Bug#693556: RFS: mercurial-keyring/0.5.4-3 [ITP]
I'm still looking for a sponsor :). I changed the license of the packaging to BSD-3-clause to match the upstream license and uploaded a new version (thanks Andrew). The source package can be obtained with: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mercurial-keyring/mercurial-keyring_0.5.4-3.dsc Thanks! 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/514ccd67.5010...@gmail.com
Bug#703730: RFS: redeclipse/1.4-1 redeclipse-data/1.4-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel-ga...@lists.debian.org Thanks Dear mentors and pkg-gamers, I am looking for a sponsor for my updated packages "redeclipse" and "redeclipse-data": * Package name: redeclipse Version : 0.4-1 Upstream Author : Quinton "Quin" Reeves : Lee "Eihrul" Salzman : Red Eclipse Team and others * URL : http://redeclipse.net * License : Zlib, CC-BY-SA-3.0+ Section : contrib/games It builds those binary packages: redeclipse[-dbg] - multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2 redeclipse-server[-dbg] - server for the Red Eclipse FPS game Changelog: redeclipse (1.4-1) experimental; urgency=low * New upstream release * Move server examples to /usr/share/games/doc/redeclipse/ * Added screenshot URL for Ubuntu * Removed Enet from source package (unused) * Drop dpkg Pre-Depends (upgrades from old Ubuntu versions not relevant) * Include version.cfg in tarball, required for server * Package name: redeclipse-data Version : 0.4-1 Upstream Author : Red Eclipse Team and others * URL : http://redeclipse.net * License : CC_BY-SA-3.0+, Zlib and various Section : non-free/games It builds this binary package: redeclipse-data - data for the Red Eclipse FPS game Changelog: redeclipse-data (1.4-1) experimental; urgency=low * New upstream release * Drop dpkg Pre-Depends (upgrades from old Ubuntu versions not relevant) * Added more verbose notice why package is in non-free * Include license.txt files, in favour of maintaining data tree identical The packages are up on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/redeclipse dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/r/redeclipse/redeclipse_1.4-1.dsc (Note that the data package is ~625MB) http://mentors.debian.net/package/redeclipse-data dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/r/redeclipse-data/redeclipse-data_1.4-1.dsc The packaging is done in git: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/redeclipse.git;a=summary git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-games/redeclipse.git (Note that the data clone is ~780M) http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/redeclipse-data.git;a=summary git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-games/redeclipse-data.git Lintian: N: The license is CC-BY-SA-3.0+, meaning "or later", albeit valid, is not a N: recognised license shortname. N: The stand-alone license paragraph has the standard CC-BY-SA-3.0 version. O: redeclipse source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright cc-by-sa-3.0+ (paragraph at line 75) # Should only be needed for upgrades from Ubuntu Lucid, where this package does not exist P: redeclipse-server: data.tar.xz-member-without-dpkg-pre-depends P: redeclipse-server-dbg: data.tar.xz-member-without-dpkg-pre-depends P: redeclipse-dbg: data.tar.xz-member-without-dpkg-pre-depends P: redeclipse: data.tar.xz-member-without-dpkg-pre-depends # No it's not I: redeclipse-server-dbg: extended-description-is-probably-too-short I: redeclipse-dbg: extended-description-is-probably-too-short # Used for Ubuntu Software Centre I: redeclipse: unknown-field-in-control screenshot-url I: redeclipse: unknown-field-in-control thumbnail-url N: The license is CC-BY-SA-3.0+, meaning "or later", albeit valid, this is not a N: recognised license shortname. N: The stand-alone license paragraph has the standard CC-BY-SA-3.0 version. O: redeclipse-data source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright cc-by-sa-3.0+ (paragraph at line 321) # Should only be needed for upgrades from Ubuntu Lucid, where this package does not exist P: redeclipse-data: data.tar.xz-member-without-dpkg-pre-depends # No it's not I: redeclipse-data: extended-description-is-probably-too-short N: These license files are kept in the data tree because: N: * They are minimal in comparison to the rest of the content N: * There is no good distinction between contents of files like readme.txt N: mapname.txt and license.txt, and some are useful N: * This maintains the data tree idential to upstream O: redeclipse-data: extra-license-file usr/share/games/redeclipse/data/crosshairs/license.txt N: These license files are kept in the data tree because: N: * They are minimal in comparison to the rest of the content N: * There is no good distinction between contents of files like readme.txt N: mapname.txt and license.txt, and some are useful N: * This maintains the data tree idential to upstream O: redeclipse-data: extra-license-file usr/share/games/redeclipse/data/models/actors/turret/license.txt I would be very happy if someone could review and/or upload this package for me. Thanks! -- Martin Erik Werner signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#688184: marked as done (RFS: redmine-plugin-markdown/2.0.1+git20120821-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:01:41 +1100 with message-id <201303230601.41743.only...@member.fsf.org> and subject line Done: RFS: redmine-plugin-markdown/2.0.1+git20120821-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #688184, regarding RFS: redmine-plugin-markdown/2.0.1+git20120821-1 [ITP] 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.) -- 688184: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688184 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my new package "redmine-plugin-markdown" * Package name: redmine-plugin-markdown Version : 2.0.1+git20120821-1 Upstream Author : Takashi Okamoto * URL : https://github.com/alminium/redmine_redcarpet_formatter * License : GPL-2+ Section : web Description : Introduce Markdown support for Wiki in Redmine using Redcarpet. . Redcarpet is extremely fast and compatible Markdown formatter which is used as GitHub's wiki formatter. It builds the following binary package: redmine-plugin-markdown - Redmine plugin to add Markdown as a wiki format To access further information about this package, please visit: http://mentors.debian.net/package/redmine-plugin-markdown Source package is available from http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/redmine-plugin-markdown/redmine-plugin-markdown_2.0.1+git20120821-1.dsc Thank you. Regards, Dmitry. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Closing: no longer need sponsor.--- End Message ---
Re: PBuilder Local Package Problems
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:40:42AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/22/2013 11:05, Christopher Baines wrote: > > The second problem is that (unsurprisingly?) the local package I want to > > install us untrusted, but this causes pbuilder to fail: > > WARNING: untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed! > > Recent versions of apt (wheezy or later) have an option to mark > repositories as trusted even when they are not signed: > > deb [trusted=yes] file:/... That's a workaround, though. What about installing apt's keyring, or perhaps even copying apt keys authorized on the host to the chroot? Sounds like a simple solution to me, I don't know much about pbuilder's internals though. -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- 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/20130322132438.ga7...@angband.pl
Bug#703693: RFS: fadecut/0.1.3-1 (post Wheezy RFS)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fadecut" * Package name: fadecut Version : 0.1.3-1 Upstream Author : ma...@balmer.name * URL : https://github.com/micressor/fadecut * License : GPL-3 Section : sound It builds those binary packages: fadecut- toolset to rip audiostreams, cut, fade in/out and tag the resulti To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/fadecut Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fadecut/fadecut_0.1.3-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: fadecut (0.1.3-1) unstable; urgency=low * New 0.1.3 upstream release * Closes #2 at github: "add custom USER_AGENT" Thanks to mitsukarenai. * fadecut 0.1.2-1 was only in experimental and goes to unstable now. -- Marco Balmer Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:16:57 +0100 Regards, Marco Balmer -- 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/CAKieXn7XsUcxur=1uKi7yS5cwR1s+qtEUAkzko=5u1et0+d...@mail.gmail.com
Re: manual pages for trivial bash scripts and for binaries without command-line arguments
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:15:15PM +0200, Boris Pek wrote: > Debian Policy (section 12.1) tell us that each program in /usr/bin should has > a manual page. And there is the related warning in Lintian. > > But I am interested what is the best practise in case of trivial bash scripts > (which usually set up necessary environment variables and launch binaries)? > > Also there is another question about scripts or programs which do not use > command line arguments. (For example, they do not react to --help or --version > arguments.) These can be GUI programs or simple scripts from question above. > Are manual pages useful for them? What maintainers usually do in such cases? I kinda like the position recently mentioned on #-devel: "you need a manpage for that? really? You know what? WRITE IT. Upstream accepts patches." Of course YMMV if you need sponsors to upload your packages. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: manual pages for trivial bash scripts and for binaries without command-line arguments
Boris Pek writes: > But I am interested what is the best practise in case of trivial bash scripts > (which usually set up necessary environment variables and launch binaries)? > > Also there is another question about scripts or programs which do not use > command line arguments. (For example, they do not react to --help or --version > arguments.) These can be GUI programs or simple scripts from question above. > Are manual pages useful for them? What maintainers usually do in such > cases? Just add a minimal "--help" option to the program and then use help2man in debian/rules. -- 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/841ub77h0t@sauna.l.org
manual pages for trivial bash scripts and for binaries without command-line arguments
Hi everyone, Debian Policy (section 12.1) tell us that each program in /usr/bin should has a manual page. And there is the related warning in Lintian. But I am interested what is the best practise in case of trivial bash scripts (which usually set up necessary environment variables and launch binaries)? Also there is another question about scripts or programs which do not use command line arguments. (For example, they do not react to --help or --version arguments.) These can be GUI programs or simple scripts from question above. Are manual pages useful for them? What maintainers usually do in such cases? Best regards, Boris -- 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/950361363954...@web9d.yandex.ru
Re: PBuilder Local Package Problems
Hi, On 03/22/2013 11:05, Christopher Baines wrote: > The second problem is that (unsurprisingly?) the local package I want to > install us untrusted, but this causes pbuilder to fail: > WARNING: untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed! Recent versions of apt (wheezy or later) have an option to mark repositories as trusted even when they are not signed: deb [trusted=yes] file:/... Ansgar -- 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/514c352a.1090...@debian.org
PBuilder Local Package Problems
I have been following the instructions on this page, http://wiki.debian.org/PbuilderTricks , but have run in to some problems. Firstly, the apt-utils package was not installed resulting in the apt-ftparchive command not being found. I worked around this by adding apt-get install -y apt-utils to the hook. The second problem is that (unsurprisingly?) the local package I want to install us untrusted, but this causes pbuilder to fail: WARNING: untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed! Untrusted packages could compromise your system's security. You should only proceed with the installation if you are certain that this is what you want to do. ruby-dbf Do you want to ignore this warning and proceed anyway? To continue, enter "Yes"; to abort, enter "No": Abort. E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. I: Copying back the cached apt archive contents I: unmounting /home/chris/projects/Debian/.pbuilder-packages filesystem I: unmounting dev/pts filesystem I: unmounting proc filesystem -> Cleaning COW directory forking: rm -rf /var/cache/pbuilder/build//cow.10053 gbp:error: Couldn't run 'git-pbuilder': git-pbuilder returned 1 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
