Re: (future unblock) RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)

2011-01-12 Thread Bhavani Shankar R 
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 22:03 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 10:12:29PM +0530, Bhavani Shankar R wrote:
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110103-1
> > > of my package "mobile-broadband-provider-info".
> >
> > If the release team will indicate that there is any chance of this
> getting
> > into Squeeze, I'll happily make a one-time upload of it. However, as it
> > doesn't fix RC bugs, I suspect the answer will be 'no'.
>
> At this stage, I think it's too late for the initial release, I'm
> afraid.
>
>
Okay Adam, Thanks for your response, I'll target it to experimental then

regards

-- 
Bhavani Shankar
Ubuntu Developer   |  www.ubuntu.com
https://launchpad.net/~bhavi

RFS: pidgin-latex

2011-01-12 Thread Elías Alejandro 
Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pidgin-latex".

* Package name: pidgin-latex
  Version : 1.4.3-1
  Upstream Author : Benjamin Moll 
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/pidgin-latex/
* License : GPL-2
  Section : net

It builds these binary packages:
pidgin-latex - Pidgin plugin to display LaTeX formula

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The upload would fix these bugs: 520658, 609723

My motivation for maintaining this package is: usefull
plugin to show our math formulas for pidgin

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pidgin-latex
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pidgin-latex/pidgin-latex_1.4.3-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Elías Alejandro


--
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/aanlktiklwblqqswvikozfde4+fck-gir9is81i5ej...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Review of pev

2011-01-12 Thread Fernando Mercês 
Good to read it, Manuel. Thank you.

Att,

@Fernando Mercês 
Linux Registered User #432779
www.mentebinaria.com.br
http://linuxreversing.org
http://softwarelivre-rj.org
--
Participe do I Hack'n Rio , dias 8 e 9 de abril na
UFRJ!
--



2011/1/12 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 17:07:15 Fernando Mercês wrote:
> > Thanks, friends, for all comments and tips.
> >
> > I've just updated my package on mentors including all modifications
> > suggested.
> >
> > I would appreciate if you can take a look at my package now.
>
> I think that it is more than ready now :)
>
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 
>

Re: RFS: rgbpaint

2011-01-12 Thread Mats Erik Andersson 
Dear Muammar El Khatib,

onsdag den 12 januari 2011 klockan 23:03 skrev Muammar El Khatib detta:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36:26AM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > onsdag den 12 januari 2011 klockan 00:49 skrev Muammar El Khatib detta:
> > > Dear Mats, 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:33:06PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > > 1) debian/copyright
> > >   1.1) There is an error in the link provided in the Format-Specification 
> > > field:
> > >  http://sv.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
> > > 
> > >   It should be:
> > >  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
> > 
> > Updated to conform with http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/.
> > 
> 
> OK. 
> 
> > >   1.3) It seems that License field is repeated in section Files: debian/* 
> > > (Look
> > >   at the complexe example in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index7h1)
> > 
> > No action: This is the "Standalone License Paragraph" formatting.
> > I learned this from the Perl Team.
> > 
> 
> OK. I have checked the Standalone License Paragraph formatting. You are right,
> it is fine. 
> 
> > > 
> > >   1.4) Not all copyright holders are represented in debian/copyright. See 
> > > for
> > >   example: rgbpaint-0.8.7/po/* files.
> > 
> > Copyright stanza has been added for all explicit translators.
> > 
> 
> Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution to Debian. 

My sincere appreciation for your evaluation of this package.
Possibly some of the patches I found necessary here would
also provide information for mtPaint, keeping the common
origin in mind.

Best regards and thanks,

  Mats Erik Andersson, DM


-- 
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/20110112223522.ga11...@mea.homelinux.org

RFS: fgrun

2011-01-12 Thread Chris Baines 
Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fgrun".

* Package name: fgrun
  Version : 1.5.2-1
  Upstream Author : Frederic Bouvier (Project admin)

* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/fgrun/
* License : GPL-2
  Section : games

It builds these binary packages:
fgrun  - graphical frontend for running FlightGear

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The upload would fix these bugs: 590182

My motivation for maintaining this package is: I would like to improve
Debian's support for the FlightGear project.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgrun
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgrun/fgrun_1.5.2-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Christopher Baines


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: rgbpaint

2011-01-12 Thread Muammar El Khatib 
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 02:47:28AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Muammar El Khatib , 2011-01-12, 00:49:
> >$ file debian/copyright
> >debian/copyright: ASCII Pascal program text
> 
> Uhm, sorry, no, file cannot be used to determine encodings. Besides,
> UTF-8 is a superset of ASCII, so everything is all right according
> to file.

What would you suggest to me for determining encodings? Something like enca can
be useful in these cases?

-- 
Muammar El Khatib.
Linux user: 403107.
Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1
http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.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/20110112221741.gb9...@prank.debian.org

AW: RFS: fmodapi4.26

2011-01-12 Thread Johey Shmit 
Hi Scott,


- Ursprüngliche Mail 

> Von: Scott Howard 
> An: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 12. Januar 2011, 19:08:10 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: RFS: fmodapi4.26
> 
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Johey Shmit  wrote:
> > I  took zlib as a guideline and named it after the upstream name.
> >
> >  Because version '4.26', '4.27', etc. are not binary compatible I
> > added  the '4.26' to the package name. That way different versions
> > should be  installable in parallel.
> 
> zlib is an interesting corner case: the general  rule is found:
>http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#naminglibpkg
>g
> 
> The  policy documents how to name library  packages.
> "lib[libraryname][SONAME-version-number]"  like "libc6"   for
> /lib/libc.so.6
> 
> You're free to name the source package fmodapi, but  the binary package
> should be something like libfmodapi (because that is from  your

Ok, I'll rework the package, thanks for the clarification!

> library's filename). I know your package lacks a SONAME, but you  can
> add one like the enet package does. their binary makes a library  with
> the SONAME libenet.so.0debian1, so their binary package  is
> libenet0debian1 and their source package name is enet.

Didn't know that it was possible to add the SONAME to an existing
library! I'll have a look at it.

> In general,  you can use the following to get the package name:
> objdump -p  /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | \
>   sed -n  -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | \
>   sed  -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//'
> 
> Your package should probably be  something like:
> libfmodapi-4.26
> and your -dev package should  be
> libfmodapi-dev

Got it ;-)

> > This is my lintian output:
> >
> >  lintian --pedantic -I ../fmodapi4.26_4.26.30-2_amd64.changes
> > W:  fmodapi4.26 source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is  
>3.9.1)
> > E: fmodapi4.26:  sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname
> >  usr/lib/libfmodex64-4.26.so.26.30
> > E: fmodapi4.26:  sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname
> >  usr/lib/libfmodexp64-4.26.so.26.30
> >
> 
> 
> 
> > I do only have a  Ubuntu 10.10 development environment at the moment,
> > so I'm stuck with  the older standards version.
> 
> You can use a VM (e.g. virtualbox-ose) to  get a deiban environment.
> You can use a higher standards version in ubuntu  10.10, just change
> debian/control to have version 3.9.1. Standards version  just indicates
> the policy you used when making your package - it doesn't do  anything
> to how the package is built.

Ok, I wasn't sure about that.

> > The  SONAME-Error is the one that I can't do anything about. It's been
> > build  without SONAME. So any software linked to it will link to
> >  libfmodex64-4.26.so
> > without any suffix. I made a comment about that in  README.Debian.
> 
> You also have to override lintian errors:
> http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html
> 
> I don't think packages are  accepted by ftp-masters that have lintian
> errors that are not overridden (and  there has to be a good reason to
> override them). I think you should give you  packages a SONAME:
> libfmodex-4.26.so.0debian1, name your package accordingly,  and thus
> remove the warning without overriding lintian. See the enet package  on
> how to do that.
> 
> If lintian gives you an error, you really have to  find a way to fix it
> - I don't think errors should be  overridden.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that this package is difficult: libraries in  general have
> more policy requirements than applications, and this one in  particular
> is difficult since it has an unusual naming convention (no soname  and
> names the binaries after the architecture that built  them)

Not your fault ;-) Thanks for your very helpful comments! I'll be back
with fixed packages.

Thanks,

 Johey





--
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/221384.70481...@web29104.mail.ird.yahoo.com

Re: (future unblock) RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info (updated package)

2011-01-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 22:03 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 10:12:29PM +0530, Bhavani Shankar R wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110103-1
> > of my package "mobile-broadband-provider-info".
> 
> If the release team will indicate that there is any chance of this getting
> into Squeeze, I'll happily make a one-time upload of it. However, as it
> doesn't fix RC bugs, I suspect the answer will be 'no'.

At this stage, I think it's too late for the initial release, I'm
afraid.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
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/1294870043.9806.960.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org

Re: RFS: rgbpaint

2011-01-12 Thread Muammar El Khatib 
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36:26AM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> onsdag den 12 januari 2011 klockan 00:49 skrev Muammar El Khatib detta:
> > Dear Mats, 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:33:06PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > 1) debian/copyright
> >   1.1) There is an error in the link provided in the Format-Specification 
> > field:
> >  http://sv.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
> > 
> >   It should be:
> >  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
> 
> Updated to conform with http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/.
> 

OK. 

> >   1.3) It seems that License field is repeated in section Files: debian/* 
> > (Look
> >   at the complexe example in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index7h1)
> 
> No action: This is the "Standalone License Paragraph" formatting.
> I learned this from the Perl Team.
> 

OK. I have checked the Standalone License Paragraph formatting. You are right,
it is fine. 

> > 
> >   1.4) Not all copyright holders are represented in debian/copyright. See 
> > for
> >   example: rgbpaint-0.8.7/po/* files.
> 
> Copyright stanza has been added for all explicit translators.
> 

Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution to Debian. 

Best Regards, 
-- 
Muammar El Khatib.
Linux user: 403107.
Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1
http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.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/20110112220345.ga9...@prank.debian.org

RFS: fgo

2011-01-12 Thread Chris Baines 
Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fgo".

* Package name: fgo
  Version : 1.3.1-1
  Upstream Author : Robert Leda 
* URL :
http://sites.google.com/site/erobosprojects/flightgear/add-ons/fgo
* License : WTFPL
  Section : games

It builds these binary packages:
fgo- A simple GUI launcher for FlightGear

The package appears to be lintian clean.

My motivation for maintaining this package is: I enjoy using FlightGear
and want to improve Debian's support for this amazing project.

While waiting for the upload of the latest release of FlightGear, a new
version of this package was released with a critical bug fix. I have
moved the package to this version, is this a problem?
 
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgo
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fgo/fgo_1.3.1-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Christopher Baines


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: fmodapi4.26

2011-01-12 Thread Scott Howard 
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Johey Shmit  wrote:
> I took zlib as a guideline and named it after the upstream name.
>
> Because version '4.26', '4.27', etc. are not binary compatible I
> added the '4.26' to the package name. That way different versions
> should be installable in parallel.

zlib is an interesting corner case: the general rule is found:
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#naminglibpkg

The policy documents how to name library packages.
"lib[libraryname][SONAME-version-number]"  like "libc6"  for
/lib/libc.so.6

You're free to name the source package fmodapi, but the binary package
should be something like libfmodapi (because that is from your
library's filename). I know your package lacks a SONAME, but you can
add one like the enet package does. their binary makes a library with
the SONAME libenet.so.0debian1, so their binary package is
libenet0debian1 and their source package name is enet.

In general, you can use the following to get the package name:
objdump -p /path/to/libfoo-bar.so.1.2.3 | \
  sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' | \
  sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//'

Your package should probably be something like:
libfmodapi-4.26
and your -dev package should be
libfmodapi-dev

> This is my lintian output:
>
> lintian --pedantic -I ../fmodapi4.26_4.26.30-2_amd64.changes
> W: fmodapi4.26 source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.1)
> E: fmodapi4.26: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname
> usr/lib/libfmodex64-4.26.so.26.30
> E: fmodapi4.26: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname
> usr/lib/libfmodexp64-4.26.so.26.30
>



> I do only have a Ubuntu 10.10 development environment at the moment,
> so I'm stuck with the older standards version.

You can use a VM (e.g. virtualbox-ose) to get a deiban environment.
You can use a higher standards version in ubuntu 10.10, just change
debian/control to have version 3.9.1. Standards version just indicates
the policy you used when making your package - it doesn't do anything
to how the package is built.




>
> The SONAME-Error is the one that I can't do anything about. It's been
> build without SONAME. So any software linked to it will link to
> libfmodex64-4.26.so
> without any suffix. I made a comment about that in README.Debian.

You also have to override lintian errors:
http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html

I don't think packages are accepted by ftp-masters that have lintian
errors that are not overridden (and there has to be a good reason to
override them). I think you should give you packages a SONAME:
libfmodex-4.26.so.0debian1, name your package accordingly, and thus
remove the warning without overriding lintian. See the enet package on
how to do that.

If lintian gives you an error, you really have to find a way to fix it
- I don't think errors should be overridden.


I'm sorry that this package is difficult: libraries in general have
more policy requirements than applications, and this one in particular
is difficult since it has an unusual naming convention (no soname and
names the binaries after the architecture that built them)

~Scott


-- 
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/aanlktimz1ajpsafrh6djckukrbjymzhhx7ksq-fdf...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Review of pev

2011-01-12 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 
Hello,

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 17:07:15 Fernando Mercês wrote:
> Thanks, friends, for all comments and tips.
> 
> I've just updated my package on mentors including all modifications
> suggested.
> 
> I would appreciate if you can take a look at my package now.

I think that it is more than ready now :)


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 


--
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/201101121737.35684.manuel.montez...@gmail.com

Re: Review of pev

2011-01-12 Thread Fernando Mercês 
Thanks, friends, for all comments and tips.

I've just updated my package on mentors including all modifications
suggested.

I would appreciate if you can take a look at my package now.

Best regards,

Att,

@Fernando Mercês 
Linux Registered User #432779
www.mentebinaria.com.br
http://linuxreversing.org
http://softwarelivre-rj.org
--
Participe do I Hack'n Rio , dias 8 e 9 de abril na
UFRJ!
--



On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Jakub Wilk  wrote:

> * Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo , 2011-01-11,
> 23:20:
>
>  $ dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pev/pev_0.22-1.dsc
>> [...]
>>
>> $ tar xavf pev_0.22.orig.tar.gz
>> AUTHORS
>> LICENSE
>> Makefile
>> pe.h
>> pev.1
>> pev.c
>> README
>> VERSION
>>
>>
>> This is wrong, the .orig. has to contain the files in "pev-0.22"
>> directory,
>> so:
>>
>
> Err, lack of top-level directory may be annoying if you unpack .orig.tar.gz
> by hand, but it's not a no-go. See Developers Reference 6.7.8.1. "Pristine
> source".
>
> --
> Jakub Wilk
>
>
> --
> 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/20110112001208.ga5...@jwilk.net
>
>

Re: [PING] RFR/RFS: openvpn-auth-radius (new package, fixes retitled RFP)

2011-01-12 Thread Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta 
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 01:13:52PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Sven,
> 
> thank you very much for your thoughts!
> 
> Also hi to Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta and Stephen Gran. I added you two to
> CC for you maintain openvpn and freeradius. The openvpn-auth-radius
> package is to combine these packages. Sven was uncomfortable with it
> being maintained by a company and suggested a team (see "team stuff"
> paragraph). 
> 
> [begin team stuff]
> 
> > * I'm not comfortable with the maintainer address set to a company. I've not
> > yet formed a final opinion on that topic because technically that's just 
> > like
> > any team maintained address but having explicitly a company as the 
> > maintainer
> > is something new (at least for me). Plus I, as the sponsor, am not part of
> > that team so it's not like sponsoring a team upload but more like sponsoring
> > an individual maintainer upload. I'm not sure how other people in the 
> > project
> > feel about it.
> >
> > My main concern as a sponsor in that regard is that you often try to create
> > some kind of trust relationship to the person maintaining that package but
> > if you leave the company for whatever reason the people maintaining the 
> > package
> > can change and you can go back to the start. Though if you leave and
> > subsequently orphan the package we'll technically end up in the same 
> > situation.
> >
> > Another point might be that a company as a maintainer might suggest that 
> > this
> > company has a special role within Debian, donno how innocent users might
> > react to this. Could be avoided if you'd name it 'Cygnusnetwork Debian Team'
> > or something like that.
> 
> The concerns are understandable, especially your concern about trust.
> The company was chosen as maintainer for the actual maintainer probably
> will change at some point in time, so picking the company will provide a
> more stable contact and long term user.
> 
> I'd further your suggestion to use a team that is not strictly related
> to the company. This would make the packaging more open to other
> contributors. However creating a team of one and a half (mainly
> reporting problems to me) members does not seem useful to me. It should
> be no problem to create a mailinglist if that helps. Using a mailinglist
> provided by debian is no problem either. Also joining an existing team
> is possible. Can anyone suggest one to join? Which of the mentioned
> options would you prefer and why?
> 
> [end team stuff]

I can help a bit with the packaging / joing a team if that helps the
package going into the archive. Other than that I see no need in my
presence :)

Regards,

Alberto

-- 
Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta| Formación, consultoría y soporte técnico
agi@(inittab.org|debian.org)| en GNU/Linux y software libre
Encrypted mail preferred| http://inittab.com

Key fingerprint = 9782 04E7 2B75 405C F5E9  0C81 C514 AF8E 4BA4 01C3


-- 
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/20110112134313.gl3...@lib.inittab.org

Re: Detecting build architecture

2011-01-12 Thread Sven Joachim 
On 2011-01-12 13:34 +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:19:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hello,
>
>> I try to build a package which needs information about the architecture
>> at compile time.  Upstream said I need to set ARCH_64=1 if the
>> architecture has 64 bit *pointers* (they said on architectures with 64
>> bit integers and 32 bit pointers the programm needs to be compiled as 32
>> bit).  Is there any safe way to obtain this information automatically or
>> do I need to do some lookup in a table with `dpkg --print-architecture`
>> as key (and if yes how would this table look like in the sense above)?
>
> See dpkg-architecture(1), in particular:
>
> $ dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS

Not quite, DEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS is what you need.  See also the thread
starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/09/msg00177.html.

Cheers,
   Sven


-- 
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/87zkr6thxy@turtle.gmx.de

Re: Detecting build architecture

2011-01-12 Thread Alessandro Ghedini 
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:19:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,

Hello,

> I try to build a package which needs information about the architecture
> at compile time.  Upstream said I need to set ARCH_64=1 if the
> architecture has 64 bit *pointers* (they said on architectures with 64
> bit integers and 32 bit pointers the programm needs to be compiled as 32
> bit).  Is there any safe way to obtain this information automatically or
> do I need to do some lookup in a table with `dpkg --print-architecture`
> as key (and if yes how would this table look like in the sense above)?

See dpkg-architecture(1), in particular:

$ dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS

If I understood what you need, in your d/rules (or Makefile), you have to 
do something like:

DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS=$(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS)

ifeq ($(DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS), 64)
ARCH_64=1
endif

Cheers

-- 
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{...@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'


-- 
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/20110112123430.ga2...@pc-ale.rete

Detecting build architecture

2011-01-12 Thread Andreas Tille 
Hi,

I try to build a package which needs information about the architecture
at compile time.  Upstream said I need to set ARCH_64=1 if the
architecture has 64 bit *pointers* (they said on architectures with 64
bit integers and 32 bit pointers the programm needs to be compiled as 32
bit).  Is there any safe way to obtain this information automatically or
do I need to do some lookup in a table with `dpkg --print-architecture`
as key (and if yes how would this table look like in the sense above)?

Kind regards

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


-- 
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/20110112121918.ga15...@an3as.eu

AW: RFS: fmodapi4.26

2011-01-12 Thread Johey Shmit 
Hi Scott,



- Ursprüngliche Mail 
> Von: Scott Howard 
> An: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
> Gesendet: Montag, den 10. Januar 2011, 20:58:45 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: RFS: fmodapi4.26
> 
> Thanks for looking at these - I've seen this library mentioned on
> Debian  Games mailing lists/wiki every once and a while. Do you know of
> a free  alternative? I see on Ubuntu RFP [1] for this library that
> someone suggested  something like http://sam.zoy.org/flessd.

A free alternative would be great of course. But flessd seems abandoned
to me (last commit in 2004) and not really usable (Version 0.0) :-(

> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Johey  Shmit  wrote:
> >  Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package  "fmodapi4.26".
> >
> > * Package name: fmodapi4.26
> >  Version  : 4.26.30-1
> >  Upstream Author : Firelight Technologies Pty,  Ltd
> > * URL : http://www.fmod.org
> > * License : proprietary, see  below
> >  Section : non-free/libs
> 
> 
> > Hopefully this  permits uploading to non-free!
> 
> The license grants free "use" for  non-commercial applications, but
> doesn't say anything explicitly about  redistribution. I'd suggest
> asking debian legal for  advice.

I'll do that!

> > The package can be found on  mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/f/fmodapi4.26
> > -  Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
> >  contrib non-free
> > - dget
> > 
>http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/f/fmodapi4.26/fmodapi4.26_4.26.30-1.dsc
>
> 
> The  first "red flag" I saw in the packaging is that the package naming
> scheme  does not conform to policy. See:
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
> 
> your  library appears to be named libfmodex-${VERSION}.so but your
> package names  are all of the form fmodapi4.26-dev. The package name
> should be libfmodex and  libfmodex-dev. Use lintian on your .changes

I took zlib as a guideline and named it after the upstream name.

Because version '4.26', '4.27', etc. are not binary compatible I
added the '4.26' to the package name. That way different versions
should be installable in parallel.

> file and fix all warnings and  errors (without building your package I
> see that debian standards version is  old) use "lintian --pedantic  -I
> {your_changes_file}"

This is my lintian output:

lintian --pedantic -I ../fmodapi4.26_4.26.30-2_amd64.changes
W: fmodapi4.26 source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.1)
E: fmodapi4.26: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname 
usr/lib/libfmodex64-4.26.so.26.30
E: fmodapi4.26: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname 
usr/lib/libfmodexp64-4.26.so.26.30

I do only have a Ubuntu 10.10 development environment at the moment,
so I'm stuck with the older standards version.

The SONAME-Error is the one that I can't do anything about. It's been
build without SONAME. So any software linked to it will link to 
libfmodex64-4.26.so
without any suffix. I made a comment about that in README.Debian.

I'll be back when I know more about the legal stuff.

Thanks,

 Johey





--
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/567553.54450...@web29109.mail.ird.yahoo.com

Re: RFS: rgbpaint

2011-01-12 Thread Mats Erik Andersson 
onsdag den 12 januari 2011 klockan 00:49 skrev Muammar El Khatib detta:
> Dear Mats, 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:33:06PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > This is a reminder as no response has surfaced. I am still looking
> > for a sponsor of this package.
> > 
> >   Package name: rgbpaint
> >   Version : 0.8.7-1
> >   Upstream Author : Mark Tyler 
> >   URL : http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/rgbpaint.html
> >   License : GPL-2
> >   Section : graphics
> > 
> 
> I have these observations:
> 
> 1) debian/copyright
>   1.1) There is an error in the link provided in the Format-Specification 
> field:
>  http://sv.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
> 
>   It should be:
>  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135

Updated to conform with http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/.

> 
>   1.2) Furthermore, copyright file has to be encoded in UTF-8 but it is not:
> 
> $ file debian/copyright
> debian/copyright: ASCII Pascal program text

No action. This file simply contains characters in the decimal range 10 - 126.
Neither any upstream author, nor myself use extended chracter sets. Besides,
checking with "lintian -iIE --pedantic" would have caught this deviation.

> 
>   I took as an example altree:
> 
> $ file debian/copyright
> debian/copyright: UTF-8 Unicode English text
> 
>   1.3) It seems that License field is repeated in section Files: debian/* 
> (Look
>   at the complexe example in http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#index7h1)

No action: This is the "Standalone License Paragraph" formatting.
I learned this from the Perl Team.

> 
>   1.4) Not all copyright holders are represented in debian/copyright. See for
>   example: rgbpaint-0.8.7/po/* files.

Copyright stanza has been added for all explicit translators.

> 
> 2. debian/README.debian please, remove line 31 because it is empty.

Done. The empty last line was probably an artifact from the not-so-old
NEWS-parsing bug and its workaround.

> 
> If you agree in changing what I pointed above, I can upload it for you.


Best regards,
  Mats Erik Andersson, DM


-- 
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/20110112093626.ga6...@mea.homelinux.org

RE: RFS: dbxml

2011-01-12 Thread Jeroen Koekkoek 
Hi Lars,

First of all, apologies for the late response and thank you for your interest 
in this package.

To be honest I'm not using Oracle DB XML in my product anymore and I don't 
currently have enough spare time to maintain this package. I didn't remove it 
because I'm hoping someone else will find it usefull. I think it's better if 
you submit a new package.

Regards,
Jeroen Koekkoek

> -Original Message-
> From: Lars Buitinck [mailto:larsm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:47 PM
> To: m...@debian.org; Jeroen Koekkoek; debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: RFS: dbxml
> 
> Dear all, dear Michael, dear Jeroen,
> 
> I also spotted the errors in Jeroen's packaging of dbxml and have set
> out to correct them, as I too would like to see DB XML packaged for
> Debian and Ubuntu. When I finish this, should I submit a new package, or
> can I send patches/files somewhere?
> 
> Regards,
> Lars Buitinck