Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Ruben Undheim ruben.undh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Felipe, Do you have some time for sponsoring of these two packages? (sfarklib and sfarkxtc) Or should we ask someone else? Hi, I'm terribly sorry, but I have been insanely busy these days and will continue to be so for a while. If you can find another sponsor please go ahead. I'm unlikely to be available for this until mid-march. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi Felipe, Do you have some time for sponsoring of these two packages? (sfarklib and sfarkxtc) Or should we ask someone else? Best regards, Ruben Thanks for that. The changes look fine to me, and thanks a heap for the get-orig-source target, it worked like a dream. From my point of view the package is ready for Felipe to take a look when he is available. Best regards, Ruben Cheers, Ross -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi Ruben, On 12/06/2014 02:33 PM, Ruben Undheim wrote: Hi Ross and Felipe, Thanks for the quick response, and thanks for taking a look at the packages! I appreciate that Felipe may perhaps get some time one day to help us out (and hopefully give Ross some DM rights on the packages after that !) I have now done the improvements suggested by Ross: - Ran cme fix dpkg-control on both packages - Fixed description of libsfark-dev (there was a copy-and-paste error) - Added get-orig-source target on both packages The new versions have been uploaded to mentors and checked into the Vcs. It's probably useful if Ross takes a look at the packages once again to check that I haven't made some new mistakes before Felipe helps out with the upload. Having to wait a few weeks more before the upload is done, is no big issue, but it would be nice if Felipe informs us if he doesn't get time at all to do itl :) Thanks for that. The changes look fine to me, and thanks a heap for the get-orig-source target, it worked like a dream. From my point of view the package is ready for Felipe to take a look when he is available. Best regards, Ruben Cheers, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi Ross and Felipe, Thanks for the quick response, and thanks for taking a look at the packages! I appreciate that Felipe may perhaps get some time one day to help us out (and hopefully give Ross some DM rights on the packages after that !) I have now done the improvements suggested by Ross: - Ran cme fix dpkg-control on both packages - Fixed description of libsfark-dev (there was a copy-and-paste error) - Added get-orig-source target on both packages The new versions have been uploaded to mentors and checked into the Vcs. It's probably useful if Ross takes a look at the packages once again to check that I haven't made some new mistakes before Felipe helps out with the upload. Having to wait a few weeks more before the upload is done, is no big issue, but it would be nice if Felipe informs us if he doesn't get time at all to do itl :) (Btw Ross: Congratulations a lot with your new DM status! :D) Best regards, Ruben 2014-12-05 17:31 GMT+01:00 Ruben Undheim ruben.undh...@gmail.com: Hi everyone in the multimedia team, This new package and its counterpart (sfarkxtc) have been laying around in the sponsorship-request queue approximately one month. Is there any DD in the team who now is eager to help with some sponsoring? The two packages are also available on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarklib http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarkxtc We are two co-uploaders and the packages are team-maintained. Thank you very much in advance, Regards, Ruben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi everyone in the multimedia team, This new package and its counterpart (sfarkxtc) have been laying around in the sponsorship-request queue approximately one month. Is there any DD in the team who now is eager to help with some sponsoring? The two packages are also available on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarklib http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarkxtc We are two co-uploaders and the packages are team-maintained. Thank you very much in advance, Regards, Ruben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On 12/05/2014 05:31 PM, Ruben Undheim wrote: Hi everyone in the multimedia team, This new package and its counterpart (sfarkxtc) have been laying around in the sponsorship-request queue approximately one month. Is there any DD in the team who now is eager to help with some sponsoring? The two packages are also available on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarklib http://mentors.debian.net/package/sfarkxtc We are two co-uploaders and the packages are team-maintained. Hi Ruben, I had been meaning to look at sfarklib again, but I have been a bit busy lately. So, tonight I went through it and it looks great. It builds and installs fine. A few minor suggestions: As there are no release tarballs or tags for sfarklib, it might be a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in d/rules so that we can recreate and create new orig-tarballs consistently within the team in the future. It is also a good idea to run $cme fix dpkg-control on d/control. Diff files look better this way when you add or drop dependencies and uploaders. Whilst you are at it, a small grammatical error could be fixed in the description for the -dev package: for developing applications that depends on for developing applications that depend on. The -dev package description also promises some HTML docs that are not delivered :-) As I said before I will be happy to co-maintain this with you in the Debian Multimedia team. I am now a DM. So if we can convince a sponsor to upload sfarklib, then after it passes the new queue we may be able to convince the same sponsor to give me upload permission sometime. I will take a look at sfarkxtc next. Regards, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ross Gammon r...@the-gammons.net wrote: As I said before I will be happy to co-maintain this with you in the Debian Multimedia team. I am now a DM. So if we can convince a sponsor to upload sfarklib, then after it passes the new queue we may be able to convince the same sponsor to give me upload permission sometime. I'm willing to sponsor as long as the packages have 2 comaintainers. I;ve been busy and may continue so for the next few weeks, so maybe it will take some time for me to actually look at the packages though. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On 12/05/2014 09:39 PM, Ross Gammon wrote: [...] As there are no release tarballs or tags for sfarklib, it might be a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in d/rules so that we can recreate and create new orig-tarballs consistently within the team in the future. Sorry - there are release tarballs for sfarklib (not for sfarkxtc though). But as we have taken a git snapshot from after the last release, I still think it is a good idea. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On 12/05/2014 09:43 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Ross Gammon r...@the-gammons.net wrote: As I said before I will be happy to co-maintain this with you in the Debian Multimedia team. I am now a DM. So if we can convince a sponsor to upload sfarklib, then after it passes the new queue we may be able to convince the same sponsor to give me upload permission sometime. I'm willing to sponsor as long as the packages have 2 comaintainers. I;ve been busy and may continue so for the next few weeks, so maybe it will take some time for me to actually look at the packages though. Thanks for the offer Felipe :-) Ruben, sfarkxtc looks fine to me and I only have two minor comments 1. Same as for sfarlib, providing a get-orig-source target would be nice, as it sounds like upstream will not be doing releases. 2. $cme check dpkg-control complains that the binary short description is too long. We could drop the in the legacy bit in Converts soundfonts in the legacy sfArk v2 file format to sf2 and just say from? Cheers, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi Ross, This looks like a good little package (and its partner), and I would be happy to be a co-uploader within the Debian Multimedia Team. I am nearly a DM, but I cannot sponsor the package. Great! I will add you to the uploaders field. Unfortunately I fell at the first hurdle when taking a look at it. It seems you have made the package directly from the upstream git repository. This is okay, but I was not able to easily test build the package without an original tarball. So the reason for this is that the day before yesterday I changed the version names from 0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 to 2.23+20131219gitee08d0c-1 for sfarklib 0.20130812git80b1da3-1 to 0~20130812git80b1da3-1 for sfarkxtc I did it in a hurry and completely forgot to retag and rerun pristine-tar commit... Since then I've been without Internet connection. Now it should work again though. Sorry about this. Maybe it would be a good idea to build and upload to debian.mentors even if the eventual sponsor comes form within the debian-multimedia team? That makes it easy to to check for lintian errors without the reviewer having to build it themselves. It also means there is an *orig.tar for the reviewer :-) without having to create one. Yes, it is a good idea. My previous experience has been that I ended up changing small details so many times and reuploading to mentors so many times that this time I wanted to wait until it becomes a bit more stable. Even though the package is from a git snapshot, you should still provide a d/watch file, so that all the automated tools can compare the current version with upstream releases (they have made some). I can add a watch file. Upstream has created some tags for sfarklib, but not for sfarkxtc. I've also been in contact with upstream asking if he wanted to create new real version numbers, but he is of the opinion that it's not necessary because the package is so small. When I tried to build with gbp and the --pristine-tar option, the build failed because the upstream tag is different to the entry in d/changelog. It should work now because of the reason explained above. Sorry It is a good idea to provide a gbp.conf file. The Debian Multimedia packaging wiki (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging) recommends at least the default option of pristine-tar being True. I use pristine-tar = True in my gbp.conf on my computer. I see now that it is possible to put a file in debian/ also. I didn't know about that option - only the .git/gbp.conf option and the ~/.gbp.conf. Thanks. Will fix. Best regards, Ruben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
Hi, Then I've added d/gbp.conf and watch files to both packages. You may have a new look now. Thanks for telling about the problems. Ruben 2014-11-16 20:33 GMT+01:00 Ruben Undheim ruben.undh...@gmail.com: Hi Ross, This looks like a good little package (and its partner), and I would be happy to be a co-uploader within the Debian Multimedia Team. I am nearly a DM, but I cannot sponsor the package. Great! I will add you to the uploaders field. Unfortunately I fell at the first hurdle when taking a look at it. It seems you have made the package directly from the upstream git repository. This is okay, but I was not able to easily test build the package without an original tarball. So the reason for this is that the day before yesterday I changed the version names from 0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 to 2.23+20131219gitee08d0c-1 for sfarklib 0.20130812git80b1da3-1 to 0~20130812git80b1da3-1 for sfarkxtc I did it in a hurry and completely forgot to retag and rerun pristine-tar commit... Since then I've been without Internet connection. Now it should work again though. Sorry about this. Maybe it would be a good idea to build and upload to debian.mentors even if the eventual sponsor comes form within the debian-multimedia team? That makes it easy to to check for lintian errors without the reviewer having to build it themselves. It also means there is an *orig.tar for the reviewer :-) without having to create one. Yes, it is a good idea. My previous experience has been that I ended up changing small details so many times and reuploading to mentors so many times that this time I wanted to wait until it becomes a bit more stable. Even though the package is from a git snapshot, you should still provide a d/watch file, so that all the automated tools can compare the current version with upstream releases (they have made some). I can add a watch file. Upstream has created some tags for sfarklib, but not for sfarkxtc. I've also been in contact with upstream asking if he wanted to create new real version numbers, but he is of the opinion that it's not necessary because the package is so small. When I tried to build with gbp and the --pristine-tar option, the build failed because the upstream tag is different to the entry in d/changelog. It should work now because of the reason explained above. Sorry It is a good idea to provide a gbp.conf file. The Debian Multimedia packaging wiki (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging) recommends at least the default option of pristine-tar being True. I use pristine-tar = True in my gbp.conf on my computer. I see now that it is possible to put a file in debian/ also. I didn't know about that option - only the .git/gbp.conf option and the ~/.gbp.conf. Thanks. Will fix. Best regards, Ruben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#768878: RFS: sfarklib/0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 [ITP]
On 11/09/2014 10:04 PM, Ruben Undheim wrote: Hi, Is there anyone who would like to sponsor this package? Hi Ruben, This looks like a good little package (and its partner), and I would be happy to be a co-uploader within the Debian Multimedia Team. I am nearly a DM, but I cannot sponsor the package. Unfortunately I fell at the first hurdle when taking a look at it. It seems you have made the package directly from the upstream git repository. This is okay, but I was not able to easily test build the package without an original tarball. Maybe it would be a good idea to build and upload to debian.mentors even if the eventual sponsor comes form within the debian-multimedia team? That makes it easy to to check for lintian errors without the reviewer having to build it themselves. It also means there is an *orig.tar for the reviewer :-) without having to create one. Even though the package is from a git snapshot, you should still provide a d/watch file, so that all the automated tools can compare the current version with upstream releases (they have made some). When I tried to build with gbp and the --pristine-tar option, the build failed because the upstream tag is different to the entry in d/changelog. It is a good idea to provide a gbp.conf file. The Debian Multimedia packaging wiki (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging) recommends at least the default option of pristine-tar being True. Regards, Ross Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Ruben On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:52:44 +0100 Ruben Undheim ruben.undh...@gmail.com wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package sfarklib * Package name: sfarklib Version : 0.20131219gitee08d0c-1 Upstream Author : Andy Inman * URL : https://github.com/raboof/sfArkLib * License : GPL-3+ Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libsfark0 libsfark-dev libsfark0-dbg To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://bugs.debian.org/768169 The package can be downloaded with: git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/sfarklib.git Changes since the last upload: Initial release (Closes: #768169) Regards, Ruben Undheim ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
