Advice on packaging SWIG generated python bindings and more
Dear mentors, Anton, I've recently updated my package libaria * Package name: libaria Version : 2.7.5.2-3 Upstream Maintainer : Reed Hedges reed.hed...@adept.com * URL : http://robots.mobilerobots.com/wiki/ARIA * License : GPL-2 Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libaria-demo - C++ library for MobileRobots/ActivMedia robots (demo example) libaria-dev - C++ library for MobileRobots/ActivMedia robots (devel) libaria-dev-doc - C++ library for MobileRobots/ActivMedia robots (devel docs) libaria2 - C++ library for MobileRobots/ActivMedia robots python-libaria - C++ library for MobileRobots/ActivMedia robots (Python bindings) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libaria Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/liba/libaria/libaria_2.7.5.2-3.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Removed statically linked library. * Corrected Multi-Arch config for the doc package. * Building python-libaria package (SWIG generated bindings) * Building libaria-demo package I've named the python package python-libaria, but the packaged module is named AriaPy. Debian Python Policy states that the package name should be the module name prefixed by python-, but on the other hand, package names should be lower case (Debian Policy). Compromise would be python-ariapy, but it seems redundant. Also, I've added only the default python version to Build-Depends. Hope this is OK. Furthermore, I've packaged an example binary using the library in a separate package (because of the Multi-Arch support). I've renamed it from demo to aria-demo. And last, libaria-dev-doc packages CPP examples for using the library. I've also provided a Makefile there, that builds those examples in /tmp (default). PS I've tried to build the package in squeeze environment (for backporting), and while it did succeed after adding backports repository (for debhelper, lintian, ...), python package wasn't correctly generated (uses dh_python2). Also, lintian complained about Hardening, which should be handled by the backported debhelper 9, right? Anyway, even if I do succeed in generating the package for squeeze, would it be of any good (since I've locally added backports to my squeeze environment). Best regards, Srećko Jurić-Kavelj, dipl.ing. (Ms.E.E) Research and Teaching Assistant at University of Zagreb (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Department of Control and Computer Engineering) Phone: +385 (0)1 6129 529 Fax: +385 (0)1 6129 809 E-mail: srecko.juric-kav...@fer.hr URL: http://www.fer.hr/srecko.juric-kavelj Sanctus Hieronymus: Parce mihi, Domine, quia dalmata sum! -- 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/caacrlc0bqanfghc0gp+-e6az_wf_75cwwuugejd-frtbu_t...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#705192: RFS: sosreport/2.3-2 ITP
Hi, Adam, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Adam Stokes wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I believe I've fixed all of the above issues and they were committed upstream today[1][2]. dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sosreport/sosreport_2.3+git20130416-1.dsc This version looks better then the original one, but there are still some minor glitch should be fixed: 1) lintian information, you should run lintian with '-IE --pedantic', lintian will tell you more if there are any problem. There are still some lintian information, but I don't care of them. you may fix them when you polish your package. 2) You use old format copyright files, it is better to switch to DEP5[1] compatible format. lintian shows this information. 3) The section is python, but I think admin should be better, after all, sosreport is a sysadmin tool 4) Please move LICENSE file to usr/share/doc/sosreport, rather than remove it. [1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ You should fix 4) before I can upload it to ftp-master, others are just for advice. Thanks and Regards, -- Liang Guo http://bluestone.cublog.cn signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#705192: RFS: sosreport/2.3-2 ITP
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Liang Guo bluestonech...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Adam, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Adam Stokes wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I believe I've fixed all of the above issues and they were committed upstream today[1][2]. dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sosreport/sosreport_2.3+git20130416-1.dsc you use version 2.3+git20130416, which is bigger then version 2.3, so 2.3~git20130416 or 2.2+git20130416 should be better. Thanks, -- 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/cajwrgw6cy7aafwk7jg1gkjjuk3kfqm3xsmntm6orer3fkfg...@mail.gmail.com
ITP: LuxRender
Hi. I've packaged LuxRender 1.2.1 (http://www.luxrender.net), and reopened #461486. However, I have some questions before submitting the package. LuxRender uses an open source library, LuxRays, for ray tracing acceleration. This library is not finished yet, so it's compiled as a static library. Is it ok if I package only the static version in libluxrays-dev as it is a build dependency of luxrender ? Thanks. -- Boris de Laage
RE : LuxRender
Hello Boris I've packaged LuxRender 1.2.1 (http://www.luxrender.net), and reopened #461486. However, I have some questions before submitting the package. Great to see that you decided to jump on this package :) LuxRender uses an open source library, LuxRays, for ray tracing acceleration. This library is not finished yet, so it's compiled as a static library. Is it ok if I package only the static version in libluxrays-dev as it is a build dependency of luxrender ? By not finished you mean that the current API of LuxRays is not yet stable ? In that case maybe the best things to do is to link LuxRender with a static version of LuxRays and not even provide the LuxRay library package for now. Wait until this library is stable to provide the library package. Cheers Fred -- 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/a2a20ec3b8560d408356cac2fc148e5358e8f...@sun-dag1.synchrotron-soleil.fr
Bug#707292: RFS: jp2a/1.0.6-4
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package jp2a
* Package name: jp2a
Version : 1.0.6-4
Upstream Author : Christian Stigen Larsen c...@sublevel3.org
* URL : http://jp2a.sf.net
* License : gpl2
Section : graphics
It builds those binary packages:
jp2a - converts jpg images to ascii
To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/jp2a
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jp2a/jp2a_1.0.6-4.dsc
Changes since the last upload:
* Acknowledge NMU. Thanks to Matthias Klose and Julien Cristau.
(Closes: #618208, #642983)
* Migrations:
- debian format from 1.0 to 3.0. (Closes: #664410)
- debian/copyright to new format (1.0).
- debian/rules: updated to new (reduced) format.
- debhelper version from 7 to 9.
- patch system from dpatch to quilt.
* debian/control:
- Added dpkg-dev in Build-Depends field.
- Added ${misc:Depends} in Depends field.
- Improved long description.
- Removed screenshot reference from long description.
- Updated Standards-Version from 3.8.3 to 3.9.4.
- Updated VCS from svn to git.
* debian/copyright: updated years from Debian packaging.
* debian/README.source: removed because it is useless now.
* debian/rules: added LDFLAGS += -Wl,--as-needed to avoid
messages from dpkg-shlibdeps about ununsed linked libraries.
Regards,
Joao Eriberto Mota Filho
--
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/20130508193011.16885.6547.report...@libra.gabcmt.eb.mil.br
Bug#707300: RFS: f3/2.2-1 [ITP] -- test real flash memory capacity
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package f3 * Package name: f3 Version : 2.2-1 Upstream Author : Digirati mich...@digirati.com.br * URL : http://oss.digirati.com.br/f3 * License : GPL3 Section : utils It builds this binary package: f3- test real flash memory capacity To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/f3 Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/f3/f3_2.2-1.dsc Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Joao Eriberto Mota Filho -- 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/20130508212717.1972.37480.report...@libra.gabcmt.eb.mil.br
How to take ownership of a file owned by a different package?
Hi! A Debian derivative (Whonix [1]) is maintained by me. The Tor Debian package [2] owns Tor's configuration file /etc/tor/torrc. This is fine from Debian user perspective, but as a Debian derivative, I'd like to use the Tor Debian package and just ship a configuration file adjusted for the derivative. I've been reading the Debian policy manual [3] and man page of dpkg-divert. I think dpkg-divert is the correct tool for such situations? As test, I used: sudo dpkg-divert --package whonix-gateway --divert /etc/tor/torrc.real --rename /etc/tor/torrc Checking /etc/tor/torrc.real contains the upstream version and /etc/tor/torrc does not exist anymore as expected. Should the upstream maintainer of the Debian Tor package [2] decide to modify /etc/tor/torrc, I think the user shouldn't see the following (as wanted). Is this correct? Configuration file `/etc/tor/torrc' == Modified (by you or by a script) since installation. == Package distributor has shipped an updated version. What would you like to do about it ? Your options are: ... But when installing the whonix-gateway .deb, I still see Configuration file `/etc/tor/torrc' == Modified (by you or by a script) since installation. == Package distributor has shipped an updated version. What would you like to do about it ? Your options are: ... So something is wrong. In essence, I want to remove ownership of /etc/tor/torrc from the tor debian package and add ownership of /etc/tor/torrc to the whonix-gateway deb. How can I do that? Cheers, adrelanos [1] https://github.com/adrelanos/Whonix [2] http://packages.debian.org/tor [3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-diversions.html -- 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/518b1ace.7060...@riseup.net
Re: How to take ownership of a file owned by a different package?
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, adrelanos wrote: The Tor Debian package [2] owns Tor's configuration file /etc/tor/torrc. This is fine from Debian user perspective, but as a Debian derivative, I'd like to use the Tor Debian package and just ship a configuration file adjusted for the derivative. I would suggest looking at config-package-dev, which deals with this issue nicely. The version in sid and jessie supports dh as well as cdbs, but if you are dealing with the older version, here is an example of how to do it (add to debian/rules in the right spot): override_dh_installdeb: make DEB_DIVERT_PACKAGES=whonix DEB_DIVERT_EXTENSION=.whonix DEB_DIVERT_FILES_frisk=/etc/issue.whonix -f /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/config-package.mk debian-divert/whonix dh_installdeb -- 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/caktje6gn__as0bpgmannrbr-z3e698ffxxfujgx8+xcd1pt...@mail.gmail.com
Cleaning up obsolete conffiles
I have many obsolete conffiles on my system. It has been upgraded
through many releases.
dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n' | grep obsolete
Picking a simple one as an example:
/etc/skel/.bash_profile d1a8c44e7dd1bed2f3e75d1343b6e4e1 obsolete
If I purge the package and install it fresh then that file will not be
there and it will not be listed as an obsolete conffile. But of
course many packages are difficult to purge.
How can I as a system administrator clean that obsolete conffile up?
I can certainly rm -f the file. But afterward it is still listed in
dpkg as an obsolete conffile even though the file was removed.
Is there a method to clean these up, remove them from the disk, and
tell dpkg that they are no longer there? I have searched but I have
not found a way to do this.
Thanks,
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#701766: marked as done (RFS: python-libpcap/0.6.4-1 [QA])
Your message dated Thu, 09 May 2013 04:22:52 + with message-id e1uainy-0007ei...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: python-libpcap/0.6.4-1 [QA] has caused the Debian Bug report #701766, regarding RFS: python-libpcap/0.6.4-1 [QA] 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.) -- 701766: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=701766 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-libpcap * Package name: python-libpcap Version : 0.6.2-1 Upstream Author : David Margrave davi...@eskimo.com, Noah Spurrier n...@users.sourceforge.net, Wim Lewis w...@.org * URL : http://pylibpcap.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-libpcap - python libpcap wrapper To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-libpcap Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-libpcap/python-libpcap_0.6.2-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: python-libpcap (0.6.2-1) unstable; urgency=low * QA upload * Maintainer field set to QA Group * Convert to dh_python2, thank to Colin Watson (Closes: #617012) * Switch to dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format + split diff into historic patches * Convert copyright file to UTF-8 * Add watch file, thank to Bart Martens * Use wrap-and-sort in debian/control * Bump debhelper compat to 9 + Replace dh_clean -k with dh_prep * Bump Standards Version to 3.9.4 Regards, Prach Pongpanich ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package python-libpcap version 0.6.4-1 is in unstable now. http://packages.qa.debian.org/python-libpcap---End Message---
ITP: grokmirror and looking for sponsor
Hey guys am about to start with the debian developer process I need an sponsor to start with my pkg grokmirror, I already submitted an ITP didnt get the number of ITP yet but am looking for a mentor and sponsor to guide me in all this process. Thanks, Adrian
Re: Cleaning up obsolete conffiles
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: I have many obsolete conffiles on my system. Please file bugs about obsolete conffiles when you find new ones. The packages themselves should clean up their obsolete conffiles. To help with this task, you can install the package called 'adequate' and enable the post-install debconf prompt. But of course many packages are difficult to purge. Every package must be possible to purge, if it is not possible then it is a release-critical issue and you should file a severity serious bug against the package. How can I as a system administrator clean that obsolete conffile up? rm -f /etc/some-obsolete-conffile apt-get --reinstall install package-that-provided-the-obsolete-conffile -- 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/caktje6h5ckk8j2e6qnmfy34irpwaz24ok+7vsroaddusm6f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ITP: grokmirror and looking for sponsor
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Adrian Alves wrote: Hey guys am about to start with the debian developer process I need an sponsor to start with my pkg grokmirror, I already submitted an ITP didnt get the number of ITP yet but am looking for a mentor and sponsor to guide me in all this process. In Debian we generally do not assign individual mentors, instead folks just ask questions on this list or on IRC and they get answered by whoever is available to answer them. Please read the introductory document for more information on getting packages into Debian: http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- 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/caktje6gax_h0dvixaxjahkhb3h43tx9zsm9ugkq8iunpgiw...@mail.gmail.com
