Bug#915524: Acknowledgement (RFS: filemanager-actions/3.4-1 [ITP])
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:07 AM Carlos Maddela wrote: > The reason I put it in the -dev package was that this documentation was> more > related to the API and not so much in end user's interests. Other > packages that have it this way are libnautilus-extension-dev and > network-manager-dev. Those aren't good examples since neither of those source packages ships a -doc package. :) Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
Bug#915524: Acknowledgement (RFS: filemanager-actions/3.4-1 [ITP])
On 9/2/19 1:14 am, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > 2. Why do you have gtk-doc stuff in your -dev package instead of in > your -doc package? > Hi, The reason I put it in the -dev package was that this documentation was more related to the API and not so much in end user's interests. Other packages that have it this way are libnautilus-extension-dev and network-manager-dev. Please let me know if you'd still like it moved to the -doc package. Cheers, Carlos Maddela
Bug#914833: marked as done (RFS: python-pyxs/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Pure Python XenStore client implementation)
Your message dated Sat, 9 Feb 2019 02:06:00 +0100 with message-id <20190209010600.4wio5ypajrk3hcyq@bogus> and subject line Re: Bug#914833: RFS: python-pyxs/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Pure Python XenStore client implementation has caused the Debian Bug report #914833, regarding RFS: python-pyxs/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Pure Python XenStore client implementation 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.) -- 914833: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=914833 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 "python-pyxs" * Package name: python-pyxs Version : 0.4.1-1 Upstream Author : Sergei Lebedev , Fedor Gogolev * URL : https://github.com/selectel/pyxs * License : LGPL-3 Section : python It builds those binary packages: python3-pyxs - Pure Python XenStore client implementation python-pyxs-doc - Pure Python XenStore client implementation (documentation) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-pyxs Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-pyxs/python-pyxs_0.4.1-1.dsc I have provided the packaging repository at https://salsa.debian.org/benjamin-guest/pyxs The Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git fields point to salsa.debian.org/debian, where I suggest the repository could live. Kind regards, Benjamin --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:27:39PM +0100, Benjamin Hof wrote: > Hey nicoo, > > Awesome, thank you for taking the time! I agree with your edits and > have pushed the updated changelog. *hacker voice* It's in. usper% grep pyxs queuedLog Feb 9 00:45:29 processing /python-pyxs_0.4.1-1_amd64.changes Feb 9 00:45:30 python-pyxs_0.4.1-1_amd64.changes processed successfully (uploader ve...@vexel.net) <3 signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#914833: RFS: python-pyxs/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Pure Python XenStore client implementation
Hey nicoo, Awesome, thank you for taking the time! I agree with your edits and have pushed the updated changelog. Kind regards, Benjamin
Bug#921647: marked as done (RFS: moc/1:2.6.0~svn-r2994-1)
Your message dated Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:55:08 +0100 with message-id <20190208185508.moik3iypds4oz...@toy.home.lxtec.de> and subject line Re: Bug#921647: RFS: moc/1:2.6.0~svn-r2994-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #921647, regarding RFS: moc/1:2.6.0~svn-r2994-1 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.) -- 921647: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921647 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 "moc" * Package name: moc Version : 1:2.6.0~svn-r2994-1 Upstream Author : Damian Pietras * URL : https://moc.daper.net/ * License : GPL2+ Section : sound It builds those binary packages: moc - ncurses based console audio player moc-ffmpeg-plugin - ncurses based console audio player - ffmpeg plugin To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/moc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/moc/moc_2.6.0~svn-r2994-1.dsc More information about moc can be obtained from https://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: * New upstream version 2.6.0~svn-r2994. * Added debian\gbp.conf * debian/control: Update Vcs-* headers for move to salsa.debian.org. Use HTTPS in Homepage URL. Drop Build-Depends on dpkg-dev. Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.3.0. (No changes needed.) Bump debhelper compatibility level to 12. + Replace debian/compat with a versioned b-d on debhelper-compat. * Adjusted debian/copyright to upstreams HTTPS URL. * Use HTTPS URL in watch file. * Don't list *.la files in dh_missing. * Update changelog.svn. * Using minimal signing key for upstream source. Regards, Elimar Riesebieter -- Alles, was viel bedacht wird, wird bedenklich!;-) Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for uploading Elimar -- Learned men are the cisterns of knowledge, not the fountainheads ;-)--- End Message ---
Re: Building a shared library with no SONAME
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 12:26:24PM -0500, Nicolas Mora wrote: > Le 2019-02-06 11:59, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > It's a bad idea to package shared libraries that don't keep stable ABI. > > > [...] > > > Please don't just add a random SONAME. Library versions with different > > ABIs must have different SONAMEs so if you add a custom SONAME you will > > need to change it each time the ABI changes, with an appropriate package > > transition. You may probably want to put the package version or the date > > into the SONAME like e.g. libv8 does. Your other option, apart from the > > obvious one (waiting for the issue to be fixed upstream), would be > > comparing ABIs and maintaining the ABI yourself but I wouldn't recommend > > it. > > You're right, on second thoughts, this library, even useful, doesn't have a > stable API yet, and will probably have more changes until a stable release. > > I'll close the ITP for now. I may reopen it when the library will be > stabalized. You could even leave the ITP open and mention the API instability in it so to prevent new "unaware" or "unwise" ITPs to succeed without further investigation. Domenico -- 3B10 0CA1 8674 ACBA B4FE FCD2 CE5B CF17 9960 DE13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#915524: Acknowledgement (RFS: filemanager-actions/3.4-1 [ITP])
Hi, I apologize for the late review. Reviewing your package has been on my todo list for several weeks. I think it will be appropriate for us to ask for an exception to ensure it gets into the Buster release even though it will be a bit late from the freeze deadline. I imported your git repo to https://salsa.debian.org/debian/filemanager-actions and gave you access to it. I also pushed a small update to your debian/gbp.conf there. I don't need you to upload changes to mentors, I prefer sponsoring from the git repo instead of from a .dsc. 1. Could you rename the extension packages to nautilus-extension-fma, etc. ? 2. Why do you have gtk-doc stuff in your -dev package instead of in your -doc package? 3. Could you just not install the .la files? 4. I think your debian/source/options is unnecessary. 5. I don't think your backup.tar stuff is necessary at all. I recommend removing all of it. Other Comments: No Action Needed Before Upload -- 6. If you don't like autotools clutter, I suggest you work with upstream to switch the package to meson later. 7. Please ask upstream to provide an app icon that is at least 64px so we can drop all the svg conversion handling and that autopkgtest. 8. You might want to work with upstream to remove the scrollkeeper/omf stuff. scrollkeeper was removed from Debian recently and isn't necessary or used any more. That should allow you to drop nocheck. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
Bug#910004: RFS: apache-opennlp/1.9.0-1 [ITP] -- machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text
On 2019-02-08 04:08, Mo Zhou wrote: > Is this package useful enough without these components? I would say so. opennlp-tools is the core toolkit of the OpenNLP, while opennlp-brat-annotator and opennlp-morfologik-addon are merely add-ons to other software packages. Furthermore, language parsing and language detection examples execute successfully after having all binary packages installed, both using the CLI and Java compiler. Therefore, I assume that core functionality works as would be expected. Best wishes, Andrius -- Andrius Merkys Vilnius University Institute of Biotechnology, Saulėtekio al. 7, room V325 LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
