RFS: rsplib
Dear mentors, We are looking for a sponsor for our package rsplib. RSPLIB is the Open Source implementation (GPLv3) of the IETF's standard for Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool), which is described in RFC 5351 to RFC 5356. If you a looking for a Grid compution solution which is simple, easy to setup and mostly self-configuring, you are probably looking for RSerPool! It provides leightweight protocols and functionalities for the management of server pools and sessions between users and pools. In particular, RSerPool can be used for highly available applications and for load distribution and load balancing in server pools. Its API is simple to use and understand, making the development of own distributed applications very easy. Details on RSerPool and the RSPLIB can be found on our project's website: http://tdrwww.iem.uni- due.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. RSPLIB is already included in the Ubuntu Linux distribution. Therefore, we would also like to contribute it into Debian, too. * Package name: rsplib Version : 2.6.0 Upstream Author : Thomas Dreibholz dre...@iem.uni-due.de * URL : http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de/dreibholz/rserpool/ * License : GPL, version 3 Section : net It builds these binary packages: libcpprspserver-dev - headers of the C++ RSerPool client/server API library libcpprspserver2 - C++ RSerPool client/server API library librsplib-dev - headers of the RSerPool client/server API library rsplib librsplib2 - RSerPool client/server API library for load distribution and serv rsplib-fgp-cfgfiles - RSerPool Fractal Generator Service example input files rsplib-registrar - RSerPool Registrar service rsplib-services - RSerPool example services rsplib-tools - RSerPool test tools The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rsplib - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rsplib/rsplib_2.6.0-1unstable0.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for us. Best regards -- === Dr. Thomas Dreibholz University of Duisburg-Essen, Room ES210 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstraße 29 Computer Networking Technology GroupD-45326 Essen/Germany --- E-Mail: dre...@iem.uni-due.de Homepage: http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh === signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: battery-stats (updated package)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 09:56:09PM +, Antonio Radici wrote: Gonéri Le Bouder wrote: Since battery-stats 0.3.3-2 is in testing you shouldn't upload a new upstream release in unstable[1]. experimental is still an option. You can prepare a 0.3.3-3 package with just the fix for #512701, after the upload you'll have to ask the release team to accept this package in testing[1]. For your current 0.3.4-1 package, the best is to upload it in experimental but for the moment it still has some issue: - It FTBFS is gnuplot-nox is not installed - /usr/lib/battery-stats/graph-setup should be in /usr/share/battery-stats since it's an arch indep file - /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL is now a symlink to GPL-3, you need to adjust the debian/copyright - since you provide a menu file, can you please also add a .desktop and an icon Hi, I've fixed all these things, and added the icon into the upstream. Hi Antonio. Hum, I can't see the .desktop file. Can you please add I and I'll upload the package. I attached some changes I did to fix two remaining errors. Please apply the patch: E: battery-stats: bad-test-in-menu-item /usr/share/menu/battery-stats:3 E: battery-stats: menu-icon-not-in-xpm-format /usr/share/battery-stats/pixmaps/battery-stats.png Best regards, Gonéri Le Bouder diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index f622df9..1aeeefe 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ battery-stats (0.3.4-1) experimental; urgency=low + + [ Antonio Radici ] * debianizing new upstream release which includes: + all debian patches + autotools packaging and optinal ACPI support @@ -14,6 +16,10 @@ battery-stats (0.3.4-1) experimental; urgency=low * debian/changelog + uploading on experimental + [ Gonéri Le Bouder ] + * debian menu want xpm icon, adjust the debian/rules to generate it +from the .png and add a builddeps on imagemagick + -- Antonio Radici anto...@dyne.org Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:36:18 + battery-stats (0.3.3-3) unstable; urgency=low diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control index a00f692..1644d47 100644 --- a/debian/control +++ b/debian/control @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Source: battery-stats Section: admin Priority: extra Maintainer: Antonio Radici anto...@dyne.org -Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7), libapm-dev, libacpi-dev [i386 amd64 ia64], cdbs, autotools-dev, gnuplot-nox (= 4) +Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7), libapm-dev, libacpi-dev [i386 amd64 ia64], cdbs, autotools-dev, gnuplot-nox (= 4), imagemagick Standards-Version: 3.8.0 Homepage: http://karl.jorgensen.com/battery-stats/ diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules index fd5774c..c514a7a 100755 --- a/debian/rules +++ b/debian/rules @@ -3,4 +3,12 @@ include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk -# Add here any variable or target overrides you need. +build/battery-stats:: + mogrify -format xpm -geometry 32x32 pixmaps/battery-stats.png + +clean:: + rm -f ./pixmaps/battery-stats.xpm + +install/battery-stats:: + cp pixmaps/battery-stats.xpm debian/battery-stats/usr/share/battery-stats/pixmaps/battery-stats.xpm + signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL
Souce files of the program I'm packaging contain the following header: /* fswebcam - Small and simple webcam for *nix */ /*===*/ /* Copyright (C)2005-2006 Philip Heron p...@firestorm.cx */ /* */ /* This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU*/ /* General Public License, version 2. You may use, modify, */ /* and redistribute it under the terms of this license. A*/ /* copy should be included with this source. */ which isn't recognised as a GPL license statement by licensecheck. What should I do? Simply ignore it, file a bug against licensecheck, file a bug against upstream? The statements looks sound to me, so I would mind the last choice... Thanks Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:16, Luca Niccoli lultimou...@gmail.com wrote: Souce files of the program I'm packaging contain the following header: /* fswebcam - Small and simple webcam for *nix */ /*===*/ /* Copyright (C)2005-2006 Philip Heron p...@firestorm.cx */ /* */ /* This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU*/ /* General Public License, version 2. You may use, modify, */ /* and redistribute it under the terms of this license. A*/ /* copy should be included with this source. */ which isn't recognised as a GPL license statement by licensecheck. What should I do? Simply ignore it, file a bug against licensecheck, file a bug against upstream? I'd say file a bug on licensecheck Please note, if needed, that licensecheck is just a *helper* tool, you should *not* relay completely on this to check the copyright/license of upstream code, but you have to look at *every* source code files in upstream tarball and check manually the legal information. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL
Luca Niccoli lultimou...@gmail.com writes: Souce files of the program I'm packaging contain the following header: /* fswebcam - Small and simple webcam for *nix */ /*===*/ /* Copyright (C)2005-2006 Philip Heron p...@firestorm.cx */ /* */ /* This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU*/ /* General Public License, version 2. You may use, modify, */ /* and redistribute it under the terms of this license. A*/ /* copy should be included with this source. */ which isn't recognised as a GPL license statement by licensecheck. The ‘licensecheck’ tool is a guide only. It uses simple pattern matching to detect some well-known license grant texts, but can't hope to catch them all. The above is not one recognised by its existing patterns. Simply ignore it The above is a valid license grant IMO, so you shouldn't ignore it. file a bug against licensecheck The ‘licensecheck’ tool shouldn't attempt to cover every possible wording of a license grant; that would require natural language parsing at the least. Unless it misses wordings that are *very* common, I would say there isn't yet a bug in the tool. file a bug against upstream? You could politely request upstream to use a more common wording of the license grant. On the other hand, IMO there's nothing wrong with the wording as it is, so upstream could just as politely decline your request :-) What should I do? Use ‘licensecheck’ as an initial step, but never a last step. Always examine every file in any upstream work you want to package to see what the license grants actually are. -- \“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must | `\ not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” | _o__) —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What to do if the original tarball contains a debian subdirectory
Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: 2009/1/29 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br: I'd say it depends on what you are doing. If you are building on the work already there, keep the changelog. But if you are ignoring upstream's debian/ directory and starting your packaging from scratch, you can drop it. By keep the changelog you mean add my own new changelog entry at the top of the file as if it was the debian changelog? Wasn't it a debian/changelog file, describing the releases upstream has made? -- Never commit yourself! Let someone else commit you. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br http://move.to/hpkb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL
Hi, On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:16:32 +0100 Luca Niccoli lultimou...@gmail.com wrote: Souce files of the program I'm packaging contain the following header: /* fswebcam - Small and simple webcam for *nix */ /*===*/ /* Copyright (C)2005-2006 Philip Heron p...@firestorm.cx */ /* */ /* This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU*/ /* General Public License, version 2. You may use, modify, */ /* and redistribute it under the terms of this license. A*/ /* copy should be included with this source. */ which isn't recognised as a GPL license statement by licensecheck. What should I do? Simply ignore it, file a bug against licensecheck, file a bug against upstream? I'd suggest to ping the upstream authors of fswebcam and ask them in a friendly way, to use a more common wording here, jsustt to avoid maybe possible missunderstandings etc. The statements looks sound to me, so I would mind the last choice... I think its a valid GPL statement, so only a kind of formatinng issue. Cheers, Frank -- Frank Lanitz fr...@frank.uvena.de pgp1TNuM3K8Di.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: whohas (bugfixes)
Hi Paul/George/others I'm looking for sponsorship for whohas/0.22-3, which closes these bugs: 510020 510524 513466 513473 513476 Partiularly, 510020 and 510524 are aging a bit, so it would be nice to tidy them up. Pedantic lintian is clean, and all the patches have gone upstream. You can find the dsc at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-3.dsc Thanks -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfixes)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:51:35PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: Hi Paul/George/others I'm looking for sponsorship for whohas/0.22-3, which closes these bugs: 510020 510524 513466 513473 513476 Partiularly, 510020 and 510524 are aging a bit, so it would be nice to tidy them up. Pedantic lintian is clean, and all the patches have gone upstream. You can find the dsc at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-3.dsc Thanks Uploaded, couldn't find any issues. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfixes)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:31:16PM +, Martin Meredith wrote: Uploaded, couldn't find any issues. Cheers :-) -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: What to do if the original tarball contains a debian subdirectory
2009/1/30 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br: Wasn't it a debian/changelog file, describing the releases upstream has made? Yes, so I was thinking about just appending changes to the original file. (If the program gets packaged in Debian, upstream agrees not to create his own debian subdirectory, so there won't be problems with future releases.) Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: fspy - filesystem activity monitoring tool
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fspy. * Package name: fspy Version : 0.1.0-1 Upstream Author : Richard Sammet richard.sam...@gmail.com * URL : http://mytty.org/fspy/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Section : misc It builds these binary packages: fspy - filesystem activity monitoring tool The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 513577 Description: filesystem activity monitoring tool fspy is an easy to use Linux filesystem activity monitoring tool which is meant to be small, fast and to handle system resources conservative. You can apply filters, use diffing and your own output format in order to get the best results. screenshots: http://mytty.org/fspy/regular_exec.png http://mytty.org/fspy/advanced_exec.png The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fspy - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fspy/fspy_0.1.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Giuseppe Iuculano signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: rsplib
On Friday 30 January 2009 08:08:43 Thomas Dreibholz wrote: Dear mentors, Hi, We are looking for a sponsor for our package rsplib. RSPLIB is the Open Source implementation (GPLv3) of the IETF's standard for Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool), which is described in RFC 5351 to RFC 5356. If you a looking for a Grid compution solution which is simple, easy to setup and mostly self-configuring, you are probably looking for RSerPool! It provides leightweight protocols and functionalities for the management of server pools and sessions between users and pools. In particular, RSerPool can be used for highly available applications and for load distribution and load balancing in server pools. Its API is simple to use and understand, making the development of own distributed applications very easy. Details on RSerPool and the RSPLIB can be found on our project's website: http://tdrwww.iem.uni- due.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. I'm not familiar with rserpool, so I can't comment on it, though the code looks pretty clean. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rsplib/rsplib_2.6.0-1unstable0.dsc This is not the version found at mentors, so I can only comment on 2.6.0-0unstable1 which is currently sitting there. I'm not sure waht might went wrong. * You don't need 'unstable' in your debian revision; that would be confusing (at least) when that such a package version migrates to Debian testing or released with stable. * You need the following build-dependencies (building in a clean chroot would help to identifiy such problems): libx11-dev libxext-dev libxmu-dev libxi-dev Generally if you link with -lfoo, then you would need libfoo-dev in your build-depends, as libfoo-dev will pull whatever is further needed. In your case you can even make it with libxi-dev and libxmu-dev only in build-depends, since these will pull libxext-dev and libx11-dev (as dependants), but IMO it is far cleaner to express your build-depends based on what you link with. * There are some lintian warnings you want to clean up a bit; of course you want to use lintian from sid. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: grcm (updated package)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.6-1 of my ITA package grcm. It builds these binary packages: grcm - GNOME application to initiate connections to remote machines The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 465890 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grcm - - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grcm/grcm_0.1.6-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Miguelangel Jose Freitas Loreto -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmDkvMACgkQEj/fBl4PScTZXQCcDQNA4U3TGqpwmB/rXKPxEPOB 1jYAn2QO2EeDsvM5Myo0r+nlsZ78/kfL =15xK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: fspy - filesystem activity monitoring tool
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:45:44PM +0100, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package fspy. * Package name: fspy Version : 0.1.0-1 Upstream Author : Richard Sammet richard.sam...@gmail.com * URL : http://mytty.org/fspy/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Section : misc It builds these binary packages: fspy - filesystem activity monitoring tool Looks good, except that the manpage mentions info pages which don't appear to exist in the package or upstream tarball. Fix that up, reupload to m.d.n, let me know, and I'll upload it. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: qrupdate
2009/1/29 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso jord...@gmail.com wrote: patches/add-soname seems to change the whitespace in the definition of SRC, why? Why not? It fits into 80 columns that way. :-) Just a gratuitous change, also unrelated to the purpose of the patch. Okay... undone. patches/add-soname needs some more metadata: upstream status, author, location it was taken from (if it was taken from somewhere). Done. Where is this requirement documented? Nowhere, it is just common sense really. I guess my sense is uncommon, then. *shrug* tab character before the Source: package name in debian/control Hm, I don't see this... Look at the diff.gz with less. I don't see it there either. Heisenbug. extra lines in debian/watch debian/*dirs debian/*install debian/docs Removed, but why does this matter? Doesn't matter, just slightly sloppy. ... I liked at least one of those whitespaces, the one in debian/watch, because it separates the version line from the actual content, but ok, I removed it. Okay, uploaded again, addressing all the things above. Oh, I forgot one thing. The Perl version. Does it matter if it's 5.10? Should I try to track down the earliest Perl version that works for this script? 5.10 is lenny, wouldn't backporters have to backport to lenny anyways? - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qrupdate - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qrupdate/qrupdate_1.0-1.dsc - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: qrupdate
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
jord...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/29 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
tab character before the Source: package name in debian/control
Hm, I don't see this...
Look at the diff.gz with less.
I don't see it there either. Heisenbug.
hexedit says byte 0x7 of debian/control is a tab (0x09) rather than a
space (0x20). Anyway, not a big deal.
Oh, I forgot one thing. The Perl version. Does it matter if it's 5.10?
Should I try to track down the earliest Perl version that works for
this script? 5.10 is lenny, wouldn't backporters have to backport to
lenny anyways?
Just tested it on an etch system (perl 5.8.8), worked fine. I really
doubt that it requires any recent version of perl.
I think you missed my debhelper 7 comment?
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qrupdate/qrupdate_1.0-1.dsc
More comments:
The package FTBFS in a clean chroot. Please always test in a clean
chroot with sbuild/pbuilder/cowbuilder/qemubuilder/etc.
I see lots of warnings from dpkg-shlibdeps, you might want to
investigate and contact upstream about them
lintian gives one --pedantic warning, please encourage upstream to add
a NEWS or ChangeLog file:
P: libqrupdate1: no-upstream-changelog
There are no header files in the -dev package, does fortran not need
external headers to be able to link to the library ?
You don't handle DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS noopt or parallel=n, please check
the debian-policy for info on that.
I assume you've read libpkg-guide?
Is the static library needed? Debian tends towards not installing them
where possible.
build-stamp should depend on $(QUILT_STAMPFN) instead of patch.
configure/configure-stamp don't do anything, you can probably drop them.
I would assume libqrupdate1 would mainly be installed automatically
and the -dev package would be installed manually by people wanting to
use the library. If that is the case, the function-reference and
README should be in the -dev package. In addition the package
descriptions should reflect this; the lib one should be minimalist and
the -dev package should be aimed at folks developing software using
the lib.
You're missing ${misc:Depends} from the Depends, you should always
include it in case some debhelper script adds stuff to it in the
future.
libqrupdate1 should be in section libs rather than libdevel
You don't specify which version of the GPL your packaging is released
under, was that intentional?
The copyright file is wrong, Jaroslav Hajek seems to be the author but
not the copyright holder.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
