RFS: nautilus-image-converter (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.0-3 of my package "nautilus-image-converter". It's mostly an upload to unstable of the package for now in experimental, following GNOME migration. It builds these binary packages: nautilus-image-converter - nautilus extension to mass resize or rotate images The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 474776, 475237, 529936 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nautilus-image-converter - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nautilus-image-converter/nautilus-image-converter_0.3.0-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Julien Lavergne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: NEW: dico 2.0-1
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dico". This package is NEW to Debian. The ITP number is: 522368 * Package name: dico Version : 2.0 Debian Revision : 1 Upstream Author : Sergey Poznyakoff * URL : http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/software/dico/ * License : GPL-3+ Languages : C (mainly), Python Section : text Long description: Dico is an implementation of DICT server (RFC 2229). It is fully modular: the daemon itself (dicod) provides only the server functionality, but it knows nothing about database formats. Actual searches are performed by functions supplied in loadable modules. A single module can serve one or more databases. It builds these binary packages: dico - RFC 2229 compliant dictionary client dico-dev - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (development files) dico-doc - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (documentation) dico-module-dictorg - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (dict.org databse support) dico-module-guile - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Guile support) dico-module-mediawiki - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Wiki support) dico-module-outline - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Emacs outline support) dico-module-python - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (Python support) dicoclient-python - python Dico client module and shell dicod - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server dicoweb- RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (web interface) libdico0 - RFC 2229 compliant modular dictionary server (shared library) wit- wiki translator The latest entry in the Debian changelog is: dico (2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release (Closes: #522368). As required, I tested the package against unstable's version of lintian and it is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dico - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dico/dico_2.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7 (@ subkeys.pgp.net) GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: nautilus-image-converter (updated package)
On Sun, 24 May 2009 13:33:34 +0200, Julien Lavergne wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.0-3 > of my package "nautilus-image-converter". > It's mostly an upload to unstable of the package for now in > experimental, following GNOME migration. This package was maintained by me. I'm replying just to confirm it's not an hijack, but a change of maintainership :) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: kde-plasmoid-yawp
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "plasma-widget-yawp". * Package name: plasma-widget-yawp Version : 0.2.3-1 Upstream Author : Pierpaolo Vittorini , Marián Kyral , Ezequiel Aguerre , Ruan Strydom * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/yawp * License : GPL2 Section : kde It builds these binary packages: plasma-widget-yawp - Yet Another Weather Plasmoid fetches weather forecasts for you The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 529815 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/plasma-widget-yawp - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/plasma-widget-yawp/plasma-widget-yawp_0.2.3-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Kai Wasserbäch P.S.: This package was formerly known as »kde-plasmoid-yawp« but renamed due to [0]. It isn't in the Debian archive with either name. It's a new package. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/05/msg00572.html -- Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech) E-Mail: deb...@carbon-project.org Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2 (http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to get rid of dir-or-file-in-var-run?
[2009-05-23 12:23] Daniel Moerner > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, markus schnalke wrote: > > > >I maintain masqmail, a mail transfer agent. It stores files in > >/var/run. Now I have this lintian warning: dir-or-file-in-var-run. > > > >Unfortunately, I dont know how to get the warning disappear. > > This was discussed pretty recently on debian-devel: > > http://www.nabble.com/Why-do-we-have-to-support-tmpfs-for--var-run-(policy-changes-in-3.8.1)-td22876947.html > > I'm not sure if a proper resolution was found though. Thanks for the hint -- I must have overlooked that. However, this was a discussion whether this policy change is useful or not. The thread did not help with my problem. Anyway, I solved it. (See other mail in this thread.) meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to get rid of dir-or-file-in-var-run?
[2009-05-23 20:52] Russ Allbery > markus schnalke writes: > > > I maintain masqmail, a mail transfer agent. It stores files in > > /var/run. Now I have this lintian warning: dir-or-file-in-var-run. > > > > Unfortunately, I dont know how to get the warning disappear. > > > > I checked the init script. It creates the /var/run/masqmail on > > startup. Also comments and changelog entries state that one former > > maintainer worked on exactly the issue (/var/run being a temp file > > system). > > > > Now, I also removed the `/var/run/masqmail' line from debian/dirs, but > > still the lintian warning appears. > > Check the contents of your package. For some reason, the package still > contains the directory even though you've removed it from debian/dirs. Indeed. The upstream makefile still created the directory. After removing it from there, the error went away. Thanks for pointing me more closely on what to search for. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Both dpkg-source -x foo.dsc and lintian seems to ignore trustedkeys.gpg keyring
Hi, before filing bugs and doing it wrong, I need to ask: A few hours ago, after upgrading my system, I got a new warning from lintian in my packages (I'm not on debian-maintainers.gpg keyring): $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F N: N:tar produced an error while unpacking this source package. This probably N:means there's something broken or at least strange about the way the N:upstream tar file was constructed. You may want to report this as an N:upstream bug. N: N:Severity: normal, Certainty: wild-guess N: I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found Of course I have my public key in gpg. So,here's the first thing I did to figure out what's happening: $ gpgv subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc gpgv: keyblock resource `/home/santa/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg': general error gpgv: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found Then I created the trustedkeys.gpg with my public key: $ gpg --no-default-keyring --keyring trustedkeys.gpg --recv-keys 5f99c10f gpg: keyring `/home/santa/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg' created gpg: requesting key 5F99C10F from hkp server wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net gpg: key 5F99C10F: public key "Jos� Manuel Santamar�a Lema " imported gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 Then gpgv works: $ gpgv subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc gpgv: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F gpgv: Good signature from "Jos� Manuel Santamar�a Lema Then, lintian again: $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F N: N:tar produced an error while unpacking this source package. This probably N:means there's something broken or at least strange about the way the N:upstream tar file was constructed. You may want to report this as an N:upstream bug. N: N:Severity: normal, Certainty: wild-guess N: I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found So, to figure out what was hapenning, I checked what dpkg-source -x does: $ dpkg-source -x subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc gpgv: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc dpkg-source: info: extracting subtitlecomposer in subtitlecomposer-0.5.2 dpkg-source: info: unpacking subtitlecomposer_0.5.2.orig.tar.gz dpkg-source: info: applying subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.diff.gz Then, I checked dscverify: $ dscverify subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc: dscverify: subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc failed signature check: gpg: Signature made Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found Validation FAILED!! After reding the dscverify and devscripts.conf manpages I addes this line to /etc/devscripts.conf: DSCVERIFY_KEYRINGS="trustedkeys.gpg" Executing dscverify again, it works: $ dscverify subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc: Good signature found validating subtitlecomposer_0.5.2.orig.tar.gz validating subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.diff.gz All files validated successfully. But both lintian and dpkg-source doesn't. (Same output as above) Quoting dpkg- source man page: >--require-valid-signature >Refuse to unpack the source package if it doesn’t contain an OpenPGP >signature that can be verified either with the user’s trusted‐keys.gpg >keyring, one of the vendor-specific keyrings, or one of the official Debian >keyrings (/usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg and >/usr/share/keyrings/debian-maintainers.gpg). The name for the ring is trustedkeys.gpg instead of trusted-keys.gpg, I guess it's a typo, however, even creating trusted-keys.gpg keyring both dpkg-source -x and lintian does not work properly. Of course adding --require-valid-signature result in dpkg-source refusing to unpack the source package. But I'm on trustedkeys.gpg. Finally, I've checked the current bug reports for lintian, dpkg, debian-devel ml and this one. I've checked for the pgp, gpg, sign ... words, but I found nothing. It's a bug? Am I missing something?
Re: Both dpkg-source -x foo.dsc and lintian seems to ignore trustedkeys.gpg keyring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 José Manuel Santamaría Lema schrieb: > Hi, before filing bugs and doing it wrong, I need to ask: > > > A few hours ago, after upgrading my system, I got a new warning from > lintian in my packages (I'm not on debian-maintainers.gpg keyring): > > > $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made > Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F > N: > N: tar produced an error while unpacking this source package. This probably > N: means there's something broken or at least strange about the way the > N: upstream tar file was constructed. You may want to report this as an > N: upstream bug. > N: > N: Severity: normal, Certainty: wild-guess > N: > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Can't check > signature: public key not found Hello, I also noticed this the last days if I built packages with pdebuild instead of pbuilder directly, but I haven't got the time to have a deeper look in it, yet. Is this also the usecase with your error? - -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoZeZQACgkQ2XA5inpabMef9wCfdW0hkKJT3TjIAsO2UMTyQkQh sQEAnA5+RmATp/8ATSV6ll9mVF+Duutn =vELm -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: Both dpkg-source -x foo.dsc and lintian seems to ignore trustedkeys.gpg keyring
On Domingo, 24 de Mayo de 2009 18:45:08 Patrick Matthäi escribió: > José Manuel Santamaría Lema schrieb: > > Hi, before filing bugs and doing it wrong, I need to ask: > > > > > > A few hours ago, after upgrading my system, I got a new warning from > > lintian in my packages (I'm not on debian-maintainers.gpg keyring): > > > > > > $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc > > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made > > Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F > > N: > > N: tar produced an error while unpacking this source package. This > > probably N: means there's something broken or at least strange about the > > way the N: upstream tar file was constructed. You may want to report this > > as an N: upstream bug. > > N: > > N: Severity: normal, Certainty: wild-guess > > N: > > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Can't check > > signature: public key not found > > Hello, > > I also noticed this the last days if I built packages with pdebuild > instead of pbuilder directly, but I haven't got the time to have a > deeper look in it, yet. > > Is this also the usecase with your error? > > -- > /* > Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, > Patrick Matthäi > GNU/Linux Debian Developer > > E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org > patr...@linux-dev.org > > Comment: > Always if we think we are right, > we were maybe wrong. > */ Hi, No, I've built the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" before fixing somethings in my debian/copyright.
RFS: poco (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.3.5-1 of my package "poco". It builds these binary packages: libpoco-dev - Development files for POCO - The C++ Portable Components libpococrypto8 - The C++ Portable Components Crypto library libpococrypto8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Crypto library, debug version libpocodata8 - The C++ Portable Components Data library libpocodata8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Data library, debug version libpocofoundation8 - The C++ Portable Components Foundation library libpocofoundation8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Foundation library, debug version libpocomysql8 - The C++ Portable Components MySQL library libpocomysql8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components MySQL library, debug version libpoconet8 - The C++ Portable Components Network library libpoconet8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Network library, debug version libpoconetssl8 - The C++ Portable Components Network library with SSL libpoconetssl8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Network library with SSL, dbg version libpocoodbc8 - The C++ Portable Components ODBC library libpocoodbc8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components ODBC library, debug version libpocosqlite8 - The C++ Portable Components SQLite library libpocosqlite8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components SQLite library, debug version libpocoutil8 - The C++ Portable Components Util library libpocoutil8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Util library, debug version libpocoxml8 - The C++ Portable Components XML library libpocoxml8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components XML library, debug version libpocozip8 - The C++ Portable Components Zip library libpocozip8-dbg - The C++ Portable Components Zip library, debug version The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poco - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poco/poco_1.3.5-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Krzysztof Burghardt http://www.burghardt.pl/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Both dpkg-source -x foo.dsc and lintian seems to ignore trustedkeys.gpg keyring
[2009-05-24 18:45] Patrick Matthäi > José Manuel Santamaría Lema schrieb: > > > > A few hours ago, after upgrading my system, I got a new warning from > > lintian in my packages (I'm not on debian-maintainers.gpg keyring): > > > > > > $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc > > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made > > Tue May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F > > N: > > N: tar produced an error while unpacking this source package. This probably > > N: means there's something broken or at least strange about the way the > > N: upstream tar file was constructed. You may want to report this as an > > N: upstream bug. > > N: > > N: Severity: normal, Certainty: wild-guess > > N: > > I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Can't check > > signature: public key not found > > I also noticed this the last days if I built packages with pdebuild > instead of pbuilder directly, but I haven't got the time to have a > deeper look in it, yet. > > Is this also the usecase with your error? It's the same here. I upgraded my system yesterday in the evening (about 24 hours ago). Since then, I get the same error. I built with `pdebuild' yesterday afternoon without error but now with error. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: kde-plasmoid-yawp
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 07:57:51PM +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kde-plasmoid-yawp". > > * Package name: kde-plasmoid-yawp > Version : 0.2.3-1 > Upstream Author : Pierpaolo Vittorini , > Marián Kyral , > Ezequiel Aguerre , > Ruan Strydom > * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/yawp > * License : GPL2 > Section : kde > > It builds these binary packages: > kde-plasmoid-yawp - Yet Another Weather Plasmoid fetches weather forcasts for > you The correct spelling is forecasts. It is a good idea to submit the package description to debian-l10n-engl...@lists.debian.org for a review, especially if English is not your native language. -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Both dpkg-source -x foo.dsc and lintian seems to ignore trustedkeys.gpg keyring
José Manuel Santamaría Lema writes:
> A few hours ago, after upgrading my system, I got a new warning from lintian
> in my packages (I'm not on debian-maintainers.gpg keyring):
>
> $ lintian -i -I subtitlecomposer_0.5.2-1.dsc
> I: subtitlecomposer source: tar-errors-from-source gpgv: Signature made Tue
> May 19 00:51:58 2009 CEST using DSA key ID 5F99C10F
This is a bug in Lintian that will be fixed thusly in the next release.
Sorry about that.
--- a/checks/cruft
+++ b/checks/cruft
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ for my $file (keys %ERRORS) {
# after some other error.
next if /^Record size =/;
next if /^Skipping to next header/;
-next if /^gpg: /;
+next if /^gpgv?: /;
next if /^secmem usage: /;
next if /^Exiting with failure status due to previous errors/;
tag $tag, $_;
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Re: RFS: kde-plasmoid-yawp
Hello Chris, Chris Bannister schrieb: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 07:57:51PM +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote: >> kde-plasmoid-yawp - Yet Another Weather Plasmoid fetches weather forcasts >> for you > > The correct spelling is forecasts. I know, and if you have a look at [0] (and the m.d.n page [1]), you'll see, it is already fixed. > It is a good idea to submit the package description to > debian-l10n-engl...@lists.debian.org for a review, especially if English > is not your native language. I'll do so, if the package should be sponsored. I've some translation experience (to German) and are therefore accustomed to this procedure. But I won't waste time of the l10n-english team if the package won't enter Debian's archives. Thank you for taking the time and checking the package/RFS. Kind regards, Kai Wasserbäch [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/05/msg00593.html [1] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=plasma-widget-yawp -- Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech) E-Mail: deb...@carbon-project.org Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2 (http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: ripit (updated package)
* Elimar Riesebieter [090521 15:55 +0200] > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.7.0-1 > of my package "ripit". > > It builds these binary packages: > ripit - Textbased audio cd ripper Is uploaded. #grml cooperated very flexible. Elimar -- The path to source is always uphill! -unknown- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: masqmail (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.21-6 of my package "masqmail". It builds these binary packages: masqmail - mail transport agent for intermittently connected hosts The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 174975, 416237, 417842, 427095, 427096, 480477, 504615, 504794, 505730, 505794, 513332, 522252, 523698, 524307, 524497, 524893, 524917, 525148, 525397 I updated the debconf translations and fixed lintian errors/warnings. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/masqmail - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/masqmail/masqmail_0.2.21-6.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. meillo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: osgppu (3rd try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "osgppu". There are no changes in packaging since the first RFS I sent almost three months ago, I keep trying to find someone interested in sponsoring this package :-) * Package name: osgppu Version : 0.4.0-1 Upstream Author : Art Tevs * URL : http://projects.tevs.eu/osgppu * License : LGPL Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libosgppu-dev - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [devel] libosgppu-doc - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [doc] libosgppu4 - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [runtime] libosgppu4-dbg - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [debug] The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 518580 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/osgppu - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/osgppu/osgppu_0.4.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: osgppu (3rd try)
On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:33:06 +0200 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "osgppu". There are no > changes in packaging since the first RFS I sent almost three months > ago, I keep trying to find someone interested in sponsoring this > package :-) It would help if you included the long descriptions - I have no idea what GLSL is meant to mean and the package name makes even less sense. > libosgppu-dev - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [devel] > libosgppu-doc - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [doc] > libosgppu4 - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations [runtime] > libosgppu4-dbg - offscreen renderer using GLSL shaders for computations > [debug] The Programming Language is also missing, as are details of whether this is an updated package, a new package or whatever. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpdW4s9IYzqI.pgp Description: PGP signature
About get-orig-source - latest or always the same?
Dear mentors I have a question about policy with respect to get-orig-source and it's use with the DFSG tarballs. The policy 4.9 says: "This target fetches the most recent version of the original source package from a canonical archive site (via FTP or WWW, for example), does any necessary rearrangement to turn it into the original source tar file format described below, and leaves it in the current directory." Debian Reference 6.7.8.2 says: "A repackaged .orig.tar.gz. must be documented in the resulting source package. Detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced must be provided in debian/copyright. It is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules." So if currently the latest upstream release of sword is 1.6.0. Hence the version we are packaging is 1.6.0+dfsg-1. Now imagine our team finished packaging this version and it has landed in the stable release. Upstream by this time released 1.7.1. And our team packaged 1.7.1 and it is in unstable. So what should get-orig-source target do: 1) In both stable and unstable: Grab 1.7.1 and turn it into 1.7.1.dfsg 2) In stable: Grab 1.6.0 and turn it into 1.6.0.dfsg; in unstable grab 1.7.1 and turn it into 1.7.1.dfsg 3) Parse debian/changelog and create the tarball for the latest version listed there Cause now in our "big team" of two collaborators we have disagreement about this =D -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Confused by .dirs, .install etc
I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb packages are empty. It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in Debian policy these are documented ... Any pointers? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
2009/5/24 Richard W.M. Jones : > I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. > The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from > DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb > packages are empty. > > It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are > something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in > Debian policy these are documented ... > Debian policy talks about the final result only and there are many ways to get there. You are using debhelper to get there so read debhelper documentation # general man debhelper man dh # about debian/*.dirs man dh_installdirs # about debian/*.install man dh_install # also read for a few others man dh_install* > Any pointers? > or use bash/man completion and read man dh_* they are all very similar from UI point of few and let you achieve many things > Rich. > ps. @redhat.com. Nice =D i still don't have @ubuntu.com nor @debian.org email addresss. =```((( working on it though > -- > Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones > Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com > Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) > http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora > -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:28:10PM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > You are using debhelper to get there so read debhelper documentation > > # general > man debhelper > man dh > > # about debian/*.dirs > man dh_installdirs > > # about debian/*.install > man dh_install > > # also read for a few others > man dh_install* Ah, right, that did it - thanks. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/ See what it can do: http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/recipes.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: osgppu (3rd try)
On May 24 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> It would help if you included the long descriptions - I have no idea
> what GLSL is meant to mean and the package name makes even less sense.
(...)
> The Programming Language is also missing, as are details of whether
> this is an updated package, a new package or whatever.
What happened to my proposal for a new template of packages to be
sponsored? The reactions seemed to be that it was an improvement over
what mentors.d.n offers currently.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. > The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from > DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb > packages are empty. > > It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are > something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in > Debian policy these are documented ... My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the dh_* commands for you and makes everything so much simpler (I've only debianised one package: a library built with autotools). If you want to see my debian/rules, it's at http://code.google.com/p/libfake437/source/browse/debian/trunk/libfake437-0.4/debian/rules . -- Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. >> The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from >> DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb >> packages are empty. >> >> It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are >> something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in >> Debian policy these are documented ... > > My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. > http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the Please do not suggest debian/rules obfuscators, wether it is cdbs nor dh(1), to newcomers wanting to learn packaging. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones >> wrote: >>> I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. >>> The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from >>> DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb >>> packages are empty. >>> >>> It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are >>> something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in >>> Debian policy these are documented ... >> >> My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. >> http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the > > Please do not suggest debian/rules obfuscators, wether it is cdbs nor > dh(1), to newcomers wanting to learn packaging. Okay, will do. Can you please explain your reasoning, though? On the surface, it seems analogous to "Please do not suggest Makefile/sh obfuscators, whether it is autotools nor cmake(1), to newcomers wanting to learn how to build software.". (If you want to take this off-list, you're most welcome to do so.) -- Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: About get-orig-source - latest or always the same?
On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:15:25 Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Dear mentors > > I have a question about policy with respect to get-orig-source and > it's use with the DFSG tarballs. > > The policy 4.9 says: > > "This target fetches the most recent version of the original source > package from a canonical archive site (via FTP or WWW, for example), > does any necessary rearrangement to turn it into the original source > tar file format described below, and leaves it in the current > directory." > > Debian Reference 6.7.8.2 says: > > "A repackaged .orig.tar.gz. > > must be documented in the resulting source package. Detailed > information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this > can be reproduced must be provided in debian/copyright. It is also a > good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your debian/rules > file that repeats the process, as described in the Policy Manual, Main > building script: debian/rules." > > So if currently the latest upstream release of sword is 1.6.0. Hence > the version we are packaging is 1.6.0+dfsg-1. Now imagine our team > finished packaging this version and it has landed in the stable > release. Upstream by this time released 1.7.1. And our team packaged > 1.7.1 and it is in unstable. > > So what should get-orig-source target do: > > 1) In both stable and unstable: Grab 1.7.1 and turn it into 1.7.1.dfsg > 2) In stable: Grab 1.6.0 and turn it into 1.6.0.dfsg; in unstable grab > 1.7.1 and turn it into 1.7.1.dfsg > 3) Parse debian/changelog and create the tarball for the latest > version listed there > > Cause now in our "big team" of two collaborators we have disagreement > about this =D > > -- > With best regards > > > Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), > Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич You will probably want to take note of bug #466550. -- Regards, Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: >> On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: >>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones >>> wrote: I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb packages are empty. It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in Debian policy these are documented ... >>> >>> My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. >>> http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the >> >> Please do not suggest debian/rules obfuscators, wether it is cdbs nor >> dh(1), to newcomers wanting to learn packaging. > > Okay, will do. Can you please explain your reasoning, though? On the > surface, it seems analogous to "Please do not suggest Makefile/sh > obfuscators, whether it is autotools nor cmake(1), to newcomers > wanting to learn how to build software.". How are you supposed to e.g. know that you migth need to pass options to dh_install if you don't even know what it is and that it exists ? /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Jack Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: >> On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: >>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones >>> wrote: I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb packages are empty. It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in Debian policy these are documented ... >>> >>> My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. >>> http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the >> >> Please do not suggest debian/rules obfuscators, wether it is cdbs nor >> dh(1), to newcomers wanting to learn packaging. > > Okay, will do. Can you please explain your reasoning, though? On the > surface, it seems analogous to "Please do not suggest Makefile/sh > obfuscators, whether it is autotools nor cmake(1), to newcomers > wanting to learn how to build software.". I'm not sure if there's really a problem with that statement either, you really should know the basics of how GNU make works with regard to PHONY targets and the like before you jump into using autotools or cmake in my opinion. In any case, the reason to not use obfuscators here is because they don't solve the problem: they won't know what to install any more than a manual call to dh_install. At least using the manual call to dh_install will help teach why this is the case. Daniel -- Daniel Moerner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Confused by .dirs, .install etc
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Daniel Moerner wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Jack Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: >>> On 2009-05-24, Jack Kelly wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I have a problem building a library, starting with a dh_make template. > The basic problem seems to boil down to files don't get moved from > DESTDIR (debian/tmp) into the actual packages, so the final *.deb > packages are empty. > > It seems like the .dirs and .install files in debian/ are > something to do with this process. However I cannot find where in > Debian policy these are documented ... My suggestion: If CDBS supports your package's build system, use it. http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html . It calls all the >>> >>> Please do not suggest debian/rules obfuscators, wether it is cdbs nor >>> dh(1), to newcomers wanting to learn packaging. >> >> Okay, will do. Can you please explain your reasoning, though? On the >> surface, it seems analogous to "Please do not suggest Makefile/sh >> obfuscators, whether it is autotools nor cmake(1), to newcomers >> wanting to learn how to build software.". > > I'm not sure if there's really a problem with that statement either, > you really should know the basics of how GNU make works with regard to > PHONY targets and the like before you jump into using autotools or > cmake in my opinion. > > In any case, the reason to not use obfuscators here is because they > don't solve the problem: they won't know what to install any more than > a manual call to dh_install. At least using the manual call to > dh_install will help teach why this is the case. Both you and Sune make a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying. -- Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: osgppu (3rd try)
2009/5/25 Rogério Brito : > What happened to my proposal for a new template of packages to be > sponsored? The reactions seemed to be that it was an improvement over > what mentors.d.n offers currently. The maintainers of mentors.d.n don't nessecarily follow this list, please contact them directly. -- 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: Questions about packaging nautilussvn (adapting upstream debianisation, restarting nautilus)
> 2. The upstream tarball is 'nautilus_0.12-beta1-2.tar.gz', and the > changelog version in their packaging is '0.12-1ubuntu1'. I changed > this to '0.12.beta1.2', but now I realise that it will be detected as > an NMU (at least, lintian thinks it is). This was due to a typo in the changelog, silly me. But I'm still figuring out the other matters, so any advice would be welcome. There's one more thing I'm trying to figure out, related to my last question. There is a script for update-notifier to restart nautilus residing in the debian dir. It's set to a+x, but lintian still tells me W: nautilussvn: script-not-executable ./usr/share/nautilussvn/do-nautilussvn-restart-nautilus (I'm using svn-buildpackage + pbuilder, by the way, and running lintian under that with a pbuilder hook. But I get the same if I export, set the a+x manually and use debuild.) How to I build the package and keep that executable permission? - Jason Heeris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
