RFS: libmxp -- the MUD eXtension protocol (needed for KMuddy)

[Ryan Schultz]

* Package name: libmxp
  Version : 0.2.2
  Upstream Author : Tomas Mecir 
* URL : http://www.kmuddy.net/libmxp/
* License : LGPL
  Description : the MUD eXtension protocol

 libmxp provides a way to communicate with a MUD server using MXP,
 a protocol which uses a special markup language to enhance the game
 session.
 .
 A list of MUDs that implement MXP can be found at:
 * http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/mxplist.htm

Packages: libmxp0, libmxp-dev

Packages/source available from my repository at:
  deb http://rschultz.ath.cx/debian/ unstable/i386/
  deb-src http://rschultz.ath.cx/debian/ unstable/source/

This is a very simple (no dependencies other than libgcc, libstdc++, etc) 
shared library that is a build-dep for KMuddy, an excellent KDE MUD client, 
also available from my repository. I'm seeking a sponsor for this or both 
packages -- if I get a sponsor for libmxp only, however, I'll file another 
RFS. Both packages are Lintian clean, though KMuddy has a number of Policy 
fixes (hacks if you'd like) in its rules file, and I also had to remove CVS 
directories its upstream source.

Thanks for reading.

-- 
Ryan Schultz
-> The meek shall indeed inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will take to the 
stars.


pgp4qBMMRQKm3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: question about increasing versionnumbers

[Justin Pryzby]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:30:30AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 11:24:54PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> > Hi Mentors,
> 
> > as I've noticed no one is rightnow interested in sponsoring my
> > tvbrowser-package. But since, I really want to maintain this package (I use
> > it for myself) I have a question about future changes I'll make in this
> > package.
> 
> > What is the best practice, when making small changes to the package like
> > fixing typos and stuff? Should I stick to my "initial release" or should i
> > alter the Versionnumber everytime I make change?
> 
> > And the next question in a bigger context: What if a new upstream comes out
> > while my package is not sponsored? Should I pretend to maintain a real
> > package and alter the changelog and stuff or should the last package which
> > is not part of debian always be the "initial release"?
> 
> If your package is available for people other than yourself to
> download, I would definately suggest pretending it's in the
> archive, and update versions accordingly.
Otherwise, users will never see the updates.

> It also gives your eventual sponsor history for the package,
> providing more evidence as to your commitment and skills,
> especially over the long term. (Which is important, so that
> your package does not get sponsored once, then bitrot.)
Yes, I agree here, from experience.

One interesting idea was to use an NMU version scheme for unofficial
packages:

foo_1.2.3-0.1 (supposing it is 1 based)
foo_1.2.3-0.2
foo_1.2.3-0.3
...
foo_1.2.4-0.1 (I guess)
foo_1.2.4-0.2
...


Then, I guess you should change the version number and add a changelog
entry when you're sponsored:

foo_1.2.4-1:

 * Update version for upload to d.o archive, thanks Sponsor Dude
   (Closes: #11)

Greetings,
Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: question about increasing versionnumbers

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 11:24:54PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Hi Mentors,

> as I've noticed no one is rightnow interested in sponsoring my
> tvbrowser-package. But since, I really want to maintain this package (I use
> it for myself) I have a question about future changes I'll make in this
> package.

> What is the best practice, when making small changes to the package like
> fixing typos and stuff? Should I stick to my "initial release" or should i
> alter the Versionnumber everytime I make change?

> And the next question in a bigger context: What if a new upstream comes out
> while my package is not sponsored? Should I pretend to maintain a real
> package and alter the changelog and stuff or should the last package which
> is not part of debian always be the "initial release"?

If your package is available for people other than yourself to
download, I would definately suggest pretending it's in the
archive, and update versions accordingly.

It also gives your eventual sponsor history for the package,
providing more evidence as to your commitment and skills,
especially over the long term. (Which is important, so that
your package does not get sponsored once, then bitrot.)

-- 
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
---


pgpo4aGieO0jm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

question about increasing versionnumbers

[Bastian Venthur]

Hi Mentors,

as I've noticed no one is rightnow interested in sponsoring my
tvbrowser-package. But since, I really want to maintain this package (I use
it for myself) I have a question about future changes I'll make in this
package.

What is the best practice, when making small changes to the package like
fixing typos and stuff? Should I stick to my "initial release" or should i
alter the Versionnumber everytime I make change?

And the next question in a bigger context: What if a new upstream comes out
while my package is not sponsored? Should I pretend to maintain a real
package and alter the changelog and stuff or should the last package which
is not part of debian always be the "initial release"?


Thanks in advance and kind regards

Bastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: request for sponsor: bomberclone

[pedro silva]

2005/8/8, Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(1) If you'd contacted the current maintainer of bc you might have noticed,that the current maintainer is willing to do the sponsoring, but not justfor a "new maintainer release" -- and BTW that you are not the first one
(me included: http://venthur.de/bomberlcone) who's asking for adoption ofthis package. Asking the current maintainer is BTW usually the correct wayand first step you take, when you want to adopt a package.

i) well.. i´ve contacted him, and waiting for answer.
ii) i can´t find anything in the url you told [1]
iii) i´ve done first the change in bts: ITA [2]
iv) the curren version in sourceforge is 0.11.6.2, and the one in
debian is 0.11.6. I thought it wasn't updated, but now i´m looking at
the dates, and maybe they are both the same...

ok, sorry for the haste...
if you need help, tell me.
maybe you should retitle the bug?


best,

Pedro Silva

[1] http://venthur.de/bomberlcone

[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=316569

Re: request for sponsor: bomberclone

[Bastian Venthur]

pedro silva wrote:

> Hello, debian-mentors
> 
> Bomberclone is a free BomberMan like game.
> It was in the list of packages up for adoption. I'd like to maintain it.
> 
> I've packaged upstream's new version of this game,
> 0.11.6.2.
> 
> Ergo, debian's new package number should be 0.11.6.2-1.
> It's source can be found at
> 
> http://www.ageda.net/debian/
> 
> now i'm looking for a sponsor for it's review and upload.

Hi Pedro,

(1) If you'd contacted the current maintainer of bc you might have noticed,
that the current maintainer is willing to do the sponsoring, but not just
for a "new maintainer release" -- and BTW that you are not the first one
(me included: http://venthur.de/bomberlcone) who's asking for adoption of
this package. Asking the current maintainer is BTW usually the correct way
and first step you take, when you want to adopt a package.

(2) The current version of BC is 0.11.6 -- as you can see on bomberclone.de
and it's sourcefoge.net-page -- it's the same version which is currently in
debian.


HTH and kind regards

Bastian



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

request for sponsor: bomberclone

[pedro silva]

Hello, debian-mentors

Bomberclone is a free BomberMan like game. 
It was in the list of packages up for adoption. I'd like to maintain it.

I've packaged upstream's new version of this game, 0.11.6.2. 
Ergo, debian's new package number should be 0.11.6.2-1.
It's source can be found at

http://www.ageda.net/debian/

now i'm looking for a sponsor for it's review and upload.

thanks!
Pedro Silva

Re: RFC/RFS: scim 1.2.3-1 -- an input method platform

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

> My usual sponsor, Osamu Aoki, has been busy these days and can't do the
> sponsor work this time, so I am asking for a sponsor here.  Also since
> this package is quite complicated and this upload involves both a new
> upstream (with SONAME bump) and the C++ transition, any comments on my
> packaging will be appreciated.

> The package 1.2.3-1 I've made are at
> http://www.mems.rice.edu/~minghua/debian/
> and there is also an extracted directory for anyone who prefer to browse
> through.

I am going to take a look at this tonight or tomorrow.

   Simon


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: tvbrowser -- TV-Browser is a java-based TV guide

[skaller]

On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 21:09 +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:

> The program will be in contrib because of non-free JDK's, please, have a
> look at the Java Trap to understand what the (our) problem is with Java:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

A perfectly good description of why GPL software is
also non-free IMHO :)


-- 
John Skaller 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part