Re: libgtk2.0-dev
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > libpango1.0-0: Depends: libdatrie0 (>= 0.1.2) but it is not installable > The following actions will resolve these dependencies: This looks like a question for debian-user. The answer is to wait until the packages are rebuilt. -- 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
libgtk2.0-dev
Hello mentors, I just building package which need libgtk2.0-dev like build dependency. I am getting this output in pbuilder: --- The following packages have unmet dependencies: libpango1.0-0: Depends: libdatrie0 (>= 0.1.2) but it is not installable The following actions will resolve these dependencies: Remove the following packages: pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy Install the following packages: libdatrie0 [0.1.3-2 ()] Keep the following packages at their current version: libgtk2.0-0 [Not Installed] libgtk2.0-dev [Not Installed] libpango1.0-0 [Not Installed] libpango1.0-dev [Not Installed] libthai0 [Not Installed] libdatrie0 is not in sid. How can I solve this problem? regards mira -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard : > So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If > 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different > suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy... Yes (but not very), yes (or the others), the versions are chosen by people and people don't think alike. I think I prefer the plus variant but I'm not fully sure why. Perhaps the -dfsg-1 might get confused with a Debian version somewhere and perhaps the plus makes it more clear that the version is modified. > OK, and why "dfsg1" and not simply "dfsg" ? The possibility exists of multiple non-free things being found over time, this makes it clear that this is the first dfsg-ified tarball for this upstream release. For later removals you can bump that version to 2. -- 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
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 18:30 +0200, Didier Raboud a écrit : > Julien Valroff wrote: > > > Hi Didier, > > > > (…) > > > > By the way, don't you think usb-modeswitch and ozerocdoff should > > conflict? Though they do not share files, they could cause issues when > > installed together - I haven't tested though as usb-modeswitch doesn't > > work with my hardware. > > > > Cheers, > > Julien > > Hi, > > That's a good question. I don't have an opinion yet, but note that > usb-modeswitch since 0.9.6-2 tries to be clever and provides > a /e/u/rules.d/usb_modeswitch.rules which renders its manual launch useless > by being run at plugin time. It has some glitches (aka there are different > devices with same idVendor:idProduct which need different commands) but > mostly work with 'some' configuration. I have tried it again and actually it worked fine, except it misses some HAL rules so that the system detects the modem as such (eg. for use with NetworkManager). > usb-modeswitch.rules has no number and as such, no pre-defined precedence on > other rules. It supposes that it will be the only one acting on those > devices. > > Because I think that a Conflict is overkill, I would go on without Conflict > and see what happens. If we (either on ozerocdoff or on usb-modeswitch) get > bugreports that some devices are wrongly detected by usb-modeswitch and > should better be used with ozerocdoff (or the opposite), we will jointly > decide at that time (either by fixing the bug directly in the concerned > package or by making them Conflict). > > What do you think ? Actually, I have already made ozerocdoff conlict with usb-modeswitch, but wanted to ask you before asking for the package to be uploaded but totally forgot in the meantime, sorry about this. Do you think I should remove this conflict? I do agree with your comment, but would personally rather bet on safety and make these packages conflict. What do other think? Cheers, Julien -- Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org Rejoignez maintenant plus de 4 500 personnes, associations, entreprises et collectivités qui soutiennent notre action -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 16:40, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard : > > So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1 > > already exists in Sid) ? > > Yep. > > > What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? > > With or without the "-" character after "dfsg" ? > > Sorting. 1.2.dfsg sorts after 1.2.1 but 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort > before 1.2.1. See dpkg --compare-versions and debian-policy. So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy... > > > The only reason I see that could be invoked to drop, or 0.2dfsg1-2 or > > similar "*~" files is the archive size, I'm not sure it is justifiable > > for a 50 KB archive... > > If you're already repacking due to non-free stuff you can remove > whatever else you want to remove. OK. > > > I'm almost sure it is impossible to reupload the source tarball, I read > > that somewhere in the documentation. And it seems to be logic if several > > package revisions use a diff file based on it. > > If you bump the upstream version (by appending dfsg1 or similar) that > means a new upstream tarball. OK, and why "dfsg1" and not simply "dfsg" ? -- Laurent Léonard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Julien Valroff wrote: > Hi Didier, > > (…) > > By the way, don't you think usb-modeswitch and ozerocdoff should > conflict? Though they do not share files, they could cause issues when > installed together - I haven't tested though as usb-modeswitch doesn't > work with my hardware. > > Cheers, > Julien Hi, That's a good question. I don't have an opinion yet, but note that usb-modeswitch since 0.9.6-2 tries to be clever and provides a /e/u/rules.d/usb_modeswitch.rules which renders its manual launch useless by being run at plugin time. It has some glitches (aka there are different devices with same idVendor:idProduct which need different commands) but mostly work with 'some' configuration. usb-modeswitch.rules has no number and as such, no pre-defined precedence on other rules. It supposes that it will be the only one acting on those devices. Because I think that a Conflict is overkill, I would go on without Conflict and see what happens. If we (either on ozerocdoff or on usb-modeswitch) get bugreports that some devices are wrongly detected by usb-modeswitch and should better be used with ozerocdoff (or the opposite), we will jointly decide at that time (either by fixing the bug directly in the concerned package or by making them Conflict). What do you think ? Best regards, OdyX -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Hi Didier, Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 11:27 +0200, Didier Raboud a écrit : > Julien Valroff wrote: > > >> Maybe there is another one further down. Also, lintian warns: > >> > >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >> I: ozerocdoff source: debian-watch-file-is-missing > >> P: ozerocdoff source: source-contains-prebuilt-binary ozerocdoff.o > >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > Grr I don't understand what I have done as I had to repack the sources to > > remove this binary. > > I do not understand neither why I wasn't warned by lintian on my build > > machine (I used svn-buildpackage -svn-lintian which gave no error nor > > warning!) > > Hi Julien, > > note that usb-modeswitch (the concurrent ;) ) also provides a prebuilt > binary in the tarball and that the lintian warning is a "pedantic" one. Yes, that's right, that's why I haven't been warned by svn-lintian I hadn't paid attention to this when reading Rogério's message. > I just overwrite this prebuilt binary in the building process. It voids the > need for a orig.source repack. Well, I actually prefer repacking (that was my aim but just not uploaded the right orig.tar.gz to mentors.d.n yesterday) By the way, don't you think usb-modeswitch and ozerocdoff should conflict? Though they do not share files, they could cause issues when installed together - I haven't tested though as usb-modeswitch doesn't work with my hardware. Cheers, Julien -- Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org Rejoignez maintenant plus de 4 500 personnes, associations, entreprises et collectivités qui soutiennent notre action -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Hi Rogério, Le mardi 14 avril 2009 à 21:08 -0300, Rogério Brito a écrit : > Hi, Julien. > > I am not a DD, but I just saw your package. > > On Apr 14 2009, Julien Valroff wrote: > > * URL : http://www.pharscape.org/ozerocdoff.html > > The URL doesn't seem to be informative enough for an end user. PharScape is on the contrary *the* only valuable source of information for end users owning an Option USB WWWAN modem. I agree with you that some parts of the website might appear cryptic at first sight, but if you own such a modem, it really helps a lot. As for the descriptions, I have amended them slightly as follows: short description: temporarily disables ZeroCD for USB Option WWAN modem Long description: The new USB Option WWAN modem devices support a CDROM device, which holds the needed Windows driver to use the WWAN modem. . Therefore the firmware of the WWAN modem announces during the USB enumeration process to work as a virtual CDROM device with its vendor name "ZOPTION". . This device is now called ZERO-CD. . ozerocdoff is a solution to switch off the ZERO-CD and allow the modem to be a used as a modem. Actually, I have completed the short description so that it states keywords such as Option and modem. I have corrected the grammatical errors in the long description, but haven't changed it as it seems clear to me. But as I use this piece of software, I would be glad to receive others' comments to improve it. Cheers, Julien -- Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org Rejoignez maintenant plus de 4 500 personnes, associations, entreprises et collectivités qui soutiennent notre action -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard : > So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1 > already exists in Sid) ? Yep. > What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? With or > without the "-" character after "dfsg" ? Sorting. 1.2.dfsg sorts after 1.2.1 but 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1. See dpkg --compare-versions and debian-policy. > The only reason I see that could be invoked to drop, or 0.2dfsg1-2 or similar > "*~" files is the archive > size, I'm not sure it is justifiable for a 50 KB archive... If you're already repacking due to non-free stuff you can remove whatever else you want to remove. > I'm almost sure it is impossible to reupload the source tarball, I read that > somewhere in the documentation. And it seems to be logic if several package > revisions use a diff file based on it. If you bump the upstream version (by appending dfsg1 or similar) that means a new upstream tarball. -- 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
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 15:58, Paul Wise a écrit : > 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard : > >> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified > >> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix? > > > > I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this... > > I can't find any reference for this but yes, add +dfsg1 to the > upstream version number. So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1 already exists in Sid) ? What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? With or without the "-" character after "dfsg" ? > > More best practices for the orig.tar.gz are available here: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices#bpp-or >igtargz The only reason I see that could be invoked to drop "*~" files is the archive size, I'm not sure it is justifiable for a 50 KB archive... I'm almost sure it is impossible to reupload the source tarball, I read that somewhere in the documentation. And it seems to be logic if several package revisions use a diff file based on it. -- Laurent Léonard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard : >> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified >> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix? > > I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this... I can't find any reference for this but yes, add +dfsg1 to the upstream version number. More best practices for the orig.tar.gz are available here: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices#bpp-origtargz -- 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
Re: RFS: kio-ftps (updated package)
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 02:53, Rogério Brito a écrit : > Hi, Laurent. > > IANADD, but I just saw your package. And I have some comments. > > On Apr 14 2009, Laurent Léonard wrote: > > It builds these binary packages: > > kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4 > > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > * I'm not so sure about this: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > I: kio-ftps source: quilt-patch-missing-description > cmakelists_kde42_fix.diff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - - - - It seems to be a simple information, but perhaps it is interesting to add a description in the patch file ? > > * The source tree has many *~ files there. Since you are modifying the > source package (removing the RFC file), you can remove those too, if > they aren't needed. I think I can't drop files in the source tree if it's not for a licensing problem, and those files are automatically deleted at building time. And the source tarball is already uploaded, I think it's not possible to reupload it... > > * The long description has lowercase letter starting sentences. This > should be fixed. I just took the upstream description, but I agree with you, I will fix it. > > * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified > from upstream, with a dfsg suffix? I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this... -- Laurent Léonard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: working on package
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Grammostola Rosea wrote: > Stephan Peijnik wrote: >> An RFP is not an ITP. Change that to an ITP if you "Intend To >> Package" (actually you already did that). > > How do you change this? http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#retitle -- 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
Re: working on package
Stephan Peijnik wrote: On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 20:56 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Stephan Peijnik wrote: Hello, On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 17:02 +0200, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Should I post a message somewhere when I start to work on a package? as you already sent an email you could fill us in anyways, yes. Is it something completely new or an update to an existing package? If it's a new package you may want to file an ITP[0]. It's an package which is reported as an RFP bug An RFP is not an ITP. Change that to an ITP if you "Intend To Package" (actually you already did that). How do you change this? \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Julien Valroff wrote: >> Maybe there is another one further down. Also, lintian warns: >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> I: ozerocdoff source: debian-watch-file-is-missing >> P: ozerocdoff source: source-contains-prebuilt-binary ozerocdoff.o >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Grr I don't understand what I have done as I had to repack the sources to > remove this binary. > I do not understand neither why I wasn't warned by lintian on my build > machine (I used svn-buildpackage -svn-lintian which gave no error nor > warning!) Hi Julien, note that usb-modeswitch (the concurrent ;) ) also provides a prebuilt binary in the tarball and that the lintian warning is a "pedantic" one. I just overwrite this prebuilt binary in the building process. It voids the need for a orig.source repack. Best regards, Didier -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ozerocdoff
Hi Rogério, On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:08:35 -0300, Rogério Brito wrote: > Hi, Julien. > > I am not a DD, but I just saw your package. All comments are welcome, thanks for your time! > On Apr 14 2009, Julien Valroff wrote: >> * URL : http://www.pharscape.org/ozerocdoff.html > > The URL doesn't seem to be informative enough for an end user. > >> It builds these binary packages: >> ozerocdoff - temporarily disables ZeroCD > > More consistency in the use of ZeroCD or ZERO-CD in the short and long > descriptions of the package would help a lot. I didn't know what ZeroCD > was and I googled and went to wikipedia even. Wikipedia doesn't have any > articles that contain the "ZeroCD" keyword. You are right, but it is something very cryptic at the basis, as this is something done by Option for Windows users only, without respecting the USB standards. This package is very specific and will only be used by people with such hardware. I will try and improve the descriptions to make things clearer. > Thus, I would suggest you to improve the descriptions. Also, the long > description seems a bit cryptic. Furthermore, the first line of the long > description seems to have a grammatical error: I will have a look at it as well > Maybe there is another one further down. Also, lintian warns: > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > I: ozerocdoff source: debian-watch-file-is-missing > P: ozerocdoff source: source-contains-prebuilt-binary ozerocdoff.o > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grr I don't understand what I have done as I had to repack the sources to remove this binary. I do not understand neither why I wasn't warned by lintian on my build machine (I used svn-buildpackage -svn-lintian which gave no error nor warning!) I will have a look at all these things ASAP, but most probably not before the end of the week. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
