Bug#830528: RFS: clutter-gesture/0.0.2.1-7.1 [NMU, RC] -- Open GL based interactive canvas library Gesture framework

[Sean Whitton]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Control: block 811585 by -1

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of clutter-gesture, fixing a stretch RC
bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity).

I have verified this NMU in the following ways:

- fixes the bug: builds with GCC 6
- builds in a current clean sid chroot (i.e. builds without gcc-6, too)

It currently fails piuparts due to a piuparts bug, #830527.

* Package name: clutter-gesture
  Version : 0.0.2.1-7.1
  Upstream Author : Intel Corp.
* URL : http://www.clutter-project.org/
* License : LGPL-2.1+
  Section : libs

Changes since the last upload:

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Add 09_fix_build_with_gcc_6.patch (Closes: #811585).

Download with dget:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/clutter-gesture/clutter-gesture_0.0.2.1-7.1.dsc

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Hi Adam,

On 8 July 2016 at 08:58, Adam Borowski  wrote:
> Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent.  I don't see Nicholas pointing any
> of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read
> linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever
> time-sentitive too.

For 4.5.3, the only potentially urgent fix was for sparc, which is no
longer a 1st tier support arch.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg54831.html

I believe the following two fixes in 4.5.3 are probably normal
priority, and are definitely a positive and desirable direction.  Does
reducing the probability of a corner case causing a problem count as
important?:

https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/df2236d73bdffd69cf6d9aac7d80c880b4413aaa
https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/9988284574c1692e5181ecd6f8b9e2512b0503ae

> Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO,
> containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did.

I consulted the xfsprogs and linux-src debian/copyrights.  Other than
the git repo already mentioned in the file, do you know of another
location that could be cited?  I've attached asubstantially simplified
copyright.  Would you please review it and offer critique?

I went for the following approach, similarly to xfsprogs and linux-src:
> * a blanket statement, listing maybe some major holders but with a stress on
>   "and others".

The rules I used to order it were 1) license, alphabetised 2) date  3)
exception for debian/* to put it near the end of GPL-2+  4) Removed
configure and autoconf stuff which was either "redistributable without
notice" or able to be relicensed under the GPL-2 glob.  Further
compaction of the GPL-2+ exceptions is probably possible.  Please let
me know!

Cheers,
Nicholas


copyright
Description: Binary data

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Hi Dimitri!

On 8 July 2016 at 05:27, Dimitri John Ledkov  wrote:
> On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna  
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>Have you coordinated with Dimitri?  When the regular maintainer is active,
>>
>>>NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work.  Ie, instead
>>>of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads.
>>>
>>>As you've helped with this package before, perhaps it might be good to
>>>consider co-maintenance?
>>
>> he declined the offer!
>> he is in lowNMU threshold however :)
>>
>
> lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)

I am motivated towards collaboration, not hostile takeover, and I
truly believe that our development strategies are complementary.  I'd
also like to help triage and follow up on bugs.  Where you prefer
large periodic updates, I prefer small incremental updates, after
verifying that they are progressive rather than regressive.  This
verification is a mix of testing on a server, testing on a laptop, and
following linux-btrfs.  Furthermore, given the following I understood
understood that smaller, more atomic and easily reversible incremental
changes over time were preferred, because that would make it easier
for you to revert ones you didn't like:

Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:20:44 +0100
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]
From: Dimitri John Ledkov 
To: Nicholas D Steeves 
Cc: Christian Seiler , 818...@bugs.debian.org,
Gianfranco Costamagna 

> I haven't looked closely, but i have a lot dubious emails about btrfs package.
> (a) i do not maintain backports, anybody is free to do those
> (b) all of my packages are lowNMU, meaning I trust any/all DDs to do
> sensible things
> (c) I do not trust any other developers, meaning that nobody should be
> granting DM and/or changing Uploaders/Maintainers fields etc
> (d) any other fixes is fine to be uploaded, and if things break I am
> on the hook to fix things up afterwards =)

Getting the copyright file into a better state, making uscan work
properly, adding crypto signature verification for tarballs, and
ensuring that the upstream changelog is correctly installed are all
sensible things, are they not?

>
> And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
> to you about that.

You wrote something similar in the following email, but I couldn't
find a record of those responses either:

Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:38:48 +0100
Message-ID: 
Subject: Re: Problem with btrfs-progs package
From: Dimitri John Ledkov 
To: Gianfranco Costamagna 
Cc: Uher Marek , Nicholas D Steeves
,
"debian-backpo...@lists.debian.org" 

> I have accepted some, but not all patches from him. I disagree with
> some of them, which i have clearly stated before =)

Please let me know where you clearly state your reasons for
disagreeing with some of my patches.  If you are taking the time to
reply then I don't want to waste your time by having not read your
replies!  I follow debian-backports, debian-boot, debian-cd,
debian-devel, debian-kernel, debian-mentors, debian-multimedia,
linux-btrfs, and of course any bugs that I open.

Sincerely,
Nicholas

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

Thank you for your patience with trying to improve mentors, Kentaro :)

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:48:18AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Or to see if the changelog contains only one single entry (but this isn't 
> error-prone
> because many people are bumping changelog without having it uploaded yet)

What did you have in mind here?

> and also a pull-debian-source for the source, and a debdiff between
> them might *really* simplify the sponsors work!

That would be great.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Bug#829692: RFS: libu2f-host/1.1.2-0.1 [NMU] -- library for Universal 2nd Factor

[Nicolas Braud-Santoni]

X-Debbugs-CC: codeh...@debian.org, jw...@debian.org, locutusofb...@debian.org

Hi,

Thanks everyone for the feedback and comments, especially the
explanations regarding symbol versionning.

Sorry for the time it took to reply in here, DebConf kept me
away from my inbox (though I got quite a lot of things done).


> what does this mean? do reverse-dependencies needs a rebuild then?

No, there was no ABI-incompatible change, and no soname change is
required.  However, future builds would pickup a dependency on
libu2f-host (>= 1.0) if I'm not mistaken.

This was done because codehelp (who initially reviewed my patch) told me
that the version 0.0 was not valid, and that I may use 1.0.

Interestingly, the previous .symbols file was probably not doing the
right thing, because it refered to libu2f-host instead of libu2f-host0,
and Lintian was complaining that the Debian version number was appearing
in those symbols.


> Uploading on deferred/1

Thanks for the subsequent fix, Gianfranco.
I included it in the Git history.


> No, ACKing a NMU is not a blanket permission to do further further
> NMUs. And if the maintainers were actually happy with any NMUs
> whatsoever, then they could put the package on the lowNMU list,
> or orphan the package.

For what it's worth, I asked to join the pkg-auth team to take care
of those specific packages, and suggested filing RFAs for the other
Yubico-related packages if upstream cannot maintain them.


Best,

  nicoo


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: combined manpage with symlinks to multiple binaries across packages: how to do?

[Andrew Shadura]

On 8 July 2016 at 23:53, Christian Seiler  wrote:
>  - If I use dh_installman's ".so" feature to do automatic linking,
>dh_installman will not replace the manpage with a link, because
>it also doesn't see the link target. In that case, I get a
>plain text file installed that just contains
>   .so isns_config.5
>Which man doesn't really interpret itself, and which is hence
>completely useless.

That's strange, as normally man would interpret that, and it actually
worked for me.

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrew

Bug#830236: RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library

[Roger Shimizu]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Roger Shimizu  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna
>  wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>Besides, it'd be appreciated if you also can setup DM upload
>>>permission of this package for me, after this upload.
>>>Thank you!
>>
>>
>> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/271663979/buildlog_ubuntu-yakkety-amd64.libcork_0.15.0+ds-4_BUILDING.txt.gz
>>
>>
>> the multiarch stuff is broken in yakkety now.
>
> Dear G,
>
> Thanks for your info!
> Sorry for the breakage.. I'll take a look later today.

Dear G,

Just applied your previous patch (partly): https://github.com/rogers0/libcork
It should work now.
Since you gave me the DM upload permision (Thanks so much!), I'll try
to upload after some more changes.

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +2 Cape Town (in DebConf16)
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Re: combined manpage with symlinks to multiple binaries across packages: how to do?

[Sven Joachim]

On 2016-07-08 23:53 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:

> If I may piggy-back off here: what's the best way to achieve that if
> this crosses binary-package boundaries?
>
> While packaging open-isns [1], I had the following problem: upstream
> ships a man page isns_config.5, which covers isnsadm.conf.5,
> isnsd.conf.5 and isnsdd.conf.5. But in my case, the programs that use
> these config files are all in separate packages (two of them Depend:
> on the third though). I ship isns_config.5 with the package that the
> other two depend on, and I use dh_link (via .links) to create a link
> for isnsadm.conf.5 to isns_config.5 within the same package.
>
> However, in the other two packages, this doesn't work properly:
>
>  - If I also use dh_link/.links here, the link will be created, but
>dh_compress will not treat the link because the target doesn't
>exist within the subtree of the binary package. (It will exist
>on the system because of Depends: on the other package.)
>
>This causes the symlink to be left alone, which means it will
>be left dangling, because the uncompressed target won't ever
>exist on the system. (Also, lintian complains about an
>uncompressed man page.)
>
>  - If I use dh_installman's ".so" feature to do automatic linking,
>dh_installman will not replace the manpage with a link, because
>it also doesn't see the link target. In that case, I get a
>plain text file installed that just contains
>   .so isns_config.5
>Which man doesn't really interpret itself, and which is hence
>completely useless.
>
>  - If I use dh_link/.links to symlink the .gz variant (which does
>not yet exist at the time dh_link is run, but will later because
>dh_compress is run after that), this would work. However, this
>will break if the compression algorithm for man pages is ever
>switched - and thus breaks the abstraction of dh_compress...
>
> Currently, I just copy the man page into the other packages with
> the new name, which duplicates a bit of space, and the end result
> is not quite as elegant, but appears to be the only solution that
> is future-proof.
>
> Am I missing something here?

I don't think so, this problem has been noticed some time ago[1].

Cheers,
   Sven


1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=139020

Re: combined manpage with symlinks to multiple binaries across packages: how to do?

[Christian Seiler]

On 07/08/2016 10:47 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Patrick Schleizer , 2016-07-08, 14:18:
>> Would a combined manpage, i.e. 'man corridor', symlinked to the
>> individual command names (corridor-init-forwarding,
>> corridor-init-snat, ...) be acceptable by Debian policy 
> Yes, this is fine.

If I may piggy-back off here: what's the best way to achieve that if
this crosses binary-package boundaries?

While packaging open-isns [1], I had the following problem: upstream
ships a man page isns_config.5, which covers isnsadm.conf.5,
isnsd.conf.5 and isnsdd.conf.5. But in my case, the programs that use
these config files are all in separate packages (two of them Depend:
on the third though). I ship isns_config.5 with the package that the
other two depend on, and I use dh_link (via .links) to create a link
for isnsadm.conf.5 to isns_config.5 within the same package.

However, in the other two packages, this doesn't work properly:

 - If I also use dh_link/.links here, the link will be created, but
   dh_compress will not treat the link because the target doesn't
   exist within the subtree of the binary package. (It will exist
   on the system because of Depends: on the other package.)

   This causes the symlink to be left alone, which means it will
   be left dangling, because the uncompressed target won't ever
   exist on the system. (Also, lintian complains about an
   uncompressed man page.)

 - If I use dh_installman's ".so" feature to do automatic linking,
   dh_installman will not replace the manpage with a link, because
   it also doesn't see the link target. In that case, I get a
   plain text file installed that just contains
  .so isns_config.5
   Which man doesn't really interpret itself, and which is hence
   completely useless.

 - If I use dh_link/.links to symlink the .gz variant (which does
   not yet exist at the time dh_link is run, but will later because
   dh_compress is run after that), this would work. However, this
   will break if the compression algorithm for man pages is ever
   switched - and thus breaks the abstraction of dh_compress...

Currently, I just copy the man page into the other packages with
the new name, which duplicates a bit of space, and the end result
is not quite as elegant, but appears to be the only solution that
is future-proof.

Am I missing something here?

Regards,
Christian

[1] RFS: https://bugs.debian.org/829242

Re: combined manpage with symlinks to multiple binaries permissible?

[Jakub Wilk]

* Patrick Schleizer , 2016-07-08, 14:18:
Would a combined manpage, i.e. 'man corridor', symlinked to the 
individual command names (corridor-init-forwarding, corridor-init-snat, 
...) be acceptable by Debian policy


Yes, this is fine.

--
Jakub Wilk

Bug#829151: RFS: setcolortemperature/1.1-1 ITP

[Jacob Adams]

control: retitle -1  RFS: setcolortemperature/1.3-1 ITP

On 07/08/2016 12:29 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> 
> the package is quite simple, but I would appreciate something more
> verbose when calling it with wrong parameters.
> e.g.
> sct
> sct -h
> sct -v
> sct 10
> sudo sct 10
> sudo sct 14
> 
> all gives no output.
> 
> After reading the manpage I discovered that numbers should be within a range.
> 
> I would appreciate a little help, and some error messages when bad input is 
> provided.

This has been fixed. Now when -h is passed usage is printed and if the
temperature passed is wrong usage will also be printed.

> other issues:
> $(CC) sct.c $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -Wall -lX11 -lXrandr -o sct
> 
> 
> missing CPPFLAGS
> 
> LDFLAGS should go at the bottom, to avoid link failures with wl,asneeded
> (e.g. on Ubuntu where it is the default)

Fixed.

> there is a missing license in the tarball, please ask upstream to provide one

Added.

> other stuff LGTM
> 
> G.
> 


-- 
Jacob Adams
GPG Key: AF6B 1C26 E2D0 A988 432B  94F4 24C0 2B85 B59F E5A9

Bug#830489: marked as done (RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:29:16 + (UTC)
with message-id <670594526.6863725.1467998956526.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#830489: RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #830489,
regarding RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1
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.)


-- 
830489: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830489
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 "python-qtpy"

* Package name: python-qtpy
  Version : 1.1.1-1
* URL : https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy
* License : Expat
  Programming Lang: Python
  Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python-qtpy - abtraction layer for PySide/PyQt4/PyQt5 (Python 2)
  python3-qtpy - abtraction layer for PySide/PyQt4/PyQt5 (Python 3)

To access further information about this package, please visit the 
following URL:


  https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-qtpy

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-qtpy/python-qtpy_1.1.1-1.dsc


Successful build log on debomatic:


http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/python-qtpy/1.1.1-1/buildlog

Changes since the last upload:

  * New upstream release.
  * Update packaging to run the new upstream testsuite.
  * Clean files from egg-info directory.

Regards,
Ghislain Vaillant
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---


>Fixed in mentors.



and uploaded in unstable :p

G.--- End Message ---

Bug#830489: RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1

[Ghislain Vaillant]

On 08/07/16 17:23, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

e.g.
qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
qtpy/uic.py
Thomas Robitaille


Fixed in mentors.

Cheers,
Ghis

Bug#830236: marked as done (RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 08 Jul 2016 16:28:54 +
with message-id 
and subject line closing RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, 
cross-platform C library
has caused the Debian Bug report #830236,
regarding RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform 
C library
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.)


-- 
830236: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830236
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershim...@gmail.com

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libcork"

 * Package name: libcork
   Version : 0.15.0+ds-4
   Upstream Author : Douglas Creager 
 * URL :  https://libcork.readthedocs.io
 * License : BSD-3-clause
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

 libcork-dev - simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library (development
 libcork-doc - simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library (documentatio
 libcork15  - simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/libcork

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libc/libcork/libcork_0.15.0+ds-4.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  * debian/patches:
- Update 0001 patch, to use full debian version from changelog
- Remove 0002 patch, re-order rest of patches
- Update 0005 patch, to fix multi-arch support
- Add a patch to fix a bit on library pkg-config file
- Add a patch to fix hash test result for big-endian 64bit
  * debian/rules:
- Set hardening from "+all" to "-pie,+all" to avoid building issue
  on armel
- Cleanup
  * debian/compat:
- Upgrade from 9 to 10
  * debian/control:
- Update multi-arch support. Sorry for the missing in previous release
- Raise build-dependency debhelper >= 9.20160403 to support compat 10
- Remove build-dependency on dh-exec
- Move libcork-doc to extra, due to it depends on extra library
  * debian/*.install:
- Remove dh-exec hack on multi-arch

I pushed my changes to git repo: https://github.com/rogers0/libcork
(except the final releasing commit)

Besides, it'd be appreciated if you also can setup DM upload
permission of this package for me, after this upload.
Thank you!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +2 Cape Town (in DebConf16)
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package libcork version 0.15.0+ds-4 is in unstable now.
https://packages.qa.debian.org/libcork--- End Message ---

Bug#829151: RFS: setcolortemperature/1.1-1 ITP

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
>Thanks for all your help reviewing my package!


the package is quite simple, but I would appreciate something more
verbose when calling it with wrong parameters.
e.g.
sct
sct -h
sct -v
sct 10
sudo sct 10
sudo sct 14

all gives no output.

After reading the manpage I discovered that numbers should be within a range.

I would appreciate a little help, and some error messages when bad input is 
provided.



other issues:
$(CC) sct.c $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -Wall -lX11 -lXrandr -o sct


missing CPPFLAGS

LDFLAGS should go at the bottom, to avoid link failures with wl,asneeded
(e.g. on Ubuntu where it is the default)

there is a missing license in the tarball, please ask upstream to provide one

other stuff LGTM

G.

Bug#830489: RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo

>I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-qtpy"


missing copyrights:

e.g.
qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py
qtpy/uic.py 
Thomas Robitaille

other stuff LGTM

G.

Bug#830494: marked as done (RFS: python-qtawesome/0.3.3-2)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:19:48 + (UTC)
with message-id <747869746.6858389.1467994788130.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#830494: RFS: python-qtawesome/0.3.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #830494,
regarding RFS: python-qtawesome/0.3.3-2
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.)


-- 
830494: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830494
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 "python-qtawesome"

* Package name: python-qtawesome
  Version : 0.3.3-2
  Upstream Author : The Spyder Development Team
* URL : https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtawesome
* License : Expat
  Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python-qtawesome - iconic fonts in PyQt and PySide applications 
(Python 2)

  python-qtawesome-common - common files for QtAwesome
  python-qtawesome-doc - documentation and examples for QtAwesome
  python3-qtawesome - iconic fonts in PyQt and PySide applications 
(Python 3)


To access further information about this package, please visit the 
following URL:


  https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-qtawesome

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-qtawesome/python-qtawesome_0.3.3-2.dsc


Changes since the last upload:

  * Enable upstream testsuite.
  * Add packaging testsuite.
  * d/clean: remove unnecessary listing of sphinx directory.
  * d/rules: improve formatting of sphinx-build command.
  * Bump standards version to 3.9.8, no changes required.

Regards,
Ghislain Vaillant
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-qtawesome"


signed and uploaded

G.--- End Message ---

Bug#830494: RFS: python-qtawesome/0.3.3-2

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-qtawesome"

* Package name: python-qtawesome
  Version : 0.3.3-2
  Upstream Author : The Spyder Development Team
* URL : https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtawesome
* License : Expat
  Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python-qtawesome - iconic fonts in PyQt and PySide applications 
(Python 2)

  python-qtawesome-common - common files for QtAwesome
  python-qtawesome-doc - documentation and examples for QtAwesome
  python3-qtawesome - iconic fonts in PyQt and PySide applications 
(Python 3)


To access further information about this package, please visit the 
following URL:


  https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-qtawesome

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-qtawesome/python-qtawesome_0.3.3-2.dsc


Changes since the last upload:

  * Enable upstream testsuite.
  * Add packaging testsuite.
  * d/clean: remove unnecessary listing of sphinx directory.
  * d/rules: improve formatting of sphinx-build command.
  * Bump standards version to 3.9.8, no changes required.

Regards,
Ghislain Vaillant

Bug#830489: RFS is reopened.

[Ghislain Vaillant]

On 08/07/16 14:50, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:

Hang on there is a mistake left to fix. Will report when done.

Ghis


The mistake is fixed on mentors. Sponsorship can resume.

Thanks,
Ghis

combined manpage with symlinks to multiple binaries permissible?

[Patrick Schleizer]

Hi!

Would a combined manpage, i.e. 'man corridor', symlinked to the
individual command names (corridor-init-forwarding, corridor-init-snat,
...) be acceptable by Debian policy and otherwise or should a separate
man page per binary be provided?

Cheers,
Patrick

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

[Patrick Schleizer]

That worked, thank you!

Cheers,
Patrick

Bug#830489: RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Hang on there is a mistake left to fix. Will report when done.

Ghis

Bug#830489: RFS: python-qtpy/1.1.1-1

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-qtpy"

* Package name: python-qtpy
  Version : 1.1.1-1
* URL : https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy
* License : Expat
  Programming Lang: Python
  Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python-qtpy - abtraction layer for PySide/PyQt4/PyQt5 (Python 2)
  python3-qtpy - abtraction layer for PySide/PyQt4/PyQt5 (Python 3)

To access further information about this package, please visit the 
following URL:


  https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-qtpy

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-qtpy/python-qtpy_1.1.1-1.dsc


Successful build log on debomatic:


http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/python-qtpy/1.1.1-1/buildlog

Changes since the last upload:

  * New upstream release.
  * Update packaging to run the new upstream testsuite.
  * Clean files from egg-info directory.

Regards,
Ghislain Vaillant

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

[Sascha Steinbiss]

Hi Patrick,

> I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph at
> line 3
> 
> https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright
> 
> Any idea what is wrong in the debian/copyright file?

Try switching the order of the two sections, i.e. '*' first and then
'debian/*' Generally one lists the more general set first and the more
specific patterns come afterwards to 'override' the previous ones.

Cheers
Sascha


-- 
 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research 
 Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a 
 company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered 
 office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. 

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

[Adam Borowski]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:42:10AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 x...@debian.org

Sounds more like "close" to me...


> >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)
> 
> sure, this is why  only one NMU was done on your package :)

I'd guess the problem here is that continuing after this issue was flagged
certainly didn't send a message that a next NMU won't be done.


> >And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
> >to you about that.
> >
> >The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
> >yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
> >certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.
> 
> the copyright issues seems to be a policy violation, and this is what
> I'm mostly concerned about (I asked to make them RC, but you are of course
> free to disagree/downgrade)

Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent.  I don't see Nicholas pointing any
of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read
linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever
time-sentitive too.

Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO,
containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did.


Meow!
-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.

Re: How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 12:23 +, Patrick Schleizer wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph
> at line 3
> 
> https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright
> 
> Any idea what is wrong in the debian/copyright file?

From here:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#files-field

"Multiple Files paragraphs are allowed. The last paragraph that matches
a particular file applies to it. More general paragraphs should
therefore be given first, followed by more specific overrides."

So your 'Files: *' paragraph overrides the 'Files: debian/*' paragraph.
Moving the 'Files: debian/*' paragraph to the bottom should fix it.

James

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

How to express the copyright for the debian/ sub folder?

[Patrick Schleizer]

Hi!

I: corridor source: unused-file-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright paragraph at
line 3

https://github.com/adrelanos/corridor/blob/debian_new/debian/copyright

Any idea what is wrong in the debian/copyright file?

Cheers,
Patrick

Bug#829456: marked as done (RFS: jquery-throttle-debounce/1.1+dfsg.1-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:41:08 + (UTC)
with message-id <759704638.6348258.1467967268968.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#829456: RFS: jquery-throttle-debounce/1.1+dfsg.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #829456,
regarding RFS: jquery-throttle-debounce/1.1+dfsg.1-1
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.)


-- 
829456: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829456
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Control: block 829407 by -1

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package ‘jquery-throttle-debounce’:

 * Package name: jquery-throttle-debounce
   Version : 1.1
   Upstream Author : Ben Alman
   URL : 
http://benalman.com/projects/jquery-throttle-debounce-plugin/
 * License : Expat or GPL
   Section : web

It builds those binary packages:

  libjs-jquery-throttle-debounce - library of rate-limit wrappers for functions

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/jquery-throttle-debounce


Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jquery-throttle-debounce/jquery-throttle-debounce_1.1+dfsg.1-1.dsc

-- 
 \ “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly and I did. I |
  `\   said I didn't know.” —Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_ |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>This removes the non-source file you found.


Hi, not sure if they were really non-free or just useless, but sponsored!
(I don't want to flame here, there is already too much discussion about 
sourceness
of js files)

G.--- End Message ---

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 x...@debian.org

Hi Dimitri!


>lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)


sure, this is why  only one NMU was done on your package :)
>And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
>to you about that.
>
>The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
>yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
>certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.


the copyright issues seems to be a policy violation, and this is what
I'm mostly concerned about (I asked to make them RC, but you are of course
free to disagree/downgrade)

>Patches relevant for btrfs have been pulled into 4.7rc6 and once 4.7
>is updated into experimental or unstable, I can look into updating the
>package with some of the changes that you are proposing.


thanks for that, I'm setting you as owner for this bug :)

>I have just finished a big update to mdadm, and I am at Debconf at the
>moment. And I am still maintaining btrfs-progs.


thanks, I hope you will consider his work, I like it ;)

I'm leaving you the copyright answers then!

G.

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

[Jakub Wilk]

* HAYASHI Kentaro , 2016-07-08, 18:28:

 https://github.com/debexpo/debexpo/pull/35


Not a regression, but instead of:

"upstreams web site"

it should be:

"upstream's web site"

or maybe:

"upstream web site"


Perhaps also s/web site/website/.

--
Jakub Wilk

Bug#830236: RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

>

>Besides, it'd be appreciated if you also can setup DM upload
>permission of this package for me, after this upload.
>Thank you!


https://launchpadlibrarian.net/271663979/buildlog_ubuntu-yakkety-amd64.libcork_0.15.0+ds-4_BUILDING.txt.gz


the multiarch stuff is broken in yakkety now.

G.

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

[Dimitri John Ledkov]

Hello,

On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna  wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
> control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi,
>>Have you coordinated with Dimitri?  When the regular maintainer is active,
>
>>NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work.  Ie, instead
>>of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads.
>>
>>As you've helped with this package before, perhaps it might be good to
>>consider co-maintenance?
>
> he declined the offer!
> he is in lowNMU threshold however :)
>

lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)

And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
to you about that.

The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.

Patches relevant for btrfs have been pulled into 4.7rc6 and once 4.7
is updated into experimental or unstable, I can look into updating the
package with some of the changes that you are proposing.

I have just finished a big update to mdadm, and I am at Debconf at the
moment. And I am still maintaining btrfs-progs.

>>I'm afraid the new debian/copyright is a good deal _worse_ than before.
>>
>>For example, you claim there's a file under GPL3, which would make the
>>package undistributable.  That file's license would be GPL3+ (not =3),
>>still bad, if not for an exception "... you may include it under the same
>>distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program".  Ie, GPL2.
>>
>>Except for some specific projects with tightly controlled copyright notices,
>>Cme produces output indistinguishable from noise.  And knowingly providing
>>obviously incorrect copyright data is bad.  This Cme-produced output claims
>>every file has a single copyright holder who last touched the file years
>>ago -- easily disproven by "git log" on any file I looked at.
>>
>>And btrfs-progs is a massively cooperative project, with a core gang each of
>>whom holds copyright to most of files (or rather, their companies do -- but
>>those change) and a gaggle of minor contributors (including you and me).
>>
>>Thus, I see two alternatives:
>>* you do a massive work of archeology on every file to find the set of
>>  copyright holders.  Every file will have a long list.
>>* a blanket statement, listing maybe some major holders but with a stress on
>>  "and others".
>>
>>I'd say the important points to convey are "1. many contributors, 2. GPL2".
>
>
> Actually I agree,  I try to sum up files for licenses, instead of copyright 
> holders
> e.g.
> all the autoconf* stuff, can go in a single file
> and many copyright headers listed in that section.
>
> Files: config/config.guess
> config/config.sub
> Copyright: 1992-2013, Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
> License: GPL-3
>
>
> this is wrong, because actually it is GPL-3+ or whatever you want in your 
> source
> "
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that
> # program.  This Exception is an additional permission under section 7
> # of the GNU General Public License, version 3 ("GPLv3").
> "
>
> so, as all the autoconf files, you might try to put them under the same 
> copyright
> section.
>
> Another thing, you might consider to change
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2007-2012, Daniel Baumann 
> 
> License: GPL-2+
>
> Files: debian/watch
> Copyright: 2016, Nicholas D Steeves 
> License: GPL-2
>
>
> into something like
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2007-2012, Daniel Baumann 
> 
>2016, Nicholas D Steeves 
>
> License: GPL-2+
>
>
> (and add xnox maybe :) )
>
> some more "contraction" might be e.g.
> Files: send-test.c
> Copyright: 2013, SUSE 
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
> Files: send.h
> Copyright: 2012, STRATO 
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
> Files: ulist.c
> ulist.h
> Copyright: 2011, STRATO 
> License: GPL-2
>
> this can become
>
> Files: send-test.c send.h ulist.c ulist.h
> Copyright: 2013, SUSE 
> 2011-2012, STRATO 
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
>
> and so on, unless they have different licensing, just fix the copyright years
> and try to merge them as much as possible, I know this isn't perfectly clear
> but it is highly maintainable!
>
>
> lets review something more:
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.3/debian/btrfs-progs.changelogs 2016-07-01 
> 13:01:45.0 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CHANGES
>
>
> mmm such files should be automatically picked up by debhelper...
> I would say this file is useless :)
>
>
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.3/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc   2016-07-01 
> 13:01:45.0 +0200
>
>
> YAY!
>
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.

Bug#830417: RFS: django-setuptest/0.2.1-1 [ITP]

[Christopher Hoskin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: python-modules-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "django-setuptest"

 * Package name: django-setuptest
   Version : 0.2.1-1
   Upstream Author : Praekelt Consulting 
 * URL : https://github.com/praekelt/django-setuptest/
 * License : BSD
   Section : python

  It builds those binary packages:

python-django-setuptest - simple test suite enabling Django app testing via 
setup.py (Python 2)
python3-django-setuptest - simple test suite enabling Django app testing 
via setup.py (Python 3)

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/django-setuptest


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-setuptest/django-setuptest_0.2.1-1.dsc

  More information about django-setuptest can be obtained from 
https://github.com/praekelt/django-setuptest/.

  Regards,
   Christopher Hoskin

Bug#830236: RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-4 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library

[Roger Shimizu]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna
 wrote:
>>
>
>>Besides, it'd be appreciated if you also can setup DM upload
>>permission of this package for me, after this upload.
>>Thank you!
>
>
> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/271663979/buildlog_ubuntu-yakkety-amd64.libcork_0.15.0+ds-4_BUILDING.txt.gz
>
>
> the multiarch stuff is broken in yakkety now.

Dear G,

Thanks for your info!
Sorry for the breakage.. I'll take a look later today.

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +2 Cape Town (in DebConf16)
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,

>This PR is written to solve some glitches about RFS template.


another feature request:
the template has also the subject, e.g.
ITP, NMU, RC, QA, and so on, but there seems to be one missing entry for
"regular update"

it would be nice to use rmadison to see if the package is already on
unstable/experimental (or pull-debian-source) and set "update" accordingly.

Or to see if the changelog contains only one single entry (but this isn't 
error-prone
because many people are bumping changelog without having it uploaded yet)

and also a pull-debian-source for the source, and a debdiff between them
might *really* simplify the sponsors work!

Gianfranco

Re: wrong version number ?

[Jakub Wilk]

* Herbert Fortes , 2016-07-07, 15:30:

I am doing a QA for dvbackup package. I do not need
a Sponsor.

debian/changelog:
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-8) unstable; urgency=low ( I am doing )
dvbackup (1:0.0.4-7) unstable; urgency=low ( current version )

After 'debuild':

dvbackup_0.0.4-8_amd64.deb ( no epoch )


Related bug: #645895.

--
Jakub Wilk

Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

[HAYASHI Kentaro]

Hi, all

About 2 month ago,  I wrote a small patch for mentors.debian.net (debexpo)

Here is the actual pull request for it.
  https://github.com/debexpo/debexpo/pull/35

This PR is written to solve some glitches about RFS template.
I'm happy if this PR is merged because it is useful for user of mentors.d.n

Screenshot shows what I really want to improve it:
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/225841/16355705/783ffcec-3afa-11e6-8d8e-a69aedce152a.png


Here is the detail about above PR. It improves the following situation.

Before:

* Do not just copy&paste RFS template and send it because there are still 2
spaces left.
  (We need to recall that this is command mail!)
* There are many "fill in ...", for example, upstream author, license, url,
package name,
recent changelog and so on.

After:
* Just click mailto: link for it
* Filled in more entry by fetching information from debian/control or
  debian/changelog and so on.

@paulproteus who is a one of developer of debexpo - said that he would
review it,
 but I guess that he is very busy and can't afford to review it.

NOTE:
It requires python-debian 0.1.23 or later. wheezy provides python-debian
0.1.21, so
It seems that package upgrade is needed on mentors.d.n.
(jessie provides python-debian 0.1.27)

-- 
Kentaro Hayashi 

Re: wrong version number ?

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:01:03PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> I guess a filename containing ":" character might be problematic in linux
> (not techically problematic, but better to avoid escapes)

: is AFAIK supported by all Linux filesystems, although in some cases it
comes at the cost of breaking the official spec (iso9660 variants).

On the other hand, it drastically breaks interoperability with Windows, and
there's quite a few scenarios where users may want to carry .debs either
through a Windows system (for example due to lacking means to download a
file) or over media that's accessed from Windows (CD, USB stick).

-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.