Re: RFS: spice-protocol (updated package)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Kilian Krause wrote: > Hi Guo, > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:51:03AM +0800, Liang Guo wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.8.1-1 >> of my package "spice-protocol". >> >> - dget >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/spice-protocol/spice-protocol_0.8.1-1.dsc > > Thanks for the update and appologies for taking so long to review this > simple change. > > Built, signed, uploaded. > > -- > Best regards, > Kilian Thankyou! -- Liang Guo http://bluestone.cublog.cn -- 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/cajwrgw4gg4_2exqz5ckt7bckhyln5wznnzpab4gee0fgh+o...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: ttf-staypuft (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.04-5 of my package "ttf-staypuft". It builds these binary packages: ttf-staypuft - Stay-Puft free TrueType font The package appears to be lintian clean. But it has a --pedantic notice; no-upstream-changelog I already contact the upstream and it answer that maybe in next release. The homepage doesn't show a note of any older version. The upload would fix these bugs: 635072 (defoma-removal). The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-staypuft - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-staypuft/ttf-staypuft_0.04-5.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Tony Palma -- .''`. Tony Palma. : :' : PGP/GPG Key ID: 258FFB1A `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
2011/7/22 Benoît Knecht : > Hi Fernando, > > Fernando Lemos wrote: >> 2011/7/22 Kilian Krause : >> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my >> >> package "minidlna". >> >> - dget >> >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc >> > >> > 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please >> > consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what >> > steps are required to generate it. >> >> Please take no offense, Benoît. But in such a case, Kilian, can you be >> sure the source hasn't been tampered with? I'd feel rather >> unconfortable otherwise. > > I did "tamper" with the source, in the sense that I replaced the > non-free icons.c file. This is documented in debian/copyright. I'm not > sure what kind of tampering you're worried about, but you can easily > check that no other file from upstream was modified. Again, no offense meant. I have no reason to believe anyone is acting in bad faith. Just to clarify, I find it concerning that we might be accepting source uploads that don't come straight from upstream and don't match what was released upstream. I'm relieved to hear that there is a way to ensure in your specific case that the source is the same as shipped upstream. I wish this was a requirement for new packages entering Debian. -- 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/CANVYNa_yUwOg58O5JjdF3Su75o3YNA4co48TkFK-=-h63+s...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
Hi Fernando, Fernando Lemos wrote: > 2011/7/22 Kilian Krause : > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my > >> package "minidlna". > >> - dget > >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc > > > > 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please > > consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what > > steps are required to generate it. > > Please take no offense, Benoît. But in such a case, Kilian, can you be > sure the source hasn't been tampered with? I'd feel rather > unconfortable otherwise. I did "tamper" with the source, in the sense that I replaced the non-free icons.c file. This is documented in debian/copyright. I'm not sure what kind of tampering you're worried about, but you can easily check that no other file from upstream was modified. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110722234629.gb26...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
Hi Kilian, Kilian Krause wrote: > Salut Benoît, > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my > > package "minidlna". > > - dget > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc > > 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please >consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what >steps are required to generate it. Yes, that's what the +dfsg in the upstream version is all about; I've replaced the icons.c file, which contained binary blobs of possibly unfree images. I've included a script to generate it, but not a get-orig-source yet, as I'm not sure how to achieve the "this target may be invoked in any directory" part of the policy. Any advices welcome. > 2. The 1.0.20+dfsg-2 never made it into Debian. Changes generated >accordingly. Please double check next time. I'm not sure what you mean. I did some changes before 1.0.21 was released and checked them into git; the next version came before I had a chance to submit that one, so I added a new changelog entry and recorded further changes there. I actually prefer this to merging the changelog entries together, but maybe I should have tagged the previous version as UNRELEASED. > 3. Your patches don't use DEP-3 headers. It would be nice to have them to >see which of those have already been pushed upstream etc.. I'll consider it, but right now I'm using the format generated by git-format-patch, which I find quite convenient. > Anyway, built, signed, uploaded. Thanks a lot, for the upload and for the review. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110722233910.ga26...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
2011/7/22 Kilian Krause : > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my >> package "minidlna". >> - dget >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc > > 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please > consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what > steps are required to generate it. Please take no offense, Benoît. But in such a case, Kilian, can you be sure the source hasn't been tampered with? I'd feel rather unconfortable otherwise. -- 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/CANVYNa-Jy6Fvvfn2k=yt6txkgz8d6-jhxwt_-+ednocckur...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: disper
Hi Vincent, On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:46:14PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "disper". > - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/disper/disper_0.3.0-1.dsc built, signed, uploaded. What you may want to enhance for the next upload: P: disper source: source-contains-bzr-control-dir .bzr I: disper: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/disper.1.gz:7 I: disper: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/disper.1.gz:99 I: disper: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/disper.1.gz:101 Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:16:54PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please >consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what >steps are required to generate it. ..that would be get-orig-source of course... -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gforth (updated package)
Hi Peter, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 04:29:14PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.7.0+ds1-6 > of my package "gforth". It contains two years' worth of > packaging fixes along with an attempt at multiarch conversion > and an acknowledged NMU. I am asking on the list since > Patrick Matthäi, who kindly uploaded a couple of previous iterations > of my adopted gforth packaging, seems to have been busy when I contacted > him a couple of times during the past year and a half with RFS's. sorry for taking so long to review your upload even after submitting it to this list. Now here goes: > dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gforth/gforth_0.7.0+ds1-6.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. If, in addition, > the sponsor would be so kind as to set the DMUA flag, I'd be very grateful - > although, of course, this might not be proper for a first-time sponsoring > of this particular package. From what I see you're well up to the job and I see no problem putting it with one of the next uploads. Regarding your packaging I'm wondering about: You explicitly spell out autoconf, automake as Build-Depends yet call dh only with --with autotools-dev. Why those two on top? Your package seems to build just fine without them and putting m4 instead. As this it not a new change it shall not stop me from uploading your package as is. Thanks for the work! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: git-flow
Hi! Kilian Krause writes: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:34:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: >> While I'm not looking for a sponsor for my package, git-flow, I would >> appreciate any comments regarding the packaging, and all ideas for >> improvement. >> >> * Package name: git-flow >> - dget >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-flow/git-flow_0.4.1-1~preview0.dsc > > seems this one got lost by now. If you still need feedback, please point me > to a valid URL. It got uploaded to unstable, so I deleted it from mentors shortly afterwards. Suggestions are still welcome, though, and the sources can be simply apt-get source'd. ;) -- |8] -- 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/8739hyc7tj@luthien.mhp
Re: RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
Salut Benoît, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my > package "minidlna". > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc 1. Your upoad uses a tarball that's not identical to upstream's one. Please consider adding a get-orig-tarball target to debian/rules to verify what steps are required to generate it. 2. The 1.0.20+dfsg-2 never made it into Debian. Changes generated accordingly. Please double check next time. 3. Your patches don't use DEP-3 headers. It would be nice to have them to see which of those have already been pushed upstream etc.. Anyway, built, signed, uploaded. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: pynagram (updated package, second attempt)
Hi Kilian, On 07/22/2011 02:43 PM, Kilian Krause wrote: please propose a tag or full *.dsc export next time. I'll make sure I do that next time. I've taken your SVN, put "unstable" as dist, built, signed and uploaded your package. Please don't forget to add the tag accordingly. Thanks a lot! Umang -- 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/4e29e4bc.4050...@gmail.com
Re: RFS: yajl (updated package)
Hi John, On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0700, John Stamp wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.12-1 > of my package "yajl". what I've forgot to add to my last email. Your upstream seems to have updated quite a number of files with copyright 2010. You may want to reflect that in debian/copyright. -- Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: yajl (updated package)
Hi John, On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:12:04AM -0700, John Stamp wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.12-1 > of my package "yajl". > - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yajl/yajl_1.0.12-1.dsc Thanks for the update and appologies for taking so long to review such a simple change. Your debian/compat is 9 which is currently experimental. Lintian thus warns: N: Note if you are using a compat level, which is marked as experimental, N: such as compat 9 in debhelper 8.1.3, then please override this tag. Upstream has 2.0.2 as latest version. Have you considred updating to that? Anyway, built, signed, uplaoded. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: spice-protocol (updated package)
Hi Guo, On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:51:03AM +0800, Liang Guo wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.8.1-1 > of my package "spice-protocol". > > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/spice-protocol/spice-protocol_0.8.1-1.dsc Thanks for the update and appologies for taking so long to review this simple change. Built, signed, uploaded. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: secpanel (updated package)
Hi Daniel, On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 03:10:05PM -0500, Daniel Echeverry wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.6.1-1 > of my package "secpanel". > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/secpanel/secpanel_0.6.1-1.dsc Thanks for stepping up as new maintainer for this package. And sorry for taking so long for getting you a feedback. 1. You move all *.patch to *.diff - why? Was there any reason the *.patch was conflicting with something? 2. You have touched all the (now named) *.diff files yet not bothered to add any notion whether they have been sent upstream or if not why so. 3. You reverse the order of the patches which seems somewhat unintended. Obviously it works still though. 4. You run override_dh_fixperms in your own writing withouth actually calling dh_fixperms itself. With this you make lintian freak out and if this is _really_ required please add a lintian overrides. 5. More as a cosmetic note: There is no Vcs lines in debian/control. Is there no VCS? 6. debian/README.source is obsolete with newer versions of dpkg. No need to repack the source even if the directory structure is totally wild. 7. You no longer ship /usr/share/secpanel/gui.tcl set executable. Probably missing in your fixperms. You may want to check the full debdiff of the old and the new changes file. I've fixed 4. and built, signed, uploaded your new package. Please have a look at the rest and send me the updated package if any of this needs further fixing. -- Best regrds, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gecrit
* Kilian Krause , 2011-07-22, 21:32: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit/gecrit_2.7-1.dsc looks very tidy and clean. Yet your debian/copyright doesn't mention data/plugins/PyTidyFormatter.py which is GPL-2. Haven't checked each of the other files, so please double check your copyright information as FTPmasters will look at this (and reject your package if it's not correct). Also, where is source for locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/*.mo? Quality of the Polish translation is very poor; it should be either reviewed (or rather rewritten...) by someone competent in Polish or removed. -- 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/20110722195907.ga8...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: pynagram (updated package, second attempt)
Hi Umang, On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:52:29PM -0500, Umang Varma wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.1-1 of my package > "pynagram". The previous sponsor has indicated that he is too busy > to sponsor pynagram. > svn://svn.debian.org/python-apps/packages/pynagram/trunk/ please propose a tag or full *.dsc export next time. I've taken your SVN, put "unstable" as dist, built, signed and uploaded your package. Please don't forget to add the tag accordingly. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gecrit
Hi Vincent, On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 07:01:43PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gecrit". > - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gecrit/gecrit_2.7-1.dsc looks very tidy and clean. Yet your debian/copyright doesn't mention data/plugins/PyTidyFormatter.py which is GPL-2. Haven't checked each of the other files, so please double check your copyright information as FTPmasters will look at this (and reject your package if it's not correct). Apart from that your package is fine for upload. Please send me an updated version and I'll put it into incoming.d.o for FTPmaster review to enter the archive. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libspctag
Hi Jérôme, On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:57:41AM +0200, Jérôme SONRIER wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libspctag". > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libspctag/libspctag_0.1-1.dsc sorry for taking so long to get a bit of free time to acutally have a look at this. Your package looks good except for a "Version: 0.1-1" entry in debian/control which I've removed. The libspctag-dev could technically also be of arch all as it doesn't contain any binary code. As you may want to include the static lib at some time I'd like to keep this arch=any for now. With the above fix I've build, signed and uploaded your package. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: git-flow
Hi Gergely, On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:34:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > While I'm not looking for a sponsor for my package, git-flow, I would > appreciate any comments regarding the packaging, and all ideas for > improvement. > > * Package name: git-flow > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/git-flow/git-flow_0.4.1-1~preview0.dsc seems this one got lost by now. If you still need feedback, please point me to a valid URL. -- Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: Jampal (2nd try)
Hi Peter, On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:06:09PM -0400, Peter Bennett wrote: > Thank you Arno for your assistance. > I have uploaded a new version of jampal, 02.01.05-1 > All problems previously noted have been fixed. Having a closer look I find the version number.. uhm... "interesting" ;-) Nevertheless there's nothing wrong with it, so nothing to complain here. > The lintian appears to be clean > lintian -I --pedantic jampal_02.01.05-1.dsc > gives no error. As you stress this I'm tempted to give you my output (including -X): W: tagbkup: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/tagbkup.1.gz Invalid or incomplete multibyte or wide character X: jampal: duplicate-files usr/share/doc/jampal/html/favicon.ico.gz usr/share/doc/jampal/html/images/jampal.ico.gz W: jampal: classpath-contains-relative-path usr/share/jampal/jampal.jar: ../freetts/lib/freetts.jar W: jampal: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/jampal.1.gz Invalid or incomplete multibyte or wide character none of which are truly harmful though. Especially the manpage errors are a quite frequent false positive. > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jampal". > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/j/jampal/jampal_02.01.05-1.dsc What I did stumble upon is the build-depends against rsync. After closely checking that seems to be bordering abuse yet nothing that is formally wrong. I'm somewhat unsure though why "cp -a" wouldn't do the same thing here. Eventually the CVS exlude would require some extra rm lines but apart from that I don't really see the benfit. As a side note it seems the DEP-5 Format URL is broken even though it's verbatim the style DEP-5 demands for AFAICT. Still strange though. Anyway, built, signed, uploaded. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: autoconf-archive (updated package)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 08:02:36PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:05:31PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110717-1 > > of my package "autoconf-archive". > > > > It builds these binary packages: > > autoconf-archive - Autoconf Macro Archive > > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > actually no: > E: autoconf-archive source: git-patches-not-exported I knew I had seen this before. Sorry for having just looked at the old version. New version now correctly in the archive. ;-) -- Cheers, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: autoconf-archive (updated package)
Hi Bastien, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:05:31PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110717-1 > of my package "autoconf-archive". > > It builds these binary packages: > autoconf-archive - Autoconf Macro Archive > > The package appears to be lintian clean. actually no: E: autoconf-archive source: git-patches-not-exported As we've had this in the last upload already and it seems to be git-pkg and lintian not equally sure on what is considered good and what isn't, I've nevertheless built, signed and uploaded your new version. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libbs2b and bs2b-ladspa
Thanks for the review! On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:44:16 +0200 Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Gainer wrote: > > > The package appears to be *sort of* lintian clean. > > When in doubt, run lintian with --info, which gives detailed > information about the warnings. Seems like I learn a new trick every day. This looks super-useful. > > * There are several old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file warnings. Is > > the correct procedure on these to correct the license texts (seems > > fishy) or leave them alone (and let lintian yell at me)? > > Fix them in debian/copyright and ask upstream to fix them in the > source code. Done. > > * libbs2b gives "no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libbs2b.so.0.0.0". > > A quick bit of Googling leads me to believe that this isn't very > > important for a slow-moving API like this library's, but my > > knowledge of the inner workings of the linking system is pretty > > rudimentary. Input on this or other aspects of library packaging > > would be much appreciated. > > Symbols files are more useful for slower-moving ABIs, since they relax > dependency versions. This problem seems to have disappeared when I did some other futzing with the build system. I don't know why it did, but hopefully that's an end on it. > > * libbs2b also gives "source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary > > win32/sndfile/libsndfile-1.dll", which is true. Of course, I'm not > > using the win32 files at all, so I guess the best thing to do is > > just to strip them out, but I'm not sure what the Debian Way to do > > this is. > > Yep, write a debian/rules get-orig-source tarball to create a new > tarball with those things removed. Done. I used the rules file from your package 'cultivation' as a template. I've changed the revision of libbs2b to 3.1.0+dfsg-1 to reflect this. New versions of both packages uploaded, fixing these and a couple of other glitches. lintian --pedantic now complains only of the lack of an upstream changelog in bs2b-ladspa, which is out of my hands. Thanks again for your advice, Paul. --Andrew signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: vim-subtitles, vim-srt, vim-sub, vim-mpsub
Sven Wick wrote: > I uploaded new revisions of the packages: > > http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?maintainer=sven.wick%40gmx.de Okay, so here are my comments: - Looking at the content of your packages, I think it would make much more sense to have one source package (called vim-subtitles) produce the three binary packages (vim-srt, vim-sub and vim-mpsub) and the metapackage. Commenting now on vim-srt only (I assume the other two are packaged similarly, and they should end up being in the same source package anyway): - debian/patches: I don't see the point of creating an upstream Makefile (there's no chance of having it integrated upstream, and you can achieve the same thing from debian/rules or even using debian/*.install). - debian/README.Debian: Wrap lines at 80 columns. I also think it should say "by default" instead of "per default". - debian/copyright: You have a GPL-2.0 license field (which I think should be called GPL-2 instead, but that's purely cosmetic) that says "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". I don't know what was upstream's intention, but you should figure it out and correct either the short name or the license text. - debian/control: I'm not sure why you depend on debhelper >= 8.0.0~, I think >= 8 is just fine. - I like the example file, but I'm not sure you should advise users to report bugs to your email address directly; better tell them to use Debian's BTS. I hope this helps. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110722132108.gb32...@marvin.lan
RFS: autoconf-archive (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20110717-1 of my package "autoconf-archive". It builds these binary packages: autoconf-archive - Autoconf Macro Archive The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autoconf-archive - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive_20110717-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards bastien roucaries -- 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/201107221405.32130.roucaries.bast...@gmail.com
RFS: minidlna (updated package and FTBFS fix)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.21+dfsg-1 of my package "minidlna". It builds this binary package: minidlna - lightweight DLNA/UPnP-AV server targeted at embedded systems The package is lintian clean, and has been tested to compile and run fine on amd64, armel and kfreebsd (although I could not try and compile it in a clean chroot on the latter because neither pbuilder nor cowbuilder is available on that platform). The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna/minidlna_1.0.21+dfsg-1.dsc Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- 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/20110722103651.ga32...@marvin.lan
Re: RFS: phing (Another try...)
Hi Arno, many thanks for you report. I will update my packaging for theses cosmetics changes as you said ! Regards, Nicolas 2011/7/21 Arno Töll > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Nicolas, > > IANADD (twb told me, I shall be lazy!), here are some comments on your > package: > > On 21.07.2011 09:13, Nicolas wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "phing". > > * Please extend description of the -doc package. Its a bit too short. > You don't need to be too verbose, but please expand it by a few words. > For example you could tell what exactly the package contains and what > its purpose is. Compare with other -doc packages in Debian to get an idea > > * Your copyright looks pretty good, however "Copyright: 2001,2002 > THYRELL" is probably a bit to few of information. Maybe add a contact > address, I noticed in the code is listed one. Same for "2003, > seasonfive". Yes, this is pure pedantry - feel free to ignore this. > > * There is a new upstream release. Please consider packaging it. > Besides, the checksums of your orig.tar.gz don't not match with > upstream's package, being it the full package or the PEAR one. Please > don't touch it. > > $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 > bf4c5e709c9141555c299e02aab8ac80cddd2cf7 phing-2.4.5.tgz.1 (this is PEAR) > $ sha1sum phing-2.4.5.tgz > f3e2eb295317b79a9e4223c193430a2896883967 phing-2.4.5.tgz > $ sha1sum phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz > 367c6a92bee3d3c73c6b36c9afa35a122c1eb11c phing_2.4.5.orig.tar.gz > > * What's /usr/share/php/phing/etc for? Those files don't look like > something which should be put in a etc-directory. I'm fine if you keep > it that way in /usr/share/php/phing/etc, I'm just trying to find out, > whether those files are meant to be touched at all. If so, they > shouldn't reside in /usr. > > * In debian/rules, please remove unneeded comments dh-make produced. > > * Please generate your manpage during build. It seems to me, you ship it > pre-compiled from the SGML man page you wrote. > > * Similar case for the API docs you package straight from the tarball. > The DFSG mandate that a software package is available from source and > its processing must be self-containing (e.g. compare with the "preferred > form for modification" from the GPL license). For the generated API docs > this means, there must be a way to regenerate those docs by means the > main archive provides. You don't necessarily need to do this when > producing the binary package, but please add at least a README.source > file, where you document how to regenerate those API docs, upstream > ships, if desired. > > * Your upstream tarball contains regression tests. Consider running them > during build. > > Good work. Those are almost all cosmetic changes. > > > - -- > with kind regards, > Arno Töll > IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOKFdFAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtNsoQAMUK3PphZGXhVNczYPMDMffG > DGlZdGJWkfpowsir6mVZiLMBVMxUsFTmgGuBZtWs2C90bPugPadLXLccs6AjT44f > /8Y8nIqDvT2kCwW2O/Izh7QxwnnxNn6X1ryFQlphsJd7uPe6rGX4hHAs8xxEOFCL > 06iJCIipq1yH2h7LhoaryFUh5Xng1fTSyzK7R8axEESPW7OUSiS94yrIEQA6d/Ki > 4NzYkZjgLiFOqlX5rqa/k6tFs2qwoLVePc1bcwmbJB0ErC32sgnMC7u/gIEZn/g1 > t8A11dw4BHwOWwHX8IqkjuIKC7IibSvVuPIIzg+GYRJcoXrgY/Vww6xwIFaK3wPS > frhgxRSh8QSFNnHLixEIuZ1YyvunDpMhN6o33oPLaMWvWsoQAvNH2vHUEXIQIxTZ > kzddqn0Y5XuuwjpXqIMJFytzL6nYMRSkJyRZrb5n1csgyNK99gi/Gczsm099YTAD > ihHXtv9Cwgn3JYXfNdtchkJaLhRuh7ExdzmbR7/VsJ2/5HEpjVtuZK3Fpc8psckP > UNRQDbFRUYNWhSuC5brnte++HbV+ZTInkOLi9Jb5lRr5/fdxVigfEK4ph1xV6rh4 > me5/OYg6LxgXxlePYfsYXll0KaHTMWEuahzf5k1DQMnH3GFk6NSbpq2hYBt6DQHY > P39Ag9vBdig83Y4DSoh+ > =KAoz > -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/4e285745.2050...@toell.net > >
Re: ITP 634783: Need help to remove a linitian warning "desktop-command-not-in-package usr/share/applications/package.desktop x-www-browser"
This is a false positive, please report a bug against lintian asking for it to not warn about the use of x-www-browser or x-terminal-emulator in desktop files. I also wonder why a webapp needs a desktop file. BTW, a better command to use is xdg-open, which is cross-distro. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fncqote9gm++rev+ymbrhaaazooyge8ofiary9p74...@mail.gmail.com
ITP 634783: Need help to remove a linitian warning "desktop-command-not-in-package usr/share/applications/package.desktop x-www-browser"
I have a warning reported by lintian on a webapps package. I can't find a solution to remove it. This is message: "desktop-command-not-in-package usr/share/applications/package.desktop x-www-browser" My package is a webapp package and i added a .desktop file to add icon into menu. The line added in .desktop file is Exec=x-www-browser http://localhost/mywebapp But after packaging lintian says x-www-browser is not a command. Does someone can tell me how i can fix such a warning. Is it a package to add into Requires that contains this command ? Or is it the value x-www-browser that is wrong ? -- Eldy (Laurent Destailleur). --- EMail: e...@destailleur.fr Web: http://www.destailleur.fr Dolibarr (Project leader): http://www.dolibarr.org To make a donation for Dolibarr project via Paypal: cont...@destailleur.fr AWStats (Author) : http://awstats.sourceforge.net To make a donation for AWStats project via Paypal: cont...@destailleur.fr AWBot (Author) : http://awbot.sourceforge.net CVSChangeLogBuilder (Author) : http://cvschangelogb.sourceforge.net -- 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/4e292aad.6070...@destailleur.fr
