Bug#687734: marked as done (RFS: espctag/0.4-1)
Your message dated Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:02:35 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: espctag/0.4-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #687734, regarding RFS: espctag/0.4-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 687734: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687734 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "espctag" Package name: espctag Version : 0.4-1 Upstream Author : Jérôme SONRIER URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/espctag/ License : gpl3 Section : misc It builds those binary packages: espctag- ID666 tags editor To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/espctag Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/espctag/espctag_0.4-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release Regards, Jérôme SONRIER signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package espctag version 0.4-1 is accepted. http://packages.qa.debian.org/espctag--- End Message ---
Bug#670704: marked as done (RFS: g3dviewer/0.2.99.5~svn130-2)
Your message dated Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:55:29 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: g3dviewer/0.2.99.5~svn130-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #670704, regarding RFS: g3dviewer/0.2.99.5~svn130-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 670704: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670704 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "g3dviewer" * Package name: g3dviewer Version : 0.2.99.5~svn130-2 Upstream Author : Markus Dahms * URL : https://gna.org/projects/g3dviewer/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : graphics It builds those binary packages: g3dviewer - 3D model viewer for GTK+ g3dviewer-dbg - g3dviewer debug symbols package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/g3dviewer Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/g3dviewer/g3dviewer_0.2.99.5~svn130-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Updated my maintainer e-mail address * Upgrade debhelper compat to v9 * debian/rules: - Enable parallel builds using dh's --parallel - Inform about missing installed files using dh's --list-missing - Mark all targets in debian/rules as phony - Enable all hardening flags - Let debhelper set the buildflags implicitly * debian/control - Keep dependencies on separate lines - Add missing build dependency to glu development package - Upgraded to policy 3.9.3, no changes required - Update Vcs-* fields to new anonscm.debian.org URLs * debian/copyright: - Update copyright format to 1.0 - Update copyright years These changes are only the cleanup changes of 2 1/2 years. I am a Debian Maintainer, but the package doesn't have "Dm-Upload-Allowed: yes" set. Regards, Sven Eckelmann signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package g3dviewer has been removed from mentors.--- End Message ---
Bug#677935: cwm
James, I use LXDE and I would like give cwm a go. If I can get it working on my system I'll certainly work with you to get it uploaded into Debian. I would not really call myself a competent X11 administrator so maybe I am not your ideal uploader. On the other hand maybe I'm ideal because I will ask all the right stupid questions. And because they're stupid questions please feel free to tell me why they are stupid questions. So here are some stupid questions for starters: 1,) I'm running LXDE and openbox and I know nothing about X11. How do I get cwm working? Could I have that in a README.Debian file please? 2.) Why doesn't the package have a "Provides: x-window-manager" clause like openbox does? 3.) What steps have you taken to check that cwm will fit into the Debian environment? Have you looked at say http://wiki.debian.org/WindowManager? Compared with openbox? Then there are issues I picked up on myself but found reiterated in the existing bug report: 4.) "I would remove the last sentence of the first paragraph though (about the code that used to come from 9wm), as it doesn't seem very relevant anymore." More generally I feel your long description should answer the following questions: What is cwm?; Why might I want to use cwm? Why might I not want want to use cwm? I think you're almost there but as it stands the bits about .cwmrc and virtual desktops seem out of place. You may want that information in there but I would suggest thinking about it again. 5.) "And if you don't use a VCS for your packaging, you should remove those commented-out lines." Have you considered using collab-maint as a repository? http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject?highlight=%28CategoryAlioth%29 6.) "There is no upstream changelog as there is none provided." "The README doesn't contain useful information for end-users, so you shouldn't install it." Actually the README contains the upstream changelog. So you should install the README as the upstream changelog. [More strategically you could ask upstream to generate a report from the Openbsd repository to get an upstream changelog. Or you could do that yourself perhaps.] For completeness I'll also reiterate the comments from Benoit Knecht: 7.) In debian/control, the debhelper version dependency should simply be ">= 9" instead of ">= 9.0.0". 8.) And in the same file, the long description contains a few double-spaces. 9.) "But prehaps you should consider Depending on xserver-xorg (or at least Recommend it, if that makes more sense). You could also Suggest xinit, as it seems like a nice way to start such a minimalistic window manager." [7 & 8 seem sensible to me. I cannot comment on this one.] -- 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/5055c387.9090...@periapt.co.uk
Bug#687831: RFS: gosmore/0.0.0.20100711-2.1 [NMU] [RC] -- friendly greeter
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gosmore" * Package name: gosmore Version : 0.0.0.20100711-2.1 * URL : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Gosmore It builds those binary packages: gosmore- Openstreetmap.org viewer / wayfinder / search client To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gosmore Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gosmore/gosmore_0.0.0.20100711-2.1.dsc Changes since the last upload: gosmore (0.0.0.20100711-2.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-Maintainer Upload to fix RC bug * Applied patch from Ubuntu (LP: #937088), restricting compiler optimization with -fno-strict-overflow to fix starting with an endless loop. (closes: #652084) -- Kai Lüke Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:29:04 +0200 Regards, Kai Lüke -- 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/20120914162502.28008.38071.reportbug@localhost6.localdomain6
Bug#686679: RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1 compiler for C
On Sep 13, 2012, at 01:42, Arno Toell wrote: > Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. It might > be ugly a bit dangerous and misleading, but it is feasible in your case. > That said I realize this is not your fault, so let's deal with it. If > upstream ever releases a new version you may consider switching to a > better version scheme, though. Hello, Arno, Sure I'll think about it with the next upstream version. > > Having that said, you still didn't include deltas from previous versions > in Debian. Frankly, the difference is minor and mostly the changelog - > but for consistency you should include it to your package. > > I gave you a link to the latest version which ever appeared in Debian. > Please do a diff against your package and incorporate changes you aren't > including yet (e.g. the version history in debian/changelog) Sorry I missed that point last time. Added previous changelog entries. Uploaded the new package. > > I noticed you added VCS links - thanks. Please do also push your updates > there. As a new maintainer, this is your repository now. :) > As I understand I can't have write access until I'll receive permissions for the asn1c collab-maint SVN repository. According to [1] I just created an Alioth user theirix-guest. Could you please send an advocate e-mail for collab-maint asn1c repository? Thanks a lot. > > > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject > -- > Arno Töll > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D --- Best regards, Eugene Seliverstov -- 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/24254c04-725c-4e4e-97c4-2198284a2...@gmail.com
Bug#687831: marked as done (RFS: gosmore/0.0.0.20100711-2.1 [NMU] [RC] -- friendly greeter)
Your message dated Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:33:09 +0200 with message-id <20120916133309.gg30...@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> and subject line Re: Bug#687831: RFS: gosmore/0.0.0.20100711-2.1 [NMU] [RC] -- friendly greeter has caused the Debian Bug report #687831, regarding RFS: gosmore/0.0.0.20100711-2.1 [NMU] [RC] -- friendly greeter to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 687831: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687831 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gosmore" * Package name: gosmore Version : 0.0.0.20100711-2.1 * URL : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Gosmore It builds those binary packages: gosmore- Openstreetmap.org viewer / wayfinder / search client To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gosmore Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gosmore/gosmore_0.0.0.20100711-2.1.dsc Changes since the last upload: gosmore (0.0.0.20100711-2.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-Maintainer Upload to fix RC bug * Applied patch from Ubuntu (LP: #937088), restricting compiler optimization with -fno-strict-overflow to fix starting with an endless loop. (closes: #652084) -- Kai Lüke Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:29:04 +0200 Regards, Kai Lüke --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:25:02 +0200, Kai Lüke wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gosmore" > > * Package name: gosmore >Version : 0.0.0.20100711-2.1 > * URL : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Gosmore Oh, a mail from Friday :) Anyway, I've already uploaded your NMU to a DELAYED queue earlier today, cf. #652084 Thanks for your work! Cheers, gregor, closing this sponsorship bug -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Kurt Ostbahn & Die Kombo: Amoi daham signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Re: mpg321 at mentors
Hi Bart, On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:08:18PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > Hi Nanakos, > > I had a look at mpg321 at mentors uploaded there on 2012-08-27 09:13. > > It is not clear to me on bug 685679 what you mean with "does not perform very > well" and "not very stable". I don't see how this makes "mpg321 unusable" and > how it would "break other applications". Please explain on the bug report > what's wrong and why you believe that disabling the -b option (actually making > mpg321 silently ignore the -b option) would be the best approach in this > context. I hope my last message covers your questions. > > If the -b option does nothing then the manpage could be modified to mention > that. Fixed. > > The entries 0.3.2-2 and 0.3.2-1.1 in debian/changelog have lines with one > leading space too many. > Fixed > The uncommenting of dh_testroot in debian/rules is not mentioned in > debian/changelog. > My mistake, I haven't copied the latest debian/rules file from the last upload of Emfox Zhou. Now fixed. It would be great if you could sponsor the package. My next step is to communicate with the Release Managers to unblock the package. Regards, Chris. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: archivemount at mentors
Dear Bart, On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > Hi Nanakos, > > I had a look at archivemount at mentors uploaded there on 2012-09-09 14:43. > > The file debian/copyright contains this : > > | Files: * > | Copyright: > | 2005 Andre Landwehr > | License: GPL-2+ > > But the license is the GNU LGPL version 2. So with L and without +. > Fixed and re-uploaded to mentors.d.n. I would be grateful if you could sponsor the package. Regards, Chris. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mpg321 at mentors
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:06:51PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > Hi Bart, > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:08:18PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > > Hi Nanakos, > > > > I had a look at mpg321 at mentors uploaded there on 2012-08-27 09:13. > > > > It is not clear to me on bug 685679 what you mean with "does not perform > > very > > well" and "not very stable". I don't see how this makes "mpg321 unusable" > > and > > how it would "break other applications". Please explain on the bug report > > what's wrong and why you believe that disabling the -b option (actually > > making > > mpg321 silently ignore the -b option) would be the best approach in this > > context. > > I hope my last message covers your questions. I currently see on bug 685679 only the initial message of 23 Aug 2012. Regards, Bart Martens -- 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/20120917043737.ga31...@master.debian.org
Re: archivemount at mentors
Hi Nanakos, On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:08:46PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > > I had a look at archivemount at mentors uploaded there on 2012-09-09 14:43. > > > > The file debian/copyright contains this : > > > > | Files: * > > | Copyright: > > | 2005 Andre Landwehr > > | License: GPL-2+ > > > > But the license is the GNU LGPL version 2. So with L and without +. > > > > Fixed and re-uploaded to mentors.d.n. > > I would be grateful if you could sponsor the package. The package at mentors uploaded there on 2012-09-16 18:20 still has "or (at your option) any later version" in debian/copyright. I suggest to simply use the words used by the upstream author so that it's impossible to introduce unintended differences. Regards, Bart Martens -- 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/20120917045609.gb31...@master.debian.org
Bug#670176: RFS: kismet/2011.03.R2-1 [ITA]
reopen 670176
Hello Arno,
I just came back after a long period that I wasn't able to take a look
on the package.
I'm trying to address all the things you said.
2012/5/14 Arno Töll :
> Hi Nick,
>
> this is a shallow review of your package. Unfortunately I am lacking
> experience with CDBS packages and your package is quite complex. Hence I
> am unsure if I will sponsor it eventually. That said, I'd love to see
> kismet in shape in Debian.
>
> * Please clarify the license of these files in your debian/copyright file:
> + apple80211.h: the header states: "From MacStumbler, which is under GPL"
I contacted upstream to clarify
> + extra/*: Lacks copyright header. Given all other files do, I suspect
> this is by purpose which means it is not known whether these files are
> distributable.
My guess is that it has the same copyright as the files in the root
folder (e.g. util.cc).
I asked upstream in order to clarify this
> + Likewise for packaging/dpkg* (I would also hope, this script is
> burned with fire)
Probably this folder will be removed altogether
> + Likewise for ruby/*. No fire this time, though
I asked upstream to add copyright/license info
> Consider repackaging the tarball if you cannot find any clarifcation
> regarding these files as they mostly seem irrelevant to me. Moreover,
> please note you are linking against OpenSSL but the package is licensed
> under the terms of the GPL-2. However, only a few files do have a
> OpenSSL linking exception. Note, the GPL is not compatible to the
> OpenSSL license [1]. Ask upstream for clarification on that matter.
I asked upstream and see what they tell me. I think there are only a
couple of plugins that need OpenSSL and if there is a license issue we
can just exclude them from the build.
> * Where does this package come from? Did you base your work upon the
> Ubuntu package? I'm asking because of "kismet (2008-05-R1-4.3build1)
> precise; urgency=low" for the previous upload. If the only difference to
> the Debian version is this Ubuntu binNMU, please remove this changelog
> stanza.
I think I took the latest ubuntu build, which indeed has only a minor
change wrt debian's version.
I dropped that changelog entry
> * What is debian/kismet-plugins-restricted.install? These refer to a
> binary package you don't build. Were they split to a non-free package
> previously? If yes, what did change to make this split unnecessary?
> License of the plugin-ptw/* stuff seems DFSG free to me (but it is
> listed in kismet-plugins-restricted as
> debian/tmp/usr/lib/kismet/aircrack-kismet.so I think).
I wanted to put it like that for the case that some of the plugins
needed openssl but didn't include the license exception.
I asked upstream to verify which plugins are these and then see if
they can all include the exception.
> * Please fill out copyright headers of debian/po/templates.pot properly.
Can I put automatic variables in there (e.g. package name/version/etc?)
> While you are it, the po translation files are not complete.
> Moreover,
> do not prompt in question style in debconf templates. Formulate the data
> you want to get from the user in an open way ("give me $foo:").
The only question I can find is: "Should Kismet be installed to run
with setuid privs?"
Any idea how I could rephrase it?
> * You do not depend on adduser, but you use it in your postinst
> maintainer script.
I thought adduser is part of the standard distribution, no?
> Same for libcap2-bin and setcap.
I thought libcap2-bin would get automatically installed as part of
shlibs:Depens part.
For setcap you are definitely right
> Moreover, the
> maintainer script does not look very sane. See [2] and policy §6.5 [3]
> to see how maintainer scripts are invoked and change it to something
> properly. I am referring to the way you are determining whether you are
> upgrading.
I am not sure I understand the question. The only extra thing I'm
doing in the maintainer scripts is to add(or remove) group that has
permission to use kismet
> Do also set -e in your maintainer scripts.
I think it is already there on the invocation line (sh -e), no?
> * Likewise you are blindly adding users provided by user input to
> usermod like this:
>
> for x in ${RET}; do
> usermod -a -G $GROUP $x
> done
>
> You should at least verify whether the supplied user(s) exists before
> passing random inputs to usermod.
Should I do that just after the input from the user (by debconf) or
before I add them to the group?
> * The postrm script looks acceptable, but note it is consensus not to
> remove users anymore once created. There is no safe and sane way to
> determine whether the site administrator hijacked the created group on
> purpose.
I do not remove users, just the group
> * Maybe you should bump the debhelper compatibility to v8.
Sure.
> * Consider writing man pages for your binaries lacking these.
I will ask upstream to see if they can provide those, since this issue
is not debian specific.
> * Lintian says:
>
