RFS: libinklevel -- library for checking the ink level of your local printer
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libinklevel. * Package name: libinklevel Version : 0.6.5+0.6.6rc3-1 Upstream Author : Markus Heinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://libinklevel.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libinklevel-dev - development files for libinklevel3 libinklevel3 - library for checking the ink level of your local printer The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 386849 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libinklevel - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libinklevel/libinklevel_0.6.5+0.6.6rc3-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Adam Cécile
RFS: ink -- tool for checking the ink level of your local printer
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package ink. * Package name: ink Version : 0.3.1+0.3.2rc1-1 Upstream Author : Markus Heinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://ink.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Section : admin It builds these binary packages: ink- tool for checking the ink level of your local printer The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 386878 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ink - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ink/ink_0.3.1+0.3.2rc1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Adam Cécile
File permissions
Mentors, I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings. The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? regards James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: File permissions
Le lundi 11 septembre 2006 14:25, James Healy a écrit : Mentors, Hello my mentor :p I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings. The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? You can only rebuild tarball without exec bit :) regards James
Re: File permissions
Op ma, 11-09-2006 te 22:25 +1000, schreef James Healy: Mentors, I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings. The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? Call dh_fixperms after dh_installexamples in your debian/rules file. Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: File permissions
Op ma, 11-09-2006 te 22:25 +1000, schreef James Healy: Mentors, I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings. The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? Hi, Disregard my previous advise. I should have read the man page of dh_fixperms first: dh_fixperms makes all files in usr/share/doc in the package build directory (excluding files in the examples/ directory) be mode 644. So it seems you have to do it with a call to chmod in your debian/rules. Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: File permissions
On 2006-09-11, James Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? a snippet from one of my debian/rules binary-arch: build install dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_installchangelogs dh_installdocs # fixpermissions chmod 644 debian/kde-icons-korilla/usr/share/icons/Korilla/48x48/apps/* /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: File permissions
Le lundi 11 septembre 2006 14:46, Arjan Oosting a écrit : Op ma, 11-09-2006 te 22:25 +1000, schreef James Healy: Mentors, I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings. The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to untar with executable permissions. What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them over? Hi, Disregard my previous advise. I should have read the man page of dh_fixperms first: dh_fixperms makes all files in usr/share/doc in the package build directory (excluding files in the examples/ directory) be mode 644. So it seems you have to do it with a call to chmod in your debian/rules. Greetings Arjan I don't think exec bit in a tarball is right. Best way is to repack upstream sources.
Re: File permissions
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) -- 11.09.2006 15:49 --: I don't think exec bit in a tarball is right. Best way is to repack upstream sources. Repackaging only to fix permissions is an overkill. Better fix then in debian/rules and kindly ask upstream to provide sane permissions on next release. dam -- Damyan Ivanov Modular Software Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993 fax +359(2)920-0994 mobile +359(88)856-6067 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Gaim signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: File permissions
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Arjan Oosting wrote..
Op ma, 11-09-2006 te 22:25 +1000, schreef James Healy:
Mentors,
I am attempting to build a package and lintian is spitting out a
bunch of executable-not-elf-or-script warnings.
The upstream tarball has an examples directory which I am
installing into the package using dh_installexamples. None of
the examples are shell scripts or ELF binaries, yet they seem to
untar with executable permissions.
What is the best way to modify the permissions when I copy them
over?
Hi,
So it seems you have to do it with a call to chmod in your
debian/rules.
In debian/rules, try:
find debian/examples/ -type f -and -perm +111 -print0 |
xargs -0ri chmod uog-x '{}'
Kevin
--
Kevin Coyner GnuPG key: 1024D/8CE11941
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: File permissions
On 2006-09-11, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think exec bit in a tarball is right. Best way is to repack upstream sources. No. Upstream should only be repacked in rare cases like when it contains non-free materials. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS (or feedback): chuck
Dear mentors, I am looking for feedback and/or a sponsor for my package chuck. * Package name: chuck Version : 1.2.0.6-1 Upstream Author : Ge Wang and Perry R. Cook * URL : http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/ * License : GPL Section : sound It builds these binary packages: chuck - a strongly-timed and on-the-fly audio programming language The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix the following ITP bug: 267626 Link: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/chuck/chuck_1.2.0.6-1.dsc regards James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS (or feedback): chuck
Hi James, * James Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-11 16:23]: Dear mentors, I am looking for feedback and/or a sponsor for my package chuck. [...] The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix the following ITP bug: 267626 I did a quick look at it the following things came to my mind: - The copyright file is broken, read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html - Consider to add a homepage tag to control file (6.2.4 developers reference) - dirs file is redundant here Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF http://www.ngolde.de | http://nion.modprobe.de/blog/ Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons - gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys! pgpmBfnEY8Yj4.pgp Description: PGP signature
detecting cutomized conffiles and debconf
Hello Mentors, to make the long story short this is an how to deal existing conffiles and a new set of debconf questions to setup the package? question. Now, the package is cpufrequtils and what I'd like to achieve is providing some nice debconf templates to configure /etc/default/cpufrequtils which will allow the user to set a boottime policy. At the same time I'd like to avoid annoying users who already customized their configuration (I assume they don't need to be questioned again) and obviously avoid overwriting their customized file. Which is the way to go? AFAICT debsums could help or maybe should I not make /etc/default/cpufrequtils a conffile and manually manage it? Thanks in advance -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: python-support and arch dependant file
[Apologies for replying to my own message again, but Adam keeps mentioning things in other channels to which I cannot respond] On (09/09/06 19:57), James Westby wrote: After discussion on IRC it seems that a compile flag is wanted to do this. Ok, in #361400 you say you are not happy with the included patch, which patch do you mean by this? You then said on IRC that you had found a better solution, but the current version on mentors appears to have my first patch used. If you are after a different solution could you please explain what you are trying to achieve, and where my patches fall short. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seeking for a new package maintainer
Hello *, I'm new here. I have a new application which I'd like to see included in Etch. It's the killer application of the century, as you might guess. Jokes apart, I really believe this app is an important one. The problem is that I'm completely new to debs building. I'm afraid it's too late for me to learn how to package a deb, to enter the official maintainers group and to deploy my app in time for Etch. So, is there anyone with the required skills who is interested in becoming the official package maintainer for my app? But first, what does it do? The name is DWAI, that stands for Debian Web AutoInstaller. The concept is similar to Click'n'Run from Linspire, but mine is completely free and not tied to any particular distro (any debian based will do). If you feel interested, but you'd like more infos about it, please read the developers mailing list archives available on SourceForge, then give it a try. There's still something to do, but the most important things are in place and work. http://dwai.sf.net Thanks in advance for any help, Lucio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking for a new package maintainer
Hi Lucio, I'm new here. I have a new application which I'd like to see included in Etch. It's the killer application of the century, as you might guess. Jokes apart, I really believe this app is an important one. The problem is that I'm completely new to debs building. I'm afraid it's too late for me to learn how to package a deb, to enter the official maintainers group and to deploy my app in time for Etch. It's never too late to learn The Art of Packaging :)) So, is there anyone with the required skills who is interested in becoming the official package maintainer for my app? I think you have to fill a RFP (Request For Package) bugs against wnpp: if you use reportbugs wnpp from your console, you'll be presented to a menu where to choose RFP and then a template to fill. When someone willing to package that tool see the but, will usually rename it to ITP (Intent To Package) and the travel have a beginning... Best Wishes, Sandro -- Sandro Tosi (aka Morpheus, matrixhasu) My (little) site: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libinklevel -- library for checking the ink level of your local printer
On (11/09/06 09:40), Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libinklevel.
* Package name: libinklevel
Hi Adam,
Some comments
* Your package fails in my pbuilder, (and not just mine). A call to
ldconfig in the install target is a bad idea. Removing the call from
the Makefile solves this, but means the .so.3 link is missing, so
you would have to add that yourself. If you wish to provide a fix
upstream either
- Suggest they use PREFIX and DESTDIR as most packages do, and
don't call ldconfig if DESTDIR is not empty.
- Make the symlink, rather that calling ldconfig.
* The version number is ugly, consider use of the now supported ~
(e.g. 0.6.6~rc3-1)
* ${Source-Version} should be ${binary:Version}
* I would want more in the description, does it support all printers?
The README.Debian includes a list, but it would be good to have a
short list in the desciption, (e.g. many printers from Epson and HP
are supported)
* Your debian/copyright disagrees with the AUTHORS file about the
upstream authors, also you have missed a copyright holder.
James
--
James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/
seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: detecting cutomized conffiles and debconf
Hi Mattia, Op ma, 11-09-2006 te 21:01 +0200, schreef Mattia Dongili: Hello Mentors, to make the long story short this is an how to deal existing conffiles and a new set of debconf questions to setup the package? question. Now, the package is cpufrequtils and what I'd like to achieve is providing some nice debconf templates to configure /etc/default/cpufrequtils which will allow the user to set a boottime policy. At the same time I'd like to avoid annoying users who already customized their configuration (I assume they don't need to be questioned again) and obviously avoid overwriting their customized file. Which is the way to go? AFAICT debsums could help or maybe should I not make /etc/default/cpufrequtils a conffile and manually manage it? If you change the contents of a configuration file in your maintainer scripts, for instance by using debconf, they should not be conffiles but regular configuration files. See Debian policy on this. You should stop shipping the file as conffile, read in the configfile in your preinst, save the values for use with debconf, and then make the file a configuration file. Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: RFS: ink -- tool for checking the ink level of your local printer
On (11/09/06 09:43), Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package ink. * Package name: ink Hi, Some of the comments for libinklevel also apply here * Version number. * Description. * Upstream Authors. * There's a linda warning saying the the long description contains the short description, consider fixing this. I don't have a printer so I can't test the package. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS (or feedback): chuck
On (11/09/06 16:47), Nico Golde wrote: * James Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-11 16:23]: I am looking for feedback and/or a sponsor for my package chuck. This looks interesting, thanks for your work. I did a quick look at it the following things came to my mind: - The copyright file is broken, read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html This is correct. However a quick scan over the packages reveals src/rtmidi.cp which has the following license Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The second clause of which is probably not DFSG-free. It would be a shame to lose this software because of this, so hopefully we can find a way to solve this problem. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking for a new package maintainer
Sandro Tosi wrote: It's never too late to learn The Art of Packaging :)) I agree, but it can bee too late for Etch... however I'm going to learn The Art, but I don't want to learn it in a hurry thus missing some important steps. I think you have to fill a RFP (Request For Package) bugs against wnpp: Thanks alot, done. That's another reason why I like Debian so much... Lucio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFH: python-support and arch dependant file
James Westby wrote: [Apologies for replying to my own message again, but Adam keeps mentioning things in other channels to which I cannot respond] On (09/09/06 19:57), James Westby wrote: After discussion on IRC it seems that a compile flag is wanted to do this. Ok, in #361400 you say you are not happy with the included patch, which patch do you mean by this? You then said on IRC that you had found a better solution, but the current version on mentors appears to have my first patch used. The patch is still present bu not used anymore. I call scons with several python version, just have a look to the new debian/rules ;-) If you are after a different solution could you please explain what you are trying to achieve, and where my patches fall short. less debian/rules again ! James Thanks for your help. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libinklevel -- library for checking the ink level of your local printer
James Westby wrote:
On (11/09/06 09:40), Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libinklevel.
* Package name: libinklevel
Hi Adam,
Some comments
* Your package fails in my pbuilder, (and not just mine). A call to
ldconfig in the install target is a bad idea. Removing the call from
the Makefile solves this, but means the .so.3 link is missing, so
you would have to add that yourself. If you wish to provide a fix
upstream either
- Suggest they use PREFIX and DESTDIR as most packages do, and
don't call ldconfig if DESTDIR is not empty.
- Make the symlink, rather that calling ldconfig.
I will have a look to this, I hope I'll understand how to fix it.
* The version number is ugly, consider use of the now supported ~
(e.g. 0.6.6~rc3-1)
How should I use it ? Do I need to rename upstream sources tarball ?
* ${Source-Version} should be ${binary:Version}
Okay.
* I would want more in the description, does it support all printers?
The README.Debian includes a list, but it would be good to have a
short list in the desciption, (e.g. many printers from Epson and HP
are supported)
Hmm, nice suggestion.
* Your debian/copyright disagrees with the AUTHORS file about the
upstream authors, also you have missed a copyright holder.
Files copyrights disagree with the AUTHORS file so I don't know who's
right...
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: pykaraoke
Pykaraoke is already in the repositories, but as a new version has come out with lots of improvements. PyKaraoke is a free karaoke player. You can use this program to play your collection of CDG, MIDI and MPEG karaoke songs. There is also a frontend for the pycdg and pympg karaoke players. It provides a search engine to find your songs, a file/folder browser to pick songs from disk, as well as a playlist. Homepage: http://www.kibosh.org/pykaraoke/ The game is coded in python, and the packages are available at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pykaraoke/ For dget: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pykaraoke/pykaraoke_0.5-1.dsc Comments and suggestions are also welcome. Miry __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: transmission
Hello, I need a sponsor for this package: Package: wnpp * Package name: transmission Version : 0.6.1 Upstream Author : Eric Petit [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://transmission.m0k.org * License : MIT Description : lightweight bittorrent client Transmission is a free, lightweight BitTorrent client. It features a simple, intuitive interface on top on an efficient, cross-platform back-end. The package is lintian/linda clean. There already is an ITP posted 170 days ago, but no one is responding. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=358878 I don't think that the mentioned license problems are relevant. This package includes some source files with different licenses but all are free. (See the copyright file for details) http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~pbenner/debian/transmission_0.6.1-1.diff.gz http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~pbenner/debian/transmission_0.6.1-1.dsc http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~pbenner/debian/transmission_0.6.1.orig.tar.gz http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~pbenner/debian/transmission_0.6.1-1_powerpc.changes http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~pbenner/debian/transmission_0.6.1-1_powerpc.deb Regards, Philipp Benner -- pub 1024D/EB88E930 2004-02-08 pgp.mit.edu C1A8 2BE8 7587 215D 91EB B015 A95C 3BEC EB88 E930 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: pykaraoke
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:56:45AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pykaraoke/pykaraoke_0.5-1.dsc Reviewing it. Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS (or feedback): chuck
Le Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:48:21PM +0100, James Westby a écrit : The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version. (...) The second clause [...] is probably not DFSG-free. Hi all, In a program I am packaging, there was a clause where the users were requested to cite a relevant article when publishing the results. I enquired about this to the upstream author, and he confirmed that by requested they did not mean required. Do you think that the same interpretation would hold true in the case of the above clause? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
