Bug#829408: RFS: img2pdf/0.2.0-1.1 [NMU, RC] -- Lossless conversion of raster images to PDF
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Control: block 818617 by -1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of img2pdf, fixing a stretch RC bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity, and maintainer is LowNMU). I have verified this NMU in the following ways: - fixes the bug(!) - builds in clean sid chroot - passes piuparts * Package name: img2pdf Version : 0.2.0-1.1 Upstream Author : Johannes Schauer * URL : https://gitlab.mister-muffin.de/josch/img2pdf * License : LGPL-3 Section : python Changes since the last upload: * Non-maintainer upload. * Add missing dependency on python3-pkg-resources (Closes: #818617). Download with dget: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/img2pdf/img2pdf_0.2.0-1.1.dsc Thanks. -- Sean Whitton
Bug#829405: RFS: glances/2.6.2-2
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "glances" * Package name: glances * Version : 2.6.2-2 * Upstream Author : Nicolas Hennion (aka) Nicolargo * URL : https://github.com/nicolargo/glances * License : LGPL-3.0+ * Section : utils It builds those binary packages: glances- Curses-based monitoring tool glances-doc - Documentation for glances Curses-based monitoring tool To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/glances.git/ More information about glances can be obtained from https://github.com/nicolargo/glances Changes since the last upload: * debian/control + Add Breaks and Replaces field. (Closes: #826685) * debian/patches + Add reproducible-build.patch. + Make the build reproducible. (Closes: #827987) + Thanks to Chris Lamb for the patch! Regards, Daniel Echeverry -- Daniel Echeverry http://wiki.debian.org/DanielEcheverry http://rinconinformatico.net Linux user: #477840 Debian user
Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP
Hello, On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 11:27:06AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > > > Relaxed dependency. Works for me. > > I had at upstream's commit history and it seems that they have added > > compatibility code so that it works with various versions of paredit. > > Which commit? 86d8ab33c, 6eea8638a -- Sean Whitton
Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP
Hello, On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 11:27:06AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > You should definitely forward the dependency relaxation upstream: they > > shouldn't be declaring so tight a dependency if they have the > > compatibility code. > > It is not problem for MELPA, melpa ships 25beta. Who would benefit > from forwarding? Someone installing manually from GitHub. -- Sean Whitton
Bug#829286: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-2
On Saturday, July 02 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I agree with your POV, lets see Andrey's opinion, I'm fine with the changes > now :) Thanks for the review, Gianfranco. If I may, I'd like to propose that you upload the package as-is by the end of tomorrow (Sunday) even if Andrey doesn't reply. I'd really like to get these fixes uploaded ASAP. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#819396: closed by Gianfranco Costamagna (Re: Bug#819396: RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP])
you were lucky I used deferred. dcutting and reuploading. G.
Bug#819396: closed by Gianfranco Costamagna (Re: Bug#819396: RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP])
On Saturday 02 July 2016 19:51:07 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Hi, the package looks good. > > uploaded, now that stormlib-listfiles is on its way for unstable (new > queue) > > G. Now I'm just updated smpq package on mentors.debian.net. I moved libstorm-listfiles from Depends: to Recommends: as smpq can work without listfiles package, just is unable to unpack old archives. Also I added pgp check to watch... -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#829286: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-2
Hi, >Hm, this is actually only needed for GNU/kFreeBSD, which uses -lncurses >on the linking phase. I updated Build-Depends to reflect that. wonderful >Yeah, it was just a simple sed command to remove things from all >Makefiles. But it seems I did not specify the right set of files to >apply the substitutions. ok > [snip] I agree with your POV, lets see Andrey's opinion, I'm fine with the changes now :) Gianfranco
Bug#819396: marked as done (RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:46:03 +0200 with message-id <5777fddb.2030...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#819396: RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #819396, regarding RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [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.) -- 819396: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819396 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 package "smpq" * Package name: smpq Version : 1.5-1 Upstream Author : Pali Rohár * URL : https://launchpad.net/smpq * License : GPLv3 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: kio-smpq - KDE4 kio plugin for StormLib MPQ archiving utility smpq - StormLib MPQ archiving utility To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/smpq Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/smpq/smpq_1.5-1.dsc More information about smpq can be obtained from https://launchpad.net/smpq. Changes since the last upload: * Initial release (Closes: #633931) Regards, Pali Rohár signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- > Hi, the package looks good. uploaded, now that stormlib-listfiles is on its way for unstable (new queue) G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#814865: marked as done (RFS: helm-synth/0.6.6-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:42:28 +0200 with message-id <5777fd04.6040...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#814865: RFS: helm-synth/0.6.2-3 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #814865, regarding RFS: helm-synth/0.6.6-1 [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.) -- 814865: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=814865 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Hello mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "helm-synth" * Package name: helm-synth Version : 0.6.2-3 Upstream Author : Matt Tytel * URL : http://tytel.org/helm * License : GPL-3.0 Section : sound It builds those binary packages: helm - polyphonic synthesizer with realtime modulation feedback To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:http://mentors.debian.net/package/helm-synth Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/helm-synth/helm-synth_0.6.2-3.dsc More information about helm can be obtained from http://tytel.org/helm Regards, Matt Tytel --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, closing in the meanwhile, feel free to reopen when some work is done G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#818227: marked as done (RFS: kawa/2.1-1 [ITP] -- Scheme implementation for the JVM)
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:43:01 +0200 with message-id <5777fd25.9020...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#818227: RFS: kawa/2.1-1 [ITP] -- Scheme implementation for the JVM has caused the Debian Bug report #818227, regarding RFS: kawa/2.1-1 [ITP] -- Scheme implementation for the JVM 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.) -- 818227: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818227 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 package "kawa" * Package name: kawa Version : 2.1-1 Upstream Author : Per Bothner * URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/ * License : MIT/X Section : lisp It builds those binary packages: kawa - general-purpose programming language that runs on the Java platform To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/kawa Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kawa/kawa_2.1-1.dsc More information about kawa can be obtained from http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/ I removed the documentation files from the upstream tarball, because lintian recognised them as non-free. After reading [1] and [2] I thought that was a good idea. I plan to submit the doc files later as a separate non-free package. [1] https://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation [2] https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeFilesInOrigSources Regards, Andrea Bernardini --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- ENOANSWER in three months Closing G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#818974: packaging
Hi, gpvdm ping (I wrote a review on the bug, months ago) G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#816880: marked as done (RFS: ctmg/1.1-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:40:44 +0200 with message-id <5777fc9c.6040...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#816880: RFS: ctmg/1.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #816880, regarding RFS: ctmg/1.1-1 [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.) -- 816880: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816880 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 package "ctmg" * Package name: ctmg Version : 1.1-1 Upstream Author : Jason A. Donenfeld * URL : https://git.zx2c4.com/ctmg/ * License : ISC Section : utils It builds those binary packages: ctmg - Simple wrapper around cryptsetup for encrypted containers To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ctmg Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ctmg/ctmg_1.1-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from https://git.zx2c4.com/ctmg/about/. ITP bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/816864 Regards, Iván Ruvalcaba --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- ENOANSWER in 3 months. Closing signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#829286: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-2
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Saturday, July 02 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>I'd like to get a few changes I've made to newlisp uploaded. They > >>basically fix two bugs: 828805 and 828806. >> >>The changes are: >> >>- Support GNU/kFreeBSD builds (by creating the necessary makefiles and >> adjusting source files accordingly), and >> >>- Do not use -m32/-m64 when building. >> >>I have also updated the Vcs-* links in order to reflect the use of >>collab-maint instead of my personal git server. >> >>I'm Cc'ing Andrey Rahmatullin on this message because he is the DD who >>sponsored the package first, so I believe I should give him "precedence" >>(also because I'd like to get DM rights on newlisp, so it's easier if I >>work with just one person). > > > sure, I won't upload it, unless Andrey asks me. > > I have just a few notes, from a quick review: > > 1) + libncurses5-dev > > > why? Hm, this is actually only needed for GNU/kFreeBSD, which uses -lncurses on the linking phase. I updated Build-Depends to reflect that. > please explain the additional build dependency in changelog! Done. > 2) > did you remove the -m32 and -m64 with some special sed command? Yeah, it was just a simple sed command to remove things from all Makefiles. But it seems I did not specify the right set of files to apply the substitutions. > I ask, because you also patched some binaries in the source tree, and > I'm mostly sure this isn't what you have to do: > +diff --git a/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib > b/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib > +index 3017a91..4e0eb2e 100755 > +--- a/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib > b/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib > > > this, IIRC is some OSX special file, so I guess you better remove that file > from the patch, since it is introducing really useless stuff. Totally right, and this is actually a Windows binary used for testing. > also, you have an ~1k LOC patch, where probably you would just need to patch > two or three places > (but if you got this patch upstream accepted I would leave it as-is) > > Otherwise I would avoid patching places such as > +-(compile-recover "gcc -m32 ../util/ffitest.c -shared -o > ffitest.dylib") > +-(compile-recover "gcc -m64 ../util/ffitest.c -shared -o > ffitest.dylib")) > > > makefile_sunos* > makefile_opensolaris* > makefile_netbsd* > > and so on > > As a personal opinion, I would patch all of them only after getting them > accepted > upstream, and in case they don't care about this, just patch the minimum set > of files/makefiles > used in Debian/Linux/kFreeBSD builds. Right, I only patched the GNU/{Linux,kFreeBSD} files now. Thanks for the heads up. > Otherwise a 1k lines patch will be probably a nightmare to maintain/rebase on > new releases. On the one hand, I see your point in maintaining a large patch on Debian and rebasing it on every new release. On the other hand, this patch only touches the build system, which is unlikely to change much in the near future. Also, I am in touch with upstream and will propose all of my local patches to them, so hopefully I won't need to carry anything else for the next releases. I've uploaded a new version of the package to mentors.d.n. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate! Cheers, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#822613: RFS: dynamic-graph/3.0.0-1
control: tags -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Hi, lets see >found information on >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736360 which seems to >suggest the problem was still contentious two years ago. Should I keep >overriding this warning? I suggest to leave things as is 1) apt install check-all-the-things codespell --quiet-level=3 ^^ something that you might want to fix or report/ask upstream 2) grep copyright . -Ri many missing people License: I know the license text can be just a link to common-licenses, but I still prefer some brief explanation https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License%3A%20LGPL-3/page_0 "the License, or (at your option) any later version." 3) missing a +, it seems an LGPL-3+ license I like something like this License: LGPL-3+ This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Bug#828166: marked as done (RFS: speedcrunch/0.11-1 [ITA])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:04:29 + (UTC) with message-id <376828262.1366648.1467479069949.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#828166: RFS: speedcrunch/0.11-1 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #828166, regarding RFS: speedcrunch/0.11-1 [ITA] 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.) -- 828166: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=828166 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 "speedcrunch" * Package name: speedcrunch Version : 0.11-1 Upstream Author : Helder Correia & others * URL : http://speedcrunch.org * License : GPL-2+ Section : math It builds those binary packages: speedcrunch - High precision calculator To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/speedcrunch Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/speedcrunch/speedcrunch_0.11-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * New maintainer (closes: #826923). * New upstream release (closes: #771440). * debian/docs: update for new readme file. * debian/patches: remove outdated patches. * debian/speedcrunch.desktop: remove desktop file, upstream now includes one. * debian/control: Standards-Version, Vcs-*, update build dependencies. * debian/install: PNG icon is now installed by upstream build process. * debian/rules: adapt to changes in build system, make better use of dh features, use Debian build flags. * debian/menu: remove. * debian/watch: update. * Import .desktop file keywords from upstream (LP: #994190). Regards, Felix Krull --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi Felix, >Thanks for the reviews! thanks to you for maintaining this package >I'm not sure what you mean by that? But I extended the changelog somewhat. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ it is fine now :) >I must say I'm a bit confused about how the Developer Reference suggests to >"concentrate on describing significant and user-visible changes," but the >informal >advice I've heard on changelog entries was always to be very >detailed and granular, which to me seems more like a job for VCS history than >a changelog. I prefer the "better safe then sorry approach", but you are somewhat right :) >That was backported from upstream, so not necessary. I added an Origin header >field to the patch to make that explicit (also changed to a more concise file >name). wonderful >Originally, "why not" :) But forcing CMake prevents dh from picking up the >.pro file in the same directory and using qmake. "--builddirectory" was, >indeed, >unnecessary. wonderful. not sure why do you prefer cmake over qmake, but I admit I prefer it too :) (I find it more powerful than qmake, even if I really like them both) >Good point, I changed it. thanks >(I'm assuming that uploading a new package with the same version is an >acceptable way to use mentors.d.n, mostly because it didn't stop me.) exactly, on its way for unstable G.--- End Message ---
Bug#819395: marked as done (RFS: stormlib-listfiles/0~20150420-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:51:45 + (UTC) with message-id <732265313.1345310.1467478305420.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #819395, regarding RFS: stormlib-listfiles/0~20150420-1 [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.) -- 819395: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819395 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 package "stormlib-listfiles" * Package name: stormlib-listfiles Version : 2015-04-20-1 Upstream Author : Ladislav Zezula * URL : http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html * License : public-domain Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libstorm-listfiles - Library for accessing the MPQ archives (listfiles) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/stormlib-listfiles/stormlib-listfiles_2015-04-20-1.dsc More information about stormlib-listfiles can be obtained from http://zezula.net/en/mpq/namebreak.html. Changes since the last upload: * Initial release (Closes: #819380) Regards, Pali Rohár signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi >Ok, I added description about generation of files in README.source file. >New package is uploaded on mentors.debian.net ok, since you didn't understand what I asked you, I did it by myself and uploaded on deferred/5. I added this at the bottom of the copyright file: License: public-domain This file is in the public domain. You may use and modify it as you see fit, as long as this copyright message is included and that there is an indication as to what modifications have been made (if any). I don't think this material is copyrightable, and for sure IANAL. So, since there is a missing LICENSE file in upstream tarball, I'll leave as is and let ftpmasters have the final decision of the matter. Uploading the attached tarball. G. stormlib-listfiles_0~20150420-1.debian.tar.xz Description: application/xz --- End Message ---
Bug#825532: marked as done (RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:44:26 + (UTC) with message-id <747722351.1323338.1467477866277.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#825532: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.6+20160526+ds-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #825532, regarding RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-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.) -- 825532: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825532 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- package: sponsorship-requests severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershim...@gmail.com, max.c...@gmail.com, 073p...@gmail.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "shadowsocks-libev" * Package name: shadowsocks-libev Version : 2.4.6+20160526+ds-1 Upstream Author : Max Lv * URL : http://www.shadowsocks.org * License : GPL-3+ Section : net It builds those binary packages: libshadowsocks-dev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (development files) libshadowsocks1 - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy (shared library) shadowsocks-libev - lightweight and secure socks5 proxy To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/shadowsocks-libev Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shadowsocks-libev/shadowsocks-libev_2.4.6+20160526+ds-1.dsc Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 17B3ACB1 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, >So I re-package the latest upstream, with the changes below: >- update version >- add license info under man/ folder >- add lintian-overrides (2 false positive) I would prefer to fix the manpage license (I guess it is just a matter of case-sensitiveness) and don't care about the watch lintian override. But if you want to keep them, you are free to do so, just remember to remove them once the two Debian bugs are fixed. Sponsored, G.--- End Message ---
Bug#829012: marked as done (RFS: udftools/1.2-1 [NMU] [RC])
Your message dated Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:31:45 + (UTC) with message-id <1723375344.1329501.1467477105362.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#829012: RFS: udftools/1.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #829012, regarding RFS: udftools/1.2-1 [NMU] [RC] 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.) -- 829012: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829012 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 "udftools" * Package name: udftools Version : 1.2-0.1 Upstream Author : Pali Rohár * URL : https://github.com/pali/udftools * License : GPL-2.0+ Section : otherosfs It builds those binary packages: udftools - tools for UDF filesystems and DVD/CD-R(W) drives To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/udftools Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/udftools/udftools_1.2-0.1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from https://mentors.debian.net/package/udftools. Changes since the last upload: * Non-maintainer upload. * New project upstream (Closes: #791952). * New upstream release: Closes: #672839, #272648, #606664, #715720, #716102, #716287, #727634 Closes: #727636, #775273, #539530, #680272 * Checks for /run/udev in init script (Closes: #622208). * Fix LSB output in init script (Closes: #823084, #583382). * Use debhelper 9 and update debian files (Closes: #817705). * Remove old and unused po.bak files. * Remove old README.Debian. Regards, Pali Rohár signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi Pali >I updated udftools package, new version is on mentors.debian.net. Let me >know if it is OK now. I am really satisfied with your packaging/cleanup/maintaining upstream for the package, and I had just two thing to change, -udftools (1.2-1) unstable; urgency=high +udftools (1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low - * QA upload. * New maintainer (Closes: #829016). * New project upstream (Closes: #791952). * New upstream release which fixes these bugs: changes are huge, so I prefer some 10 days migration, this will make the package disappear from testing for a few days, but I prefer to avoid a package removed from testing instead of an untested new package going in just to keep autoremoval silent. I hope you will agree, I uploaded the package on deferred/4, but if you agree with me I can move to deferred/0 Moving to deferred/0 will mean the package go from testing for 8 days, assuming no new RC bugs are found I also removed the QA upload, if you want to maintain it it becomes useless :) BTW for a new release, plaese fix: W: udftools: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/udftools/COPYING.gz I: udftools: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man1/cdrwtool.1.gz formating formatting Not big issues, they weren't preventing the sponsoring as is thanks for the nice work! (Debian directory for the sponsored package attached) Gianfranco udftools_1.2-1.debian.tar.xz Description: application/xz --- End Message ---
Bug#825532: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.6+20160526+ds-1 [ITP]
Control: retitle -1 RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-1 [ITP] Dear G, On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >>Way 1: >>Since all manpages is created by Max (co-maintainer of this package, >>and in CC list), we can ask him to relicense, according to [2] >> >>[2] https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/gfdlinvariant >> >>I think Way 1 is better. >>What do you think? > > > +1 for way 1! Thanks for your recommend! I sent PR to upstream to change the license, and it's acceepted. So I re-package the latest upstream, with the changes below: - update version - add license info under man/ folder - add lintian-overrides (2 false positive) Uploaded to mentors, and source code to github: https://github.com/rogers0/shadowsocks-libev Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +2 Cape Town (in DebConf16) PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
Bug#829333: RFS: gntp-send/0.3.4-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gntp-send" * Package name: gntp-send Version : 0.3.4-1 Upstream Author : Yasuhiro Matsumoto Peter Sinnott Dither * URL : https://github.com/mattn/gntp-send * License : BSD-3-clause Section : net It builds those binary packages: gntp-send - Command line application to send growl message with GNTP To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/gntp-send Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gntp-send/gntp-send_0.3.4-1.dsc More information about gntp-send can be obtained from https://github.com/mattn/gntp-send Changes since the last upload: * Initial upload to Debian (Closes: #829331) * debian/changelog - Removed past release changelog entries which are originally maintained by Yasuhiro Matsumoto who is upstream author of gntp-send. Those entries are just maintained to provide packages on Launchpad PPA. ref. https://launchpad.net/~mattn/+archive/ubuntu/gntp-send * debian/watch - Supported to watch upstream. * debian/upstream/signing-key.asc - Supported cryptographic signature. * debian/upstream/metadata - Added metadata about gntp-send package * debian/rules - Enabled hardening compile flags. - Supported multiarch. Regards, Kentaro Hayashi pgp3sEP8hBORv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Job Opportunity.....Register Now and Get Paid
- This mail is in HTML. Some elements may be ommited in plain text. - We have a Customer Service Survey Assignment in your location.We will pay $200 per assignment which would come in the form of a cashiers check along with comprehensive details in regards to your assignment. Kindly CLICK HERE to read more and sign Up if interested. Best Regards, David Rose Opinion Outpost®
Re: Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]
Ok, I added description about generation of files in README.source file. New package is uploaded on mentors.debian.net -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#829012: RFS: udftools/1.2-0.1 [NMU] [RC]
I updated udftools package, new version is on mentors.debian.net. Let me know if it is OK now. -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: pause command line utility
* Dmitry Bogatov , 2016-07-02, 03:45: #include int main (void) { return pause(); } Is there any standard utility for it? $ perl -MPOSIX -e pause -- Jakub Wilk
Re: pause command line utility
> >I expect tail -f /dev/null to be close enough in behavior to > >pause(3), even though it does something else internally. > yes, indeed even if it might be not the best in efficiency [1] > somebody suggested "sleep inf" or "sleep infinity". Also great. But some implementations of sleep do not support floating number. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
Re: pause command line utility
> > I need pause utility to keep gpg-agent in foreground: > > gpg-agent --use-standard-socket --daemon ./pause > >=20 > > Something like following C program: > >=20 > > #include > >=20 > > int main (void) > > { > > return pause(); > > } > >=20 > > Is there any standard utility for it? > > I expect tail -f /dev/null to be close enough in behavior to > pause(3), even though it does something else internally. Brilliant! Thank you. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP
> >> 1. In d/copyright, the license should be called "Expat" not "MIT" since > >>"MIT" is ambiguous between several different licenses. > > > > Is it true? AFAIC, there are 3 versions of BSD (2,3,4 clauses) and only > > one MIT. > Debian uses Expat instead of MIT. There are unfortunately many "MIT > licenses" and the interpretation is ambiguous: > [...] Yes, you are correct. Fixed debian/copyright. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
Re: pause command line utility
Hi, >I expect tail -f /dev/null to be close enough in behavior to >pause(3), even though it does something else internally. yes, indeed even if it might be not the best in efficiency [1] somebody suggested "sleep inf" or "sleep infinity". [1] http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/42901/how-to-do-nothing-forever-in-an-elegant-way cheers, G.
Bug#829286: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-2
control: tags -1 moreinfo >I'd like to get a few changes I've made to newlisp uploaded. They >basically fix two bugs: 828805 and 828806. > >The changes are: > >- Support GNU/kFreeBSD builds (by creating the necessary makefiles and > adjusting source files accordingly), and > >- Do not use -m32/-m64 when building. > >I have also updated the Vcs-* links in order to reflect the use of >collab-maint instead of my personal git server. > >I'm Cc'ing Andrey Rahmatullin on this message because he is the DD who >sponsored the package first, so I believe I should give him "precedence" >(also because I'd like to get DM rights on newlisp, so it's easier if I >work with just one person). sure, I won't upload it, unless Andrey asks me. I have just a few notes, from a quick review: 1) + libncurses5-dev why? please explain the additional build dependency in changelog! 2) did you remove the -m32 and -m64 with some special sed command? I ask, because you also patched some binaries in the source tree, and I'm mostly sure this isn't what you have to do: +diff --git a/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib b/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib +index 3017a91..4e0eb2e 100755 +--- a/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib b/qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib this, IIRC is some OSX special file, so I guess you better remove that file from the patch, since it is introducing really useless stuff. also, you have an ~1k LOC patch, where probably you would just need to patch two or three places (but if you got this patch upstream accepted I would leave it as-is) Otherwise I would avoid patching places such as +-(compile-recover "gcc -m32 ../util/ffitest.c -shared -o ffitest.dylib") +-(compile-recover "gcc -m64 ../util/ffitest.c -shared -o ffitest.dylib")) makefile_sunos* makefile_opensolaris* makefile_netbsd* and so on As a personal opinion, I would patch all of them only after getting them accepted upstream, and in case they don't care about this, just patch the minimum set of files/makefiles used in Debian/Linux/kFreeBSD builds. Otherwise a 1k lines patch will be probably a nightmare to maintain/rebase on new releases. Just my .02$, of course I tagged moreinfo, but Andrey might have a different opinion... cheers! Gianfranco
Bug#829208: RFS: evil-paredit-el/0.0.2-1 ITP
> > Relaxed dependency. Works for me. > I had at upstream's commit history and it seems that they have added > compatibility code so that it works with various versions of paredit. Which commit? > You should definitely forward the dependency relaxation upstream: they > shouldn't be declaring so tight a dependency if they have the > compatibility code. It is not problem for MELPA, melpa ships 25beta. Who would benefit from forwarding? -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io