
apt-get update || true
# Pull down signature requirements
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#461583: ITP: libdc1394-22
On Saturday 26 January 2008 00:11:09 Guus Sliepen wrote: [...] - Is there really a need to have 2 utils binary packages? They even conflict with each other, and the 22 doesn't seem to make any sense in this case. Hm, I agree that the 22 in the utils package is unnecessary. I'll try to remove it. Hmm, AFAIK the utils package replaces the old 13 examples, and the binaries there are linked to the SO 22 and not 13. So, you could replace the 13 examples. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Antoniac, PhD https://launchpad.net/~theseinfeld GIT/CS a C+++ UL+++$ w--- PGP++ e -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#461583: ITP: libdc1394v2 -- As the maintainer for libdc1394 didn't answer for many months, we (developers of libdc1394) would like to get involved also with maintaining the package.
Hello, and thank you for the help! I don't mean any offense, but looking at the ITP and the libdc1394v2 package itself, I get the feeling that you are not completely up to date with Debian packaging: No offense. I tried to be, but the documentation is not exactly the best readable lecture for this thing... - There is no bug severity named urgent, and ITPs should have severity wishlist. I was trying to pull a string there, sorry if it was inappropriate... - The way to ensure library packages don't conflict with older versions is to append the soname to the package names, it should be libdc1394-22 instead of libdc1394v2. Done already... - Missing and incorrect Conflicts: entries in the control file for Debian. If you mean the Conflicts with 11 and 13, we don't want those two packages to conflict. The SO 22 can work with 13 or 11 without problems... Therefore I decided to use Peter de Schrijver's and my own packaging as a basis for packaging 2.0.1. I'm adopting the packages from Peter de Schrijver. I will include a -doc package and rename -examples to -utils. If you have other suggestions I will be happy to hear them. You mean by -doc, the doc package that we generate using doxygen? If you really want to maintain the Debian packages yourself, read all on http://www.debian.org/devel/, read up on all Debian bug reports regarding libdc1394, and try to become an official Debian developer. Otherwise, I think it is better that you work on the library itself instead of its packaging; I believe there is a lot to do to get everything working with the juju stack. No. I didn't want to do this job, it was just that Peter didn't answer the call and we were wondering what to do to speed up things. As I was playing already with Launchpad PPA, I decided to do the packaging there until we get somebody from Debian. Once the package was mature enough (we were three guys working on the new package) we decided to give it a try with the WNPP ITP... As I am part of the development process, I also thought that it will be nice if we close the loop a bit and provide you, the maintainers from Debian, with our idea of packages. Hope that it was helpful... Let me know the continuatio... Cheers, Peter -- Peter Antoniac, PhD https://launchpad.net/~theseinfeld GIT/CS a C+++ UL+++$ w--- PGP++ e -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#461583: ITP: libdc1394v2 -- As the maintainer for libdc1394 didn't answer for many months, we (developers of libdc1394) would like to get involved also with maintaining the package.
Package: wnpp Severity: urgent Owner: Peter Antoniac [EMAIL PROTECTED] As the maintainer for libdc1394 didn't answer for many months, we (developers of libdc1394) would like to get involved also with maintaining the package. Moreover, the maintainer didn't follow our recommandations not to pack the libdc1394 version 2.0 until we release it (and he packed it at RC7). It will be also better for the stability of the package if the developers have also something to say in the packaging. For example, we have releases the new version with doxygen generated web pages, pdf's and ps documentation, so there is more documentation available for the developers. We also think that what is now called libdc1394-examples should be called -utils, as the binaries are more like utilities for the library. We have already done some packaging and testing using the Ubuntu PPA tools, and you can already see the fruits of our work here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427933/libdc1394v2_2.0.1-1ubuntu1.dsc and the source is here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427931/libdc1394v2_2.0.1.orig.tar.gz with the diffs available here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427932/libdc1394v2_2.0.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz You can also check our PPA builded packages here: https://launchpad.net/~libdc1394-dev/+archive and the Ubuntu project team link is here: https://launchpad.net/libdc1394 * Package name: libdc1394v2 Version : 2.0.1 Upstream Author : Peter De Schrijver (p2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/libdc1394 * License : LGPL Programming Lang: C Description : The maintainer failing to responde. As the maintainer for libdc1394 didn't answer for many months, we (developers of libdc1394) would like to get involved also with maintaining the package. Moreover, the maintainer didn't follow our recommandations not to pack the libdc1394 version 2.0 until we release it (and he packed it at RC7). It will be also better for the stability of the package if the developers have also something to say in the packaging. For example, we have releases the new version with doxygen generated web pages, pdf's and ps documentation, so there is more documentation available for the developers. We also think that what is now called libdc1394-examples should be called -utils, as the binaries are more like utilities for the library. We have already done some packaging and testing using the Ubuntu PPA tools, and you can already see the fruits of our work here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427933/libdc1394v2_2.0.1-1ubuntu1.dsc and the source is here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427931/libdc1394v2_2.0.1.orig.tar.gz with the diffs available here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11427932/libdc1394v2_2.0.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz You can also check our PPA builded packages here: https://launchpad.net/~libdc1394-dev/+archive and the Ubuntu project team link is here: https://launchpad.net/libdc1394 -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.13-xenU (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#461446: O: libdc1394-13
Package: wnpp Severity: normal It seems to me that the libdc1394 package is not maintained. The developers from libdc1394 would like that we can aid debian with the package maintaining for this package. There is also the new API release. We are now doing the packaging using the Ubuntu PPA and you can see our work here: https://launchpad.net/libdc1394 And our PPA with the builed packages: https://launchpad.net/~libdc1394-dev/+archive -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.13-xenU (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
