introducing myself
Hi my name is Robert Arkiletian. I teach high school Computer Science in Canada. I need the "python-fltk" package https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyfltk for myself and my students. I notice it's currently unmaintained so I'm going to give a shot at being a package maintainer for the first time. I'm currently reading the "Debian New Maintainers' Guide" https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ I'm hoping to get the package accepted into the upcoming Buster release.
Bug#913091: RFS: scdoc/1.5.2-1
Hi, On 11/08/2018 12:48 PM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > [2018-11-06 22:03] Birger Schacht >> Dear mentors, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "scdoc" >> >> * Package name : scdoc >> Version : 1.5.2-1 >> Upstream Author : Drew DeVault >> * Url : https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/scdoc >> * Licenses : MIT >> Programming Lang : C >> Section : text >> >> scdoc is a tool designed to make the process of writing man pages more >> friendly. It reads scdoc syntax from stdin and writes roff to stdout, >> suitable for reading with *man*(1). >> scdoc is a build dependency for swaywm. > > Here is my review for commit (6b2f11). Thanks for your feedback! I've adjusted the files accordingly, pushed dddbe9 to salsa and uploaded a new package to mentors. cheers, Birger > > What stops me from uploading > > > * I believe using *such* notation in package description is bad idea; >it is confusing to those, who are not accustomized to markdown, and >is not processed specially by tools. > > * There is unused comment in `debian/watch' > > * There is commented debian/source/local-options > > Minor suggestions > - > > * Consider adding 'Upstream-Author' into `debian/copyright' > > * You may want add 'Rules-Requires-Root: no' field into `debian/control' > > * I prefer use of parensis: (Closes: #00) > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#913261: RFS: chkboot/1.2-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "chkboot" * Package name: chkboot Version : 1.2-1 Upstream Author : Giancarlo Razzolini * URL : https://github.com/grazzolini/chkboot * License : GPL-2.0+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: chkboot- detection of malicious changes for boot files To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/chkboot Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/chkboot/chkboot_1.2-1.dsc This is the first release of the package. Debian source is hosted on salsa, at: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/chkboot Regards, Baptiste BEAUPLAT - lyknode -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iIcEARYIAC8WIQQt4kiVMTxdp/CJ4U4XSUsQeV3XMwUCW+SOxhEcbHlrbm9kZUBj aWxnLm9yZwAKCRAXSUsQeV3XM9WlAP93vo64ZSAwvMJ0cnxLBPMTUFGmgipjC6uJ 9rdGnmkKagD9GSoBOM674HGZ2kRlmEncJ6mLS0FKUdqXnc2hShdPRw4= =nA8y -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#912979: marked as done (RFS: xplanet/1.3.0-5.1 [LowNMU])
Your message dated Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:35:33 +0100 with message-id <20181108163532.gn2...@mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#912979: RFS: xplanet/1.3.0-5.1 [LowNMU] has caused the Debian Bug report #912979, regarding RFS: xplanet/1.3.0-5.1 [LowNMU] 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.) -- 912979: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912979 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 the package xplanet. * Package name: xplanet Version : 1.3.0-5.1 Upstream Author : Hari Nair * URL : http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/ * License : GNU GPLv2 Section : graphics The source builds these binary packages: xplanet - planetary body renderer xplanet-images - imagery for xplanet To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/xplanet Alternatively, you can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xplanet/xplanet_1.3.0-5.1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Non-maintainer upload. * debian/control: - Build-Depend on dh-autoreconf instead autotools-dev. - Add pkg-config to the Build-Depends list. * debian/patches/freetype2_pkg-config.patch: - Use pkg-config to detect FreeType 2, as freetype-config is not installed in FreeType 2.9.1 or later (Closes: #892438). * debian/rules: - Call 'dh --with autoreconf' instead of 'dh --with autotools-dev'. * xplanet-images: - Install the source README file in /usr/share/doc/xplanet-images instead of /usr/share/doc/xplanet-images/README (Closes: #835821). Regards, Hugh McMaster--- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:29:07PM +, Hugh McMaster wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the package xplanet. o/ > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xplanet/xplanet_1.3.0-5.1.dsc ✓ Uploaded to DELAYED/2 -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#913091: RFS: scdoc/1.5.2-1
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:48:25 +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > * I believe using *such* notation in package description is bad idea; >it is confusing to those, who are not accustomized to markdown, and >is not processed specially by tools. Just a historical side note: *bold*, /italic/, and _underline_ are much older than Markdown. But I completely agree that they don't make any sense in a package description. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Scrapper Blackwell: Life Of A Millionaire signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Bug#913091: RFS: scdoc/1.5.2-1
[2018-11-06 22:03] Birger Schacht > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "scdoc" > > * Package name : scdoc > Version : 1.5.2-1 > Upstream Author : Drew DeVault > * Url : https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/scdoc > * Licenses : MIT > Programming Lang : C > Section : text > > scdoc is a tool designed to make the process of writing man pages more > friendly. It reads scdoc syntax from stdin and writes roff to stdout, > suitable for reading with *man*(1). > scdoc is a build dependency for swaywm. Here is my review for commit (6b2f11). What stops me from uploading * I believe using *such* notation in package description is bad idea; it is confusing to those, who are not accustomized to markdown, and is not processed specially by tools. * There is unused comment in `debian/watch' * There is commented debian/source/local-options Minor suggestions - * Consider adding 'Upstream-Author' into `debian/copyright' * You may want add 'Rules-Requires-Root: no' field into `debian/control' * I prefer use of parensis: (Closes: #00)
Re: Best way to patch a public header file before installation
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Long story short, I believe this fixes the symptoms and not the actual > bug. I would even go one step further and make that arch specific > include be restricted (Debian policy) to only a subset of packages > (gcc, libc...), since I fail to understand why there would be arch > specific information in public header (obviously for a package not > dealing with low level arch specific). On my system most of them look fairly low-levelish (see below). The dedup.d.n service and the multi-arch hinter can tell you when there are the same/different header files in the same place on different arches. https://dedup.debian.net/ https://wiki.debian.org/MultiArch/Hints > In my case, and I suspect in the vast majority of packages, this is > just lazy programming where a public header contains an implementation > detail that was used during the build but is meaningless to expose to > the final user. I think it would be interesting to explore this and or add some code to the multi-arch hinter to show header diffs between arches in /usr/include and the multi-arch subdirs of it. $ find /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/ -print0 | xargs -0 dpkg -S | cut -f 1 -d: | sort -u libc6-dev libcurl4-gnutls-dev libexpat1-dev libffi-dev libgmp-dev libgpg-error-dev libjpeg62-turbo-dev libpython2.7-dbg libpython2.7-dev libpython3.6-dbg libpython3.6-dev libpython3.7-dev libssl-dev libstdc++-7-dev libstdc++-8-dev libtiff5-dev linux-libc-dev qtbase5-dev ruby2.5-dev -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
