Re: Question about skim.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 01:18:12AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: A chroot is a nice solution - I use it for many things. the program 'debootstrap' can help you building a chroot. just: mkdir sid-chroot sudo debootstrap sid sid-chroot http://yournearestmirror. sudo chroot sidchroot I always mount proc (and sometimes /dev, at least when I used devfs). Without it, the system is handicapped, although package installs should work. sudo --bind /proc sid-chroot/proc Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question about skim.
Le Dimanche 13 Novembre 2005 06:33, Ming Hua a écrit : On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 01:44:52AM +0100, sebastien marbrier wrote: Hello dear Mentors, I am a scim user but I am also a KDE fan so I need the skim package. I noticed that skim is preparation for more than a year now, so I guess its current maintainer forget it. The current maintainer is actually working on the package quite actively. I know he uploads his packaging work to mentors.debian.net regularly, and indeed there's the recently released version 1.4.3 [1]. [snipped] I can't find the e-mail address of the current maintainer, I only saw the names of Mr Osamu Aoki and Mr Christoph Berg but none of them seem to be the maintainer. You need to look at the owner of the ITP bug [2] to find the maintainer, William J Beksi [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Osamu Aoki only submitted a RFP, William later changed it to ITP and became the owner of the ITP bug #278275. The other bug merged with it, #309857, is submiited by William as well. 1. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/skim/ 2. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=278275 Ming 2005.11.12 Thanks for your help. Several weeks ago, you told me how to create a backport for scim 1.4.1. I've build it lately, and I have to test it, if I am satisfied I would like to share it. Do you mind if I upload it to www.backports.org ? By the way, I need to have a gpg key in the official Debian keyring in order to have my backport uploaded, does it mean I have to apply as an official maintainer or I just need to have a kind debian member to sign it ? I couldn't find a clear answer in the documentation, can you bring some lights please ? Thanks, again. Sebastien Marbrier.
Re: Question about skim.
Le Dimanche 13 Novembre 2005 02:18, Sune Vuorela a écrit : On 2005-11-13, sebastien marbrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two solutions, the first one is to install both sarge and sid but this is a dirty work, I am also thinking about making the packages in a chrooted environnement but I have never done that so far. Can you give some advice please ? A chroot is a nice solution - I use it for many things. the program 'debootstrap' can help you building a chroot. just: mkdir sid-chroot sudo debootstrap sid sid-chroot http://yournearestmirror. sudo chroot sidchroot in here, you can create a user account, install packages and whatever you like. /Sune Thanks, I will try it. Sebastien Marbrier.
Re: Question about skim.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 01:18:12AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: A chroot is a nice solution - I use it for many things. the program 'debootstrap' can help you building a chroot. just: mkdir sid-chroot sudo debootstrap sid sid-chroot http://yournearestmirror. sudo chroot sidchroot in here, you can create a user account, install packages and whatever you like. I would suggest pbuilder for this task. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PGP and GPG keys...
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Adeodato Simó in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps if you post your keyid somebody can take a look and tell you
whether it's fine or not?
The official test is:
GPGOPTS= -q --no-options --no-default-keyring --no-auto-check-trustdb --keyring
$DESTDIR/nm.gpg --trust-model always
echo Let's test if its a version 4 or greater key
VERSION=$(gpg ${GPGOPTS} --with-colons --with-fingerprint --list-keys 0x$KEYID | awk -F :
'$1 == fpr {print length($10)}')
if [ $VERSION -eq 32 ]; then
echo Warning: It looks like this key is an Version 3 GPG key. This is
bad.
echo This is not accepted for the NM ID Step. Please doublecheck and
then
echo get your applicant to send you a correct key if this is script isnt
wrong.
else
echo Key is ok
fi
Christoph
Ok. I did this:
1) I exported my public and private key to an .asc file from PGP Keys.
2) I moved the file to my debian host.
3) I installed the key using 'gpg --import keyfile.asc'.
4) I ran 'gpg --edit-key daniel', signing the key and setting the trust
level to max (I know it's my key since I exported it from my keyring
and entered it myself into gpg).
5) I added another e-mail address to the key (my future e-mail)
6) I ran the above script and got Key is ok
After executing, the $VERSION variable has the value 40.
I've also tested that cross-encryption works, i.e. encrypt/sign with pgp
and decrypt/verify using gpg and vise versa. And it does.
I guess the key is usable within the debian project :-)
Many thanks!
/Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP and GPG keys...
Adeodato Simó wrote: * Daniel Widenfalk [Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:19:09 +0100]: I have, and use, PGP 8.1 from PGP Corporation and have a key(s) there which I use to encrypt and/or sign email with. Can I use this key in the debian project, or do I have to create a new GPG key? After asking around a bit on IRC, I got: - from http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2, Each Applicant must provide an OpenPGP version 4 public key with encryption capabilities. - somebody mentioning that a PGP5 key would be fine. Searching in keyservers, I see several keys for Daniel Widenfalk, but the e-mail address do not match yours, and they seem standard 1024 bit DSA keys. Perhaps if you post your keyid somebody can take a look and tell you whether it's fine or not? I've verified that key works using the scripts posted by Christoph Berg. The key is available when searching through the web interface on keyserver.pgp.com. I guess it has not yet propagated to other servers? The key ID is: 0xDECAB207 with fingerprint AB8E 3295 2111 3703 2823 E67C E5D2 B4E5 DECA B207 This key has not been signed by a DD so that is the next logical step to do. Know any DD in the proximity of Uppsala/Sweden or Stockholm/Sweden? The other key(s) you found is the one I use at work. I only use that key when signing/encrypting work related stuff. Ciao /Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about skim.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:28:54PM +0100, sebastien marbrier wrote: Thanks for your help. Several weeks ago, you told me how to create a backport for scim 1.4.1. I've build it lately, and I have to test it, if I am satisfied I would like to share it. Do you mind if I upload it to www.backports.org ? If you mean the backported scim 1.4.1-1 packages for sarge, I would suggest you consider the C++ ABI issue. The package 1.4.1-1 in sid builds binary package libscim8, which uses the GCC 4.0 new ABI. If you backport it to sarge, the right thing to do is to build a library package of different name, and have it conflict with libscim8. If you don't take care of the C++ ABI issue, I think there may be many strange and hard-to-dectect error happening when users mix scim packages built in different environments. But as www.backports.org is not an official part of Debian, it's up to you and the admins for www.backports.org. As long as you change the package version to some distinguishable unofficial version, and specify your change in debian/changelog, I don't mind your uploading or distributing them at all. By the way, I need to have a gpg key in the official Debian keyring in order to have my backport uploaded, does it mean I have to apply as an official maintainer or I just need to have a kind debian member to sign it ? I couldn't find a clear answer in the documentation, can you bring some lights please ? As I don't upload to www.backports.org at all, I have no idea. You'll have to ask the admins there. Ming 2005.11.13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP and GPG keys...
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:58:16PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: I've verified that key works using the scripts posted by Christoph Berg. The key is available when searching through the web interface on keyserver.pgp.com. I guess it has not yet propagated to other servers? The key ID is: 0xDECAB207 with fingerprint $ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.pgp.com 0xDECAB207 gpg: requesting key DECAB207 from hkp server keyserver.pgp.com gpg: keyserver timed out gpg: keyserver receive failed: keyserver error Please upload your key to a different keyserver, as already mentioned in this thread. gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question about skim.
Le Dimanche 13 Novembre 2005 15:40, Ming Hua a écrit : If you mean the backported scim 1.4.1-1 packages for sarge, I would suggest you consider the C++ ABI issue. The package 1.4.1-1 in sid builds binary package libscim8, which uses the GCC 4.0 new ABI. If you backport it to sarge, the right thing to do is to build a library package of different name, and have it conflict with libscim8. If you don't take care of the C++ ABI issue, I think there may be many strange and hard-to-dectect error happening when users mix scim packages built in different environments. According to the instructions from www.backports.org, I have changed the name of the source directory from scim-1.4.1-1 to scim-1.4.1-backports.org.1 After the construction of the package, I obtain libscim8_1.4.1-backports.org.1_i386.deb Is it that you recommended ? I can't see any libscim8 in sarge so I don't see how I can make a conflict. I am a beginner in making debian packages so I apologise for disturbing you. But as www.backports.org is not an official part of Debian, it's up to you and the admins for www.backports.org. As long as you change the package version to some distinguishable unofficial version, and specify your change in debian/changelog, I don't mind your uploading or distributing them at all. By the way, I need to have a gpg key in the official Debian keyring in order to have my backport uploaded, does it mean I have to apply as an official maintainer or I just need to have a kind debian member to sign it ? I couldn't find a clear answer in the documentation, can you bring some lights please ? As I don't upload to www.backports.org at all, I have no idea. You'll have to ask the admins there. Ming 2005.11.13 I will ask them. Thanks you. Sebastien Marbrier.
Re: Question about skim.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:27:27PM +0100, sebastien marbrier wrote: Le Dimanche 13 Novembre 2005 15:40, Ming Hua a écrit : If you mean the backported scim 1.4.1-1 packages for sarge, I would suggest you consider the C++ ABI issue. The package 1.4.1-1 in sid builds binary package libscim8, which uses the GCC 4.0 new ABI. If you backport it to sarge, the right thing to do is to build a library package of different name, and have it conflict with libscim8. If you don't take care of the C++ ABI issue, I think there may be many strange and hard-to-dectect error happening when users mix scim packages built in different environments. According to the instructions from www.backports.org, I have changed the name of the source directory from scim-1.4.1-1 to scim-1.4.1-backports.org.1 After the construction of the package, I obtain libscim8_1.4.1-backports.org.1_i386.deb Is it that you recommended ? No, I am talking about rename the *package* name, like from libscim8 to libscim8c102 (altough you need to change the version as well). I can't see any libscim8 in sarge so I don't see how I can make a conflict. I'm talking about conflicting with libscim8 in unstable. See the announcement in debian-devel-announce mailing list (around July or August) for the reason why this is necessary. Ming 2005.11.13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP and GPG keys...
Neil Williams wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 1:58 pm, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: The key is available when searching through the web interface on keyserver.pgp.com. I guess it has not yet propagated to other servers? No. gpg: requesting key DECAB207 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net gpgkeys: key DECAB207 not found on keyserver gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 It'd be good to avoid using keyserver.pgp.com - it isn't one of the better keyservers and could break certain keys. subkeys.pgp.net is a DNS round-robin of the most up to date keyservers that handle all keys properly. Please could you send your key to subkeys.pgp.net. Ta. Done. $ gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --search-keys 0xDECAB207 gpg: searching for 0xDECAB207 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net (1) Daniel Widenfalk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Widenfalk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024 bit DSA key DECAB207, created: 2004-07-18 Please note that the @widenfalk.se mail server is currently unreachable due to a downed DNS server :-( I'm waiting for a replacement hard drive. Regards /Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aldo new package
Hi Mentors, Three bugs were founded for aldo: #334153, #334152, #334288. I fixed these and I issued aldo-0.7.0-3. Here the changelog: aldo (0.7.0-3) unstable; urgency=low * Removed unused autotools-dev build dependency -- Giuseppe Martino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:50:20 +0200 aldo (0.7.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * Bad long description fixed writing a brand new description Closes: #334152 * Build-Depends on Packages that are Build-Essential fixed Closes: #334153 -- Giuseppe Martino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:24:06 +0200 I uploaded aldo-0.7.0-3 on mentors.debian.net. Could you upload this new version? Thanks in advance, Giuseppe Martino signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Aldo new package
On Sunday 13 November 2005 17:20, Giuseppe Martino wrote: Three bugs were founded for aldo: #334153, #334152, #334288. I fixed these and I issued aldo-0.7.0-3. Okay, uploaded. The Bug #334288 wasn't changed in your debian/changelog though. You will have to close it manually through the BTS. Christoph -- ~ ~ .signature [Modified] 1 line --100%--1,48 All -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aldo new package
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 08:05:15PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote: Okay, uploaded. The Bug #334288 wasn't changed in your debian/changelog though. You will have to close it manually through the BTS. Sorry there was a problem with files. From: Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: aldo_0.7.0-3_i386.changes REJECTED Rejected: md5sum for /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/a/aldo/aldo_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't match aldo_0.7.0-3.dsc. Rejected: size for /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/a/aldo/aldo_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't match aldo_0.7.0-3.dsc. Rejected: 'dpkg-source -x' failed for aldo_0.7.0-3.dsc [return code: 6400]. [dpkg-source output:] dpkg-source: error: file aldo_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz has size 112827 instead of expected 112652 I fixed it uploading new files on mentors.debian.net. Thanks, Giuseppe signature.asc Description: Digital signature
