Re: RFS: ttf2eot
On 16/09/2009 09:18, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 09:04 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: The @font-face rule ? I don't. I know chrome needs --enable-remote-fonts, because by default it's disabled. Surely IE has some option to disable it, too. Maybe you don't like the idea, but websites are going this way... Correct, I hate the idea. PS: why didn't you reply to the list? oops :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ruby-fftw3
Hi, Timeline: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:43:19 +0200: [Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net] wrote: On 15/09/09 at 22:34 +0900, Youhei SASAKI wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package ruby-fftw3. - snip - Have you considered maintaining it inside the pkg-ruby-extras team? Thank you for telling me about the team. I'll consult pkg-ruby-extras team for sponsorship. Regards, --- Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org web: http://www.gfd-dennou.org/arch/uwabami/index.html.en Key fingerprint: 8BF1 ABFE 00D2 526D 6822 2AC6 13E0 381D AEE9 95F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: libvc (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 003.dfsg.1-12 of my package libvc. It builds these binary packages: libvc-dev - vCard library - development files libvc0 - vCard (the Electronic Business Card) library The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 534359 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvc - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvc/libvc_003.dfsg.1-12.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Tony Palma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: vera++
Hi Mathieu, Unfortunately, you changed the original tarball locally (size 52320) compared to revision -1 (size 53263), but did not upload it (because the Debian revision is -2, and you did not pass -sa to dpkg-buildpackage). And mentors.d.o still has the old tarball. $ dpkg-source -x vera++_1.1.1-2.dsc dpkg-source: error: File ./vera++_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz has size 53263 instead of expected 52320 Before simply using -sa please check why the original tarball changed. I used dget to get the original src and reuploaded version -2. I have absolutely no idea what could have happen. I believe this should works now: $ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/vera++/vera++_1.1.1-2.dsc $ dpkg-source -x vera++_1.1.1-2.dsc dpkg-source: extracting vera++ in vera++-1.1.1 dpkg-source: info: unpacking vera++_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz dpkg-source: info: applying vera++_1.1.1-2.diff.gz yes, works. Sorry for the delay, I missed your last mail. - While you fixed the lintian warnings I mentioned in the first review, there are new warnings that should get fixed: I: vera++ source: debian-watch-file-is-missing W: vera++ source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.2 (current is 3.8.3) I: vera++: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration - It is very inconvenient to use the program, even with the default rules. The examples given in the man page do not work in the form they are given there: You have to set VERA_ROOT or copy the rules to ~/.vera++ or the current directory. It would be nice if the program would as last possibility check a predefined location where the default rules get installed (see also (*) below). You should talk with upstream about this. Maybe you can patch the program to do that. (This is not a blocker for an upload, but improving the manpage accordingly is). These issues are still open: - debian/copyright: You should mention the GPL version for the Debian packaging (and adjust the link if necesary). - manpage: Please fix the layout of the OPTIONS section (have a look at other manpages). Please change the synopsis section to describe the basic invocation syntax (see other manpages). The man page should mention the location of the example scripts (maybe in the examples section, a demonstration how to set VERA_ROOT to use the provided rules). Best regards, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Appropriate warning when removing important package
We are attempting to use the debian package system to streamline the process of setting up the operating system for our software developers and robotics research platforms. We have kind of a unique environment in that many of the (somewhat naive) system users have root-access for installing new packages on an as-needed basis, but the development environment itself has some specific requirements. For example, we require libboost1.37-dev over libboost-dev. I have create a trivial deb called ros-conflicts which just explicitly conflicts with the packages we need to avoid. Unfortunately, when users are doing large apt-get installs, they will just blindly hit yes without thoroughly inspecting the list of packages which may be removed, putting their system in an unusable (from a development standpoint) state. My initial workaround was to just add Essential: yes to the ros-conficts control file so that now users get a much more serious warning when they try to install a package that conflicts with it. However, this feels like a misuse of essential. Is there a preferred way to present an appropriate warning to people when a particularly important package is about to be removed? Thanks, --Jeremy Leibs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Appropriate warning when removing important package
Jeremy Leibs le...@willowgarage.com writes: My initial workaround was to just add Essential: yes to the ros-conficts control file so that now users get a much more serious warning when they try to install a package that conflicts with it. However, this feels like a misuse of essential. Is there a preferred way to present an appropriate warning to people when a particularly important package is about to be removed? If I were you, I'd use Essential. That's basically what it's for, and in this sort of situation for a custom package for a local environment, I think it would create the impact you want with the least customization to Debian required. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: python-texml - Convert TeXML to LaTeX or ConTeXt
Hi, I'm looking for a sponsor for the python module texml Here are the relevant links ITP Bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=546991 Mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=texml The package is an interesting package that could be helpful to quite a few different people. There is 1 lintian error, that wasn't totally obvious to me right away. There's a small patch using quilt that moves scripts/texml.py to scripts/texml and removes it from setup.py. A big problem is that the docs get installed twice once in texml-2.0.1 and then python-texml. This wasn't obvious to me, so I thought someone else could tell me where my rules file is messed up. Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: grsync (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.1-4 of my package grsync. It builds these binary packages: grsync - GTK+ frontend for rsync The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grsync - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grsync/grsync_0.9.1-4.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Martijn van Brummelen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Appropriate warning when removing important package
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:06:56PM -0700, Jeremy Leibs wrote: We have kind of a unique environment in that many of the (somewhat naive) system users have root-access for installing new packages on an as-needed basis, but the development environment itself has some specific requirements. For example, we require libboost1.37-dev over libboost-dev. I have create a trivial deb called ros-conflicts which just explicitly conflicts with the packages we need to avoid. Unfortunately, when users are doing large apt-get installs, they will just blindly hit yes without thoroughly inspecting the list of packages which may be removed, putting their system in an unusable (from a development standpoint) state. My initial workaround was to just add Essential: yes to the ros-conficts control file so that now users get a much more serious warning when they try to install a package that conflicts with it. However, this feels like a misuse of essential. shrug Works for me. They're essential packages for your environment, so why not mark them as such? Uploading them to Debian would be a no-no, but I think that's not real likely. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
