Re: RFS: python-clips
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Pablo Recio Quijano wrote: --Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-clips. * Package name: python-clips Version : 1.0.7.348-1 Upstream Author : Francesco Garosi, fran...@infinito.it * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pyclips/ * License : LGPL Section : python It builds these binary packages: python-clips - Python module for using CLIPS, The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 544706 My motivation for maintaining this package is: I want to contribute with the free software community the best way I can, and maintain this package is a good way to do it. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-clips - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-clips/python-clips_1.0.7.348-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Hi! This is great that you're interested in working on it. I'm personally too busy to mentor you or provide an upload, but have you thought about joining the Debian Python packaging team? -- Asheesh. -- The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: cobertura
On Mon Feb 01 21:15, Miguel Landaeta wrote: - is there any reason why you are depending on openjdk rather than default-jdk? If not, you should depend on default-jdk. You should also probably include the other virtual packages (java6-runtime etc) - ditto, you should build-dep on default-jdk This was just laziness on my part. It is already fixed to depend on the correct packages. cobertura source package now Build-Depend on default-jdk-builddep and the binary packages Depend on default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless | java2-runtime. (haven't looked at the package yet, but) you should build-dep on default-jdk, not default-jdk-builddep (it's very badly named, I plan to get this fixed), and you should also include java5-runtime-headless and java6- in the alternates list. - (biggest issue here): Apache 1.1 licenced code seems not to be linkable with GPL-2+ licenced code: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and you have both in cobertura. You should probably raise this with upstream and see what they say. Upstream clarify this in her website (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html ): The use of the Apache Software License in Cobertura is very straight forward. Cobertura includes a set of ant tasks which can be used to call Cobertura. Ant itself is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. Because ant tasks are loaded directly into the runtime of ant, and the GPL is incompatable with all versions of the Apache Software License, ant tasks can not be licensed under the GPL. For this reason, the Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 1.1. And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but the rest of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they must do so by exec'ing a new JVM. If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact upstream? debian-legal? Ah, thank you, yes, this is perfectly correct, you should paste that into debian/copyright so everyone knows what is going on (particularly the FTP masters when they do the same review in the NEW queue) Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: cobertura
On Tue Feb 02 11:35, Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Miguel, this information is outdated as the GPL version 3 is compatible with the Apache License version 2.0, see: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Yes, but the files in question are licenced under Apache 1.1, so this does not help. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problems with libsdl1.2-dev and cowbuilder
Paul Wise wrote am 2010-01-22 08:44: Sounds like an RC bug, either in gnuradio or libsdl.2-dev, depending on where the -lartsc flag is coming from. sdl-config --libs doesn't give me -lartsc, so it is probably a gnuradio issue. Please investigate and file a bug as appropriate. Thank you Paul for your answer. The flags came from pkg-config --static --libs for libsdl1.2-dev. libsdl1.2-dev had wrong dependencies, see #565579, and was fixed in the last days. Regards Patrick -- Engineers motto: cheap, good, fast: choose any two Patrick Strasser patrick dot strasser at student dot tugraz dot at Student of Telemati_cs_, Techn. University Graz, Austria -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: tesseract-eng (updated package, 2nd attempt)
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe jeffrey.ratcli...@gmail.com, 2010-01-24, 12:57: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.00-2 of my package tesseract-eng. It builds these binary packages: tesseract-ocr-eng - tesseract-ocr language files for English text The package appears to be lintian clean. Not really: W: tesseract-eng source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends tesseract-ocr-eng I: tesseract-eng source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: tesseract-ocr-eng: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright Moreover, the DM-Upload-Allowed field is supposed to be added by sponsors, not by package maintainers: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/11/msg00299.html -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Build depending on linux architectures only
(Please keep me CC:'d, I'm not subscribed). When I use linux-any I get the following lintian warning: W: linuxinfo source: unknown-architecture linux-any Also I cannot find any notion of this combination in debian-policy, are you sure this can be uploaded (i.e. this is a bug in lintian?). Thanks Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software libre: http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gnurobbo (updated package)
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:11:57AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.65.6+dfsg-1 of my package gnurobbo. It builds these binary packages: gnurobbo - logic game ported from ATARI XE/XL 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/gnurobbo - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnurobbo/gnurobbo_0.65.6+dfsg-1.dsc It is also archived in the gnurobbo git pkg-games repository. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Stephen Kitt Uploaded, looks fine. -- /\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Maintainer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: tesseract-eng (updated package, 2nd attempt)
Hi Jakub, Congratulations on becoming a DD! On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:05:14PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: W: tesseract-eng source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends tesseract-ocr-eng I: tesseract-eng source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: tesseract-ocr-eng: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright Fixed. Moreover, the DM-Upload-Allowed field is supposed to be added by sponsors, not by package maintainers: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/11/msg00299.html I missed that. Removed. I've uploaded the package again to mentors. If everything is OK, then I will make the same changes to the other language packages. Regards Jeff signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: tesseract-eng (updated package, 2nd attempt)
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe jeffrey.ratcli...@gmail.com, 2010-02-02, 22:24: I've uploaded the package again to mentors. Uploaded, thanks. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: bygfoot (updated package)
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:40:44AM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 12:08:33AM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.3.2-1
of my package bygfoot.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bygfoot/bygfoot_2.3.2-1.dsc
Hm what do you think of the following lintian warnings?
W: bygfoot: possible-bashism-in-maintainer-script preinst:5 '${MIARRAY[0]}'
W: bygfoot: possible-bashism-in-maintainer-script preinst:7 '${MIARRAY[*]}'
They look rather valid to me.
Regards
Christoph
--
/\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731
\ /Campaign : CaCert Assurer
X against HTML : Debian Maintainer
/ \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/
http://www.christoph-egger.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
RFS: tacacs+
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package tacacs+. * Package name: tacacs+ Version : 4.0.4.19-1 Upstream Author : Shrubbery * URL : http://www.shrubbery.net/tac_plus/ * License : No license, only a copyright file Section : net It builds these binary packages: libtacacs+1 - TACACS+ authentication daemon libtacacs+1-dev - TACACS+ authentication daemon tacacs+- TACACS+ authentication daemon The upload would fix these bugs: 568161 My motivation for maintaining this package is: It's a very usefull package for ISP or/and large network environement. The most used free solutions are FreeRadius and Tacacs+ but Debian doesn't ship the latest one while it's the only solution if you want a complete accounting solution in a Cisco environement. To resume the situation : that package is a must for an ISP environement :) Other note : The package is almost lintian clean, only one small warning about some patches issue but I don't fully understand the tag description, could you help me ? About the license, I guess we should check that everything is fine but what the copyright file mainly says is that we are free to copy/use/modify/distribute the source as we like so that looks fine it think :) The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tacacs+ - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tacacs+/tacacs+_4.0.4.19-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Henry-Nicolas Tourneur -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Build depending on linux architectures only
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:49:37 Helge Kreutzmann wrote: (Please keep me CC:'d, I'm not subscribed). When I use linux-any I get the following lintian warning: W: linuxinfo source: unknown-architecture linux-any Also I cannot find any notion of this combination in debian-policy, are you sure this can be uploaded (i.e. this is a bug in lintian?). I believe there are still programs that need to be modified to accept architecture wildcards. Also, the bug related to providing policy for architecture wildcards is still open (bug #530687). So no, don't use architecture wildcards. -- Regards, Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Just sponsored my first package
I just wanted to announce gleefully to this list: I just sponsored my first package, miredo. A few years ago, this list helped me find sponsors for the packages I wanted to contribute to Debian. People on the list taught me about being a friendly mentor and a detailed critic of packages. Now I'm a Debian developer and I can return the favor. Debian is fun. Thanks, all, for helping build the Free World. -- Asheesh. -- All of life is a blur of Republicans and meat! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Just sponsored my first package
Asheesh Laroia ashe...@asheesh.org writes: A few years ago, this list helped me find sponsors for the packages I wanted to contribute to Debian. People on the list taught me about being a friendly mentor and a detailed critic of packages. Now I'm a Debian developer and I can return the favor. Debian is fun. Thanks, all, for helping build the Free World. This is good news. I'm glad the cycle continues. Thank you :-) -- \ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his | `\ salary depends upon his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair, | _o__) 1935 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: tacacs+
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:08:37PM +0100, Tourneur Henry-Nicolas wrote: * License : No license, only a copyright file If there was no license, then you couldn't distribute it. The license is what is in the COPYING file which is very MIT-like. I'm pretty sure it's ok. The package is almost lintian clean, only one small warning about some patches issue but I don't fully understand the tag description, could you help me ? I get 4 lintian messages. W: tacacs+ source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff users_guide W: tacacs+ source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.4) E: tacacs+: duplicate-updaterc.d-calls-in-postinst tacacs_plus E: tacacs+: duplicate-updaterc.d-calls-in-postrm tacacs_plus #1 - You are using dpatch patch system, but you have difference in your source files that are not in dpatch. It looks like you are not deleting generated files, such as users_guide and the debhelper log files. #2 - change the standards line to 3.8.4 in debian/control. #3 and #4 are the same thing - You have duplicated the automatically added sections. Delete debian/postinst, debian/prerm as they are fully autocally added files. For debian/postrm just get the purge entry to delete your log directory. About the license, I guess we should check that everything is fine but what the copyright file mainly says is that we are free to copy/use/modify/distribute the source as we like so that looks fine it think :) The copyright (ie who wrote it) has changed a bit, but the license (ie how you use it) has not. It would be nice to have that confirmed. Also your single dbpatch has an author of root@, you probably want to fix that. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
how to compare versions
Hi, I'm thinking about tomoyo-ccstools package update but it has a problem. It has no compatibility with current version (1.6.8) and newer version (1.7.1). So, I want users would be able to choice continue upgrading or not with debconf. I wrote that, but there's a problem - it compares versions in preinst script, so it has Pre-Depends: debconf. It is recommended to avoid using Pre-Depends as policy manual says. # http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps So I want to ask how would I do such thing - compare version with current installed version - in smart way, without pre-depends. -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: how to compare versions
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 01:43:49PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: I'm thinking about tomoyo-ccstools package update but it has a problem. It has no compatibility with current version (1.6.8) and newer version (1.7.1). So, I want users would be able to choice continue upgrading or not with debconf. I wrote that, but there's a problem - it compares versions in preinst script, so it has Pre-Depends: debconf. It is recommended to avoid using Pre-Depends as policy manual says. # http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps So I want to ask how would I do such thing - compare version with current installed version - in smart way, without pre-depends. In short: you don't. You should make it clear in the NEWS.Debian file that there are compatibility issues, and your README.Debian should describe how to perform an upgrade manually (or point to upstream documentation for same). Users who are specifically interested in upgrade compatibility issues should be keeping an eye on the NEWS.Debian file for all the packages they upgrade (via apt-listchanges); everyone else is assumed to not be that interested, and should expect that incompatible upgrades may occur. That being said, you should try your best to make upgrading smooth, providing compatibility shims and automatic data conversion (as appropriate), along with encoraging upstream to take a less cavalier approach to their users' expectations (a major version bump should be used for a completely incompatible upgrade). In the worst possible case, you may want to look at providing both the older version of the package and the newer one side-by-side, to allow users to run both in parallel and upgrade at their convenience (major software packages like apache do this). It is a lot of work (both to do the packaging, test the side-by-side operation, and support the old version through a stable release without upstream help) so it's not something to be undertaken lightly, but it is another option. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
RFS: python-coverage 3.2-1
Howdy Python mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new release 3.2-1 of my package ‘python-coverage’. At the request of the current primary maintainer, Lars Wirzenius, I am taking over as active maintainer for this package and seeking a sponsor. It builds these binary packages: python-coverage – code coverage tool for Python The upload would fix these bugs: 535764 The package is downloadable via: $ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-coverage/python-coverage_3.2-1.dsc I look forward to working with a new sponsor. Please let me know whether anything further needs to be done before this package can be sponsored. -- \ “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more | `\ to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a | _o__) sober one.” —George Bernard Shaw | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Just sponsored my first package
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:03:40 -0500 (EST) Asheesh Laroia ashe...@asheesh.org wrote: I just wanted to announce gleefully to this list: I just sponsored my first package, miredo. A few years ago, this list helped me find sponsors for the packages I wanted to contribute to Debian. People on the list taught me about being a friendly mentor and a detailed critic of packages. Now I'm a Debian developer and I can return the favor. Great to hear, perhaps there is hope for the rest of us :) Debian is fun. Thanks, all, for helping build the Free World. -- Asheesh. -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: tacacs+
Craig Small csm...@debian.org Ecrivait: On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:08:37PM +0100, Tourneur Henry-Nicolas wrote: * License : No license, only a copyright file If there was no license, then you couldn't distribute it. The license is what is in the COPYING file which is very MIT-like. I'm pretty sure it's ok. The package is almost lintian clean, only one small warning about some patches issue but I don't fully understand the tag description, could you help me ? I get 4 lintian messages. W: tacacs+ source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff users_guide W: tacacs+ source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.4) E: tacacs+: duplicate-updaterc.d-calls-in-postinst tacacs_plus E: tacacs+: duplicate-updaterc.d-calls-in-postrm tacacs_plus Could you please told me how you got those messages ? I tried using lintian from sid and the messages from mentors but I only got 1 from mentor (I just want to get the most complete error detection system :)). I'll fix all those errors asap and reupload. Thanks for reviewing my package. -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
