Re: desktopnova (rename packages or change dependencies?)
On Wednesday 09 June 2010 22:22:55 Daniel Leidert wrote: > a) The usual way is, that such a desktop-dependent package will depend > and pull in the required environment (compare it to e.g. a frontend of a > program for GTK vs QT - we have several examples in the repository). So > the user will see, what's going on. The packages already depend on the libraries they use. So > b) Let both modules packages provide desktopnova-module and conflict > with each other. Then let desktopnova depend on desktopnova-module. So > the user will have to choose the module package to install. IMO this is > a common solution. The packages can be installed at the same time. There is no conflict. > c) Create "dummy" packages (like e.g. gnome-media, gnome-core, ...) and > let them depend on the right module package: e.g. create > desktopnova-xfce and let it depend on desktopnova and > desktopnova-module-xfce. Renaming the packages is equal. More packages are unnecessary. But changing the dependencies helps, too. > Well, your situation isn't uncommon. We have several examples in the > repository and I described several common solutions above. IMO you can > check against the list of e.g. `dpkg -l "*-gnome"'. Thanks for this hint. Since renaming is not considered as an appropriate option, I'll change the dependencies. The modules should depend on the main module. I think this is the best solution. Someone who doesn't agree? Thank you, Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006191301.06320.hali...@googlemail.com
Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On 06/15/2010 02:37 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:00, Umang Varma wrote: >> As a not-so-experienced person, I shouldn't have a say in this, but I >> feel that it is far too general a name to use. I'm sure there are many >> scripts that do something related to google, not all can be called 'google'. > > Indeed, I spotted that only after reply was sent: given the package is > called googlecl, I'd say just call the bin googlecl. This is confusing. First, Google seems to have it's own Debian package [1] and it hasn't made the source of that package available. I don't know what Google's track record with packaging/building/etc is (Chrome != Chromium, etc), so I don't know what they hope to achieve by hosting the a .deb as a download and not letting other access the source. A Debian maintainer will not blindly apply them, but it could serve as a starting point. Secondly, Google itself wants the bin to be called `google`. [2] Since the official project page [3] and documentation [4] says `$ google foo bar`, making end-users call `$ googlecl foo bar` may confuse them. Particularly so if they use something like the Ubuntu Software Center (which is the default newbie's package manager on Debian as `gnome` now depends on it) where they're unlikely to read the description - if at all the description is allowed to have such a warning. PS: I am subscribed to d-ment...@l.d.o, so no need to CC me. :-) [1]: http://code.google.com/p/googlecl/downloads/detail?name=googlecl_0.9.5-1_all.deb&can=2&q= [2]: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/06/introducing-google-command-line-tool.html [3]: http://code.google.com/p/googlecl [4]: http://code.google.com/p/googlecl/wiki/ExampleScripts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1cb461.2080...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: egroupware (fixes critical bug)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Michal, thanks for your reply. I've added comments to the various lintian errors right below. >> The packages are based on previous work by Peter and were only >> changed to include the latest upstream version. > > It would be good to fix some Lintian warnings as well: > > P: egroupware-egw-pear source: > direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system > egw-pear/HTTP/WebDAV/Server.php and 5 more egroupware-egw-pear contains copies of pear modules, which are needed for egroupware to run. Some of those modules have been touched by Peter. However I don't think they will be updated to newer upstream versions anywhere soon. Therefore I added an override for this. > W: egroupware-egw-pear source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.2 > (current is 3.8.4) Fixed. > W: egroupware source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.2 (current is > 3.8.4) Fixed. > I: egroupware-core: > possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration > I: egroupware-etemplate: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration Those errors were already present, but I don't know how important they are. Do I have to fix them? > I: egroupware-core: unused-debconf-template egroupware/configuration/note > I: egroupware-core: unused-debconf-template egroupware/header/password/mismatch It is used in egroupware-core.config, however this is not detected by lintian. Should I add an override or is this a bug in lintian? > I: egroupware-addressbook: debian-news-entry-without-blank-line line > 6 Fixed. > P: egroupware-*: no-upstream-changelog I've read http://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-upstream-changelog.html and noticed the sentence about multiple binary packages produced from a single source. However in the upstream tarball several Changelog files are located troughout the source tree, some of which have not been touched for several years. I'll try and ask the egroupware developers to add a central changelog to their released tarballs, which I can then link/copy or place in the main egroupware-core package. As I did not change anything here, I assume that those errors were present before. I'd like to address them in future. Please let me know if you think they are important enough to prevent the package from being accepted. > P: egroupware-felamimail: copyright-refers-to-symlink-license > usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL The file in question is from the horde project, which linked to the LGPL at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html . I think this justifies symlinking to the latest version of LGPL, but of course I can change it to whatever seems more appropriate. I didn't change this as well. > W: egroupware-core: embedded-php-library W: egroupware-core: > embedded-javascript-library W: egroupware-phpsysinfo: > embedded-php-library W: egroupware-projectmanager: > embedded-php-library W: egroupware-projectmanager: > duplicate-font-file All errors above were already present in the debian packages built by Peter, so I assumed, it might be OK to leave them untouched. Especially as fixing them would inflict a lot of work and I suspect would also cause version conflicts between the current versions in debian and the versions needed by egroupware (except maybe for the fonts). Shall I add them to overrides then? I hope my comments clear out some of the concerns. Where possible I added a fix and uploaded new versions of the packages. Regarding all other problems, I'm open for any comment or discussion. Thanks for your help. With kind regards, Lars -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwctPEACgkQjkLYWQtVFRoy2wCfY4sfmcgyZwt0IbV2kjH250EK tsYAn0SK6JOVINvhVoeFWTcQn5jf0bNY =B/32 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1cb4f4.4070...@lekv.de
[uploaded] RFS: vttest (updated package)
Wen-Yen Chuang writes: > vttest (2.7+20100528-1) unstable; urgency=low > . > * New upstream release > * Update debian/copyright > * Switch debian/rules to new dh format > - update Build-Depends debhelper (>= 7.0.50) > - update debian/compat to level 7 > * Bump Standards-Versions to 3.8.4 > > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/vttest/vttest_2.7+20100528-1.dsc Hi! Uploaded, all fine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739wji3zg@chillida.ipv6.sieglitzhof.net
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, many fixes, DMUA candidate) (3nd try)
Hi! Joachim Wiedorn writes: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.4-1 of my > package "squidguard". it supplants the very old version 1.2. > > And I would be most grateful if a kind sponsor would set the > DM-Upload-Allowed (DMUA) flag before uploading :) > > It builds these binary packages: > squidguard - filter and redirector plugin for Squid > squidguard-doc - filter and redirector plugin for Squid - Documentation > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 372709, 385093, 403875, 491673, 514636, > 535158, 541602, 548489, 576169 > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/squidguard > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/squidguard/squidguard_1.4-1.dsc > > I have created a git repository: > - Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/squidguard.git > - Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/squidguard.git > > Some more infos about squidguard: > - Homepage: http://www.squidguard.org > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. debian/copyright seems to miss the whole libwww stuff I'll keep a copy of this package around so if that's fixed uploading should be doable in no time just checking the diff. Regards Christop -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6ebgoft@chillida.ipv6.sieglitzhof.net
Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 14:13, Umang Varma wrote: > On 06/15/2010 02:37 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:00, Umang Varma wrote: >>> As a not-so-experienced person, I shouldn't have a say in this, but I >>> feel that it is far too general a name to use. I'm sure there are many >>> scripts that do something related to google, not all can be called 'google'. >> >> Indeed, I spotted that only after reply was sent: given the package is >> called googlecl, I'd say just call the bin googlecl. > > This is confusing. > > First, Google seems to have it's own Debian package [1] and it hasn't > made the source of that package available. at least "33 hours ago" from now they released a tarball. it wasn't there at the time the RFS was went. > I don't know what Google's > track record with packaging/building/etc is (Chrome != Chromium, etc), > so I don't know what they hope to achieve by hosting the a .deb as a > download and not letting other access the source. A Debian maintainer > will not blindly apply them, but it could serve as a starting point. source package was on mentors.d.n, surely it could have been released on code.g.c too. > Secondly, Google itself wants the bin to be called `google`. [2] Since > the official project page [3] and documentation [4] says `$ google foo > bar`, making end-users call `$ googlecl foo bar` may confuse them. it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have nice tool? Also note that the ultimate decision will be done by ftp-masters, but I still consider 'google' too generic (mmh, is it copyrighted and can't be typed in our terminal without paying fees? ) > Particularly so if they use something like the Ubuntu Software Center > (which is the default newbie's package manager on Debian as `gnome` now > depends on it) where they're unlikely to read the description - if at > all the description is allowed to have such a warning. well, we can't write tools that are completely newbie-proof, no matter how many checks and things you put in them. > PS: I am subscribed to d-ment...@l.d.o, so no need to CC me. :-) done > [2]: > http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/06/introducing-google-command-line-tool.html "Along with a standard tarball, we have a .deb package ready for download, and hope to have it included in Debian and Ubuntu repositories in time for their next releases" By Jason Holt probably some more work on the debian package and less marketing would have had the package already in NEW queue ;) Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiml9gcmmesmeinklthpkj6oolgp7br-kvolu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: marave - 2nd Attempt (Question: Royalty Free License)
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:20:52 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Chris wrote: > > > Per the inspection from Paul, I mailed the folks at Partners In > > Rhyme about the use of the audio files from the email titled: > > > > Re: RFS: marave - 2nd Attempt > > > > There was some questioning about the copyrights that they have on > > their website so I thought I might try to pin down something a bit > > more exact. > > > > Here it the exchange posted. I hope this clears up the use of the > > files. If not, please let me know! I'll continue to work on a > > completed package by the weekend. Of course, all comments are > > welcome! > > I personally wonder if they have read and understood the GNU GPL. For > example, what is the "source code" for those files? > > They don't specify who owns the copyright on those files, I wonder if > a license can be valid without someone granting it. > Paul - I see your point. I will again email the folks at PIR and see if we can actually get that information. I'm wondering though (and assuming) some (not all listed on the site) of these files might actually belong belong to PIR. If that is the case, I assume the the current copyright would be valid. I'll let everyone know as I know. -- Best regards, Chris 1AB5FEF8 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
Hello, Christoph Egger wrote on 2010-06-19 15:08: > debian/copyright seems to miss the whole libwww stuff > > I'll keep a copy of this package around so if that's fixed uploading > should be doable in no time just checking the diff. I'm not understand: what is "libwww stuff"? Is the package not ready for upload? the copyright file based on the template of dh_make. The package was sponsored today, but for the future I want to know what I can make better. Have a nice day, Joachim (Germany) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On 06/19/2010 08:36 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 14:13, Umang Varma wrote: >> On 06/15/2010 02:37 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:00, Umang Varma wrote: >> First, Google seems to have it's own Debian package [1] and it hasn't >> made the source of that package available. > > at least "33 hours ago" from now they released a tarball. it wasn't > there at the time the RFS was went. ... > source package was on mentors.d.n, surely it could have been released > on code.g.c too. Oops. I didn't realize that the person sending the RFS was a upstream co-author, so I didn't make that connection. My fault. >> Secondly, Google itself wants the bin to be called `google`. [2] Since >> the official project page [3] and documentation [4] says `$ google foo >> bar`, making end-users call `$ googlecl foo bar` may confuse them. > > it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too > generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have > nice tool? No. Not at all. I didn't mean it that way. I had imagined that if Google themselves want a tool named google, they don't expect to make another tool with a conflicting name. If google made a tool called `music` that played music, I would certainly say it's too generic. I understand your point though - Debian can't blindly let Google choose what the google bin on Debian will do and just because Google made a tool called google does not mean Debian should call it Google. I now agree. > Also note that the ultimate decision will be done by ftp-masters, but > I still consider 'google' too generic Agreed. >> Particularly so if they use something like the Ubuntu Software Center >> (which is the default newbie's package manager on Debian as `gnome` now >> depends on it) where they're unlikely to read the description - if at >> all the description is allowed to have such a warning. > > well, we can't write tools that are completely newbie-proof, no matter > how many checks and things you put in them. Agreed. > >> PS: I am subscribed to d-ment...@l.d.o, so no need to CC me. :-) > > done You may have read that too quickly. I *am* subscribed. > >> [2]: >> http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/06/introducing-google-command-line-tool.html > > "Along with a standard tarball, we have a .deb package ready for > download, and hope to have it included in Debian and Ubuntu > repositories in time for their next releases" Oops, I missed that. Again, I didn't realize that the OP was a co-author. > probably some more work on the debian package and less marketing would > have had the package already in NEW queue ;) ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c1cfe5b.5050...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
>> debian/copyright seems to miss the whole libwww stuff
>>
>> I'll keep a copy of this package around so if that's fixed uploading
>> should be doable in no time just checking the diff.
>
> I'm not understand: what is "libwww stuff"? Is the package not ready for
> upload? the copyright file based on the template of dh_make. The package
> was sponsored today, but for the future I want to know what I can make
> better.
Yep. You missed as I noted in separate mail and me too!
./src/HTParse.c: UNKNOWN
[Copyright: 1994-2000 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts
Institute of / of W3C is fully / 1995 CERN. "This product includes
computer software created and made]
./src/HTEscape.h: UNKNOWN
[Copyright: 1994-2000 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts
Institute of / of W3C is fully / 1995 CERN. "This product includes
computer software created and made]
./src/wwwsys.h: UNKNOWN
[Copyright: MIT 1995 / statement in the file COPYRIGH]
Can you please fix this so that we can reupload package?
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
0xD1028C8D | Identica: @kartikm | IRC: kart_
Blogs: {gu: kartikm, en: ftbfs}.wordpress.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktillxlih3wmhxxvynrwsjssj7nd1qf1lsre4j...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
Joachim Wiedorn writes: > Hello, > > Christoph Egger wrote on 2010-06-19 15:08: > >> debian/copyright seems to miss the whole libwww stuff >> >> I'll keep a copy of this package around so if that's fixed uploading >> should be doable in no time just checking the diff. > > I'm not understand: what is "libwww stuff"? Is the package not ready for > upload? the copyright file based on the template of dh_make. The package > was sponsored today, but for the future I want to know what I can make > better. There are some files coming from libwww (a w3c project it seems). They do e.g. have a different license that should be mentioned in debian/copyright (you might want to take a look if that library should be put into a separat package as well). Regards Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tyozgci6@chillida.ipv6.sieglitzhof.net
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
Hello, Kartik Mistry wrote on 2010-06-19 23:01: > Yep. You missed as I noted in separate mail and me too! > > ./src/HTParse.c: UNKNOWN > [Copyright: 1994-2000 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts > Institute of / of W3C is fully / 1995 CERN. "This product includes > computer software created and made] > > ./src/HTEscape.h: UNKNOWN > [Copyright: 1994-2000 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts > Institute of / of W3C is fully / 1995 CERN. "This product includes > computer software created and made] > > ./src/wwwsys.h: UNKNOWN > [Copyright: MIT 1995 / statement in the file COPYRIGH] > > Can you please fix this so that we can reupload package? OK, now I know the problem. I will check the sources and create a new package. I think it should be the same version number? Do you used a special program to find these different licenses in the source code? Have a nice day, Joachim (Germany) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
On 19-Jun-2010, at 11:33 PM, Joachim Wiedorn wrote: > OK, now I know the problem. I will check the sources and create a new > package. I think it should be the same version number? > > Do you used a special program to find these different licenses in the > source code? Since it is in New queue, increment version. See: licensecheck from devscripts package. ~ Kartik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/3824348283624826...@unknownmsgid
RFS: myscreen
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "myscreen". * Package name: myscreen Version : 0.7.8-7 Upstream Author : Clement Mondon * URL : http://www.clement-mondon.fr/myscreen * License : GPL Section : misc It builds these binary packages: myscreen - A tab system and display system statistics for screen. My motivation for maintaining this package is: Make other people benefit from my work. MyScreen is expected to consume very few resources and it is particularly suitable for systems with limited resources. MyScreen include screen configuration file and a program that provides several statistics. Configuration file of screen allows to enable hardstatus bar in the manner of a tab system of graphical terminal. The program myscreen-stats provides several informations : number of users connected, uptime, upload and download rate, wifi quality, loadaverage, number of processes, cpus, disks, ram and swap. MyScreen is much lighter than byobu. MyScreen will not allow you to customize a profile, because all statistics are provided by a single small program written in C named myscreen-stats, but you can enable/disable module with configuration files. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/myscreen - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/myscreen/myscreen_0.7.8-7.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Clément Mondon Site web: http://www.clement-mondon.fr Jabber: clement.mon...@jabber.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktil5pwp9iig7aq6sebvwrfuqts0w6hwr4wtvr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On 19 June 2010 16:06, Sandro Tosi wrote: > it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too > generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have > nice tool? No. But this doesn't rule out other reasons. I'm actually inclined to think '/usr/bin/google' is fine in this case, for the reasons Umang outlined in an earlier email: * This is a sufficiently official Google project. * All the documentation refers to 'google'. * People might start writing scripts around 'google' that we would have to patch. And having 'google' makes 'google calendar ' read a lot nicer than 'googlecl calendar ' - it actually makes sense in English as a phrase. I think Debian Policy only cares if another package has a conflicting filename? -- Tim Retout -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiknogzcidgo4acgudlpq96szt6xbvbsopnmk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: squidguard (updated package, ...) / libwww stuff
Hi! Joachim Wiedorn writes: > Do you used a special program to find these different licenses in the > source code? Well licensecheck is usefull for that task. Especially for packages with small number of files just a find -type f -exec less is not that much work (and the reliable option anyway). Regards Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pqzmhldx@chillida.ipv6.sieglitzhof.net
RFS: projectm (ping)
Hello! I'm still looking for someone interested in reviewing & sponsoring my packaging of projectM. Package details: * Package name: projectm Version : 2.0.1-1 Upstream Author : projectM Team * URL : http://projectm.sf.net * License : GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 Section : sound It builds these binary packages: libprojectm-dev - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library - dev libprojectm-qt-dev - projectM Qt4 (development files) libprojectm-qt1 - projectM Qt4 bindings libprojectm2 - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library libvisual-projectm - libvisual module for projectM projectm-data - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library - data projectm-jack - projectM JackAudio module projectm-pulseaudio - projectM PulseAudio module The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 565355 There's some "special" stuff to know about this package: The package replaces the orphaned libvisual-projectm package and the libprojectm source package. I got authorization from the maintainer of libprojectm to take over maintainership over this package. The pkg produces some Lintian warnings about ancient Autotools scripts or Windows binaries in the package. (projectM uses CMake, the Autotools-Scripts are just cruft which isn't used) It also has some binaries which unnecessarily linked against some libraries. All this stuff should be fixed by upstream, but upstream seems to have a lack of manpower at time, so I can't get a clean tarball or fixes for all issues. But the overall quality of the pkg is okay, I think. By including the package in Debian, a lot of other apps would benefit from it. (Some audio-players use it for music visualization) The package might be a candidate to be maintained by the Debian-Multimedia team. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/projectm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/projectm/projectm_2.0.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Matthias Klumpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a2c6e6cc3cbaa9e592652da7e380c...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: RFS: projectm (ping)
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:31:37 +0200 Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Hello! > > I'm still looking for someone interested in reviewing & sponsoring my > packaging of projectM. > > Package details: > > * Package name: projectm > Version : 2.0.1-1 > Upstream Author : projectM Team > * URL : http://projectm.sf.net > * License : GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 > Section : sound > > It builds these binary packages: > libprojectm-dev - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library > - dev > libprojectm-qt-dev - projectM Qt4 (development files) > libprojectm-qt1 - projectM Qt4 bindings > libprojectm2 - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library > libvisual-projectm - libvisual module for projectM > projectm-data - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library - > data > projectm-jack - projectM JackAudio module > projectm-pulseaudio - projectM PulseAudio module > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 565355 > > There's some "special" stuff to know about this package: The package > replaces the orphaned libvisual-projectm package and the libprojectm source > package. > I got authorization from the maintainer of libprojectm to take over > maintainership over this package. > The pkg produces some Lintian warnings about ancient Autotools scripts or > Windows binaries in the package. (projectM uses CMake, the > Autotools-Scripts are just cruft which isn't used) It also has some > binaries which unnecessarily linked against some libraries. All this > stuff > should be > fixed by upstream, but upstream seems to have a lack of manpower at time, > so I can't get a clean tarball or fixes for all issues. You should manually remove any included binaries from the upstream source, and retar the files as your clean upstream source (otherwise there is no way to check whether those binaries are dfsg-free). You can (and should) use the system provided autotools (rather than using the versions embedded by upstream). Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100619163534.09ca0526.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
RFS: checksec
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "checksec". * Package name: checksec Version : 1.3.1-1 Upstream Author : Tobias Klein * URL : http://www.trapkit.de/tools/checksec.html * License : BSD Programming Lang: Bash It builds these binary packages: checksec - A script that reveals standard security features currently in use The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 586472 My motivation for maintaining this package is: This script is provides useful information about which security features have been compiled in, and I think that would be useful for developers to check their packages to make sure they are using such capabilities when available. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/checksec - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/checksec/checksec_1.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Best wishes, Michael Gilbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100619191401.7f431fbc.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
RFS: ushare
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ushare". * Package name: ushare Version : 1.1a-1 Upstream Author : Benjamin Zores * URL : http://ushare.geexbox.org/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : A free uPnP & DNLA media server It builds these binary packages: ushare - lightweight UPnP A/V Media Server The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 450520 My motivation for maintaining this package is: this package allows me to stream media to my devices, and I think it would be useful to have this provided for others to be able to do the same. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ushare - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ushare/ushare_1.1a-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Best wishes, Michael Gilbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100619205921.9c5b01a5.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: checksec
On Jun 19 2010, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> My motivation for maintaining this package is: This script is provides
> useful information about which security features have been compiled
> in, and I think that would be useful for developers to check their
Compiled in "..."?
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100620014408.ga4...@ime.usp.br
Re: RFS: projectm (ping)
On Saturday 19 June 2010 15:31:37 Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Hello! > > I'm still looking for someone interested in reviewing & sponsoring my > packaging of projectM. I just imported your package into the debian-multimedia git repo. http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/projectm.git This should make it easier to review your package. I don't have time yet to review your package. Sorry. Maybe you can trying catching siretart on IRC. > Package details: > > * Package name: projectm > Version : 2.0.1-1 > Upstream Author : projectM Team > * URL : http://projectm.sf.net > * License : GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 > Section : sound > > It builds these binary packages: > libprojectm-dev - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library > - dev > libprojectm-qt-dev - projectM Qt4 (development files) > libprojectm-qt1 - projectM Qt4 bindings > libprojectm2 - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library > libvisual-projectm - libvisual module for projectM > projectm-data - Advanced Milkdrop-compatible music visualization library - > data > projectm-jack - projectM JackAudio module > projectm-pulseaudio - projectM PulseAudio module > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 565355 > > There's some "special" stuff to know about this package: The package > replaces the orphaned libvisual-projectm package and the libprojectm source > package. > I got authorization from the maintainer of libprojectm to take over > maintainership over this package. > The pkg produces some Lintian warnings about ancient Autotools scripts or > Windows binaries in the package. (projectM uses CMake, the > Autotools-Scripts are just cruft which isn't used) It also has some > binaries which unnecessarily linked against some libraries. All this > stuff > should be > fixed by upstream, but upstream seems to have a lack of manpower at time, > so I can't get a clean tarball or fixes for all issues. > But the overall quality of the pkg is okay, I think. > By including the package in Debian, a lot of other apps would benefit > from it. (Some audio-players use it for music visualization) > The package might be a candidate to be maintained by the Debian-Multimedia > team. > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/projectm > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/projectm/projectm_2.0.1-1.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > > Kind regards > Matthias Klumpp > > ___ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers -- Regards, Andres Mejia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006200106.11614.mcita...@gmail.com
RFS: ora2pg (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 6.2-1 of my package "ora2pg". It builds these binary packages: ora2pg - Oracle to PostgreSQL database schema converter The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/o/ora2pg - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/o/ora2pg/ora2pg_6.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind Regards, -- Julián Moreno Patiño Registered GNU Linux User ID 488513 PGP KEY ID 6168BF60
Re: RFS: ora2pg (updated package)
Hi! On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Julián Moreno Patiño wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 6.2-1 > of my package "ora2pg". Uploaded. Thank you! Best regards, Nelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikbo3oo5osexjxqzh5n1xniipjyf7jc1ccnt...@mail.gmail.com
