Bug#948194: RFS: jcc/3.6-1 [ITA] -- generator for a Python extension from Java classes (transitional)

[Emmanuel Arias]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

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

 * Package name: jcc
   Version : 3.6-1
   Upstream Author : Andi Vadja 
 * URL : http://lucene.apache.org/pylucene/jcc/
 * License : Apache
 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/jcc
   Section : oldlibs

It builds those binary packages:

  python-jcc - generator for a Python extension from Java classes (Python 2)
  python3-jcc - generator for a Python extension from Java classes (Python 3)
  jcc - generator for a Python extension from Java classes (transitional)

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

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

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

  dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/j/jcc/jcc_3.6-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   [ Emmanuel Arias ]
   * New upstream version 3.6
   * New maintainer (Closes: #922568):
 - Add myself to Maintainer field on d/control.
   * Bump debhelper to 12 (from 9.2):
 - Update debhelper to debhelper-compat on d/control Build-Depends.
   * Update Vcs-* repository to salsa repository.
   * Add myself on debian/* files copyright on d/copyright.
   * Bump Standard-Version to 4.4.1
   * d/control: add autopkgtest-pkg-python

Regards,
Emmanuel

Re: search for sponsor for osc2midi and multimail

[Fernando Toledo]

El 4/1/20 a las 09:16, Tobias Frost escribió:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 10:40:37PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote:
> 
>> Hi! im search for sponsor to these two packages!!
>>
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail
>>
>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/osc2midi
> 
> Please open RFS bugs against the sponsorship-requests pseudo
> package... This usually works best nowerdays...
> 
>  
>> thanks!
>>
>> -- 
>> Fernando Toledo
>> Dock Sud BBS
>> http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
>> telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar
>>
already have the bugs with no luck =( (multimail have many years)

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=942358
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=933671

thanks you!

-- 
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar

Bug#946959: RFS: coreboot/4.10-1 -- Coreboot firmware utilities

[John Scott]

The package is in great shape. The only challenge to getting the package in 
the archive seems to be the copyright file. Coreboot's README says
> Some files are licensed under the "GPL (version 2, or any later version)",
> and some files are licensed under the "GPL, version 2". For some parts,
> which were derived from other projects, other (GPL-compatible) licenses may 
apply. Please check the individual source files for details.

debian/copyright says most files are GPL 2+, but it my digging indicates the 
majority are GPL 2 only, and I think I saw additional licenses too.

I believe upstream has recently expressed desire to make listings files with 
respective licenses and/or using SPDX identifiers, rather than their lengthy 
headers in the source. If that's true, checking out the Git version might help 
you parse the licenses.

Speaking of which, you repacked Coreboot with the contents of 3rdparty/ 
removed. As a Libreboot user I thought I understood why, but as best as I can 
tell those files are free. On Coreboot's downloads page they appear to 
distribute the blobs separately which is news to me.

If there really is a problem with those files I would appreciate your letting 
me know what I missed. Otherwise I hope you can avoid the repacking trouble in 
the future.

Lastly, a small enhancement is to add a debian/watch file so that tools can 
check for and utilize new upstream versions automagically. I plan to send a 
Salsa merge request with details shortly.

I hope my feedback is useful for you to help your package.

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

Re: How to delete my package from ftp.upload.debian.org

[Paul Wise]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 5:10 PM Tong Sun wrote:

> How to delete my package from ftp.upload.debian.org?

Usually that means using dcut (from devscripts), but in this case the
package is no longer in the upload queue so you cannot remove it from
there.

> 
> Package has already been uploaded to ftp-master on ftp.upload.debian.org
> Nothing more to do for dbab_1.3.3-1_source.changes
> 

This error message is solely based on the files on your local system,
if you want to reupload the same .changes filename, you will need to
delete the corresponding .upload file.

Please also file a bug/patch against the upload tool that you are
using, it should have a better error message for this situation or
have a confirmation prompt or something.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#945874: marked as done (RFS: spyne/2.13.11a0-0.1 [NMU, RC] -- Python library for writing and calling soap web service)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 4 Jan 2020 23:12:02 +0100
with message-id 

and subject line Close RFS: spyne/2.13.11a0-0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #945874,
regarding RFS: spyne/2.13.11a0-0.1 [NMU, RC] -- Python library for writing and 
calling soap web service
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.)


-- 
945874: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945874
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

Hi,

I am looking for a sponsor for the package "spyne" which has a
py2removal RC bug and will be autoremoved on December 13th. The package
is Python 2 only but the current alpha version has Python 3 support. I
uploaded a Python 3 compatible package in January and referenced it in
#877783 but did not get any response from the maintainer.

Now that the bug is RC I think that it is time for a NMU and hope to
find a sponsor for the package.

 * Package name: spyne
   Version : 2.13.11a0-0.1
   Upstream Author : Burak Arslan 
 * URL : http://spyne.io/
 * License : LGPL-2.1+
   Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python3-spyne - Python library for writing and calling soap web service

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

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

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

  dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/spyne/spyne_2.13.11a0-0.1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * d/watch: Also search alpha versions
   * New upstream version: 2.13.11a0
   * Upgrade to Python 3 (Closes: #938554)
   * Make package lintian clean
   * Build-depend on the test dependencies
   * Correct d/copyright

Regards,
Bastian Germann
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The maintainer rather wants the package removed from testing than
uploading an alpha version.--- End Message ---

Bug#945588: RFS: lutris/0.5.4-1 -- open source gaming platform for GNU/Linux

[John Scott]

I'm not a DD and can't sponsor packages, but I hope my feedback can be helpful 
for you.

I see Lutris bundles python-distro. This is available in Debian, so the 
package should use it rather than installing a bundled copy. Debian's 
Winetricks should be used also.
Since Winetricks is in contrib, depending or recommending it means that Lutris 
needs to go to contrib or non-free also.

Lutris's description mentions Linux. Does it use any Linux-specific 
functionality, or should it build and work on other kenels like the Hurd and 
kFreeBSD also? If so the Architecture: any is fine.

I see from the TODO and your GitHub issue that you're aware of the copyright 
problems, but as the package currently stands it's not suitable even for non-
free.
Files: share/lutris/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/nintendods-symbolic.svg
Copyright: Nintendo
License: none-wikipedia
Comment: from 

Files: share/lutris/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/sonyplaystation-symbolic.svg
Copyright: Sony Interactive Entertainment
License: none-wikipedia
Comment: from 

License: none-wikipedia
 This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet
 the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is 
therefore
 in the public domain.

Does upstream get the images from Wikimedia Commons? These logos are almost 
surely encumbered by copyright and/or trademark issues and can't go in main. 
Wikimedia Commons holds neither the copyright nor trademark and Lutris 
shouldn't go on the editors' words. See the disclaimer
> Other restrictions may apply. These may include trademarks,
> patents, personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the
> many other legal causes which are independent of copyright and vary greatly
> by jurisdiction.
It's inconceivable that permission from Nintendo and Sony was obtained.
But actually the Flaticon icons are worst of all and keep this from going even 
in non-free:

License: Flaticon
 From :
 What you CANNOT DO:
  -Distribute Flaticon's Contents unless it has been expressly authorized 
by Flaticon.
  -Include Flaticon's Contents in an online or offline database or file.
  -Offering Flaticon's Contents designs (or modified Flaticon Contents versions)
   for download.

...but I just downloaded them. And as though it couldn't be any worse:
  "The complete content of licenses can be consulted in the Terms of Use, that
  will prevail over the content of this document."
so that isn't the license anyway.

That's problematic and I don't see any 'explicit authorization,' so I've 
reported this issue upstream at https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/2573
and hope it will be taken care of.

With respect to the Debian-specific parts, the packaging looks good and I hope 
my feedback helps you tackle your last few challenges.

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

How to delete my package from ftp.upload.debian.org

[Tong Sun]

Hi,

How to delete my package from ftp.upload.debian.org?

Here are the details -- My upload to ftp.upload.debian.org has been
sitting there for quite some time without showing up in tracker yet.
Later I found out (through kind Thorsten):

20191228024911|process-upload|dak|dbab_1.3.3-1_source.changes|Error
while loading changes file dbab_1.3.3-1_source.changes: No valid
signature found. (GPG exited with status code 0)

I tried to fix the issue (by refreshing my key to keyring.debian.org),
then tried uploading again. Of course, I got:


Package has already been uploaded to ftp-master on ftp.upload.debian.org
Nothing more to do for dbab_1.3.3-1_source.changes


If I can't delete my package from ftp.upload.debian.org, can somebody
help me please?

Thanks

Bug#948141: RFS: libcloud/2.8.0-1 -- unified Python interface into the cloud (Python3 version)

[Håvard Flaget Aasen]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

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

 * Package name: libcloud
   Version : 2.8.0-1
   Upstream Author : d...@libcloud.apache.org
 * URL : https://libcloud.apache.org/
 * License : Apache-2.0
 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/libcloud
   Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python3-libcloud - unified Python interface into the cloud (Python3 
version)


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


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

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libc/libcloud/libcloud_2.8.0-1.dsc


Changes since the last upload:

   * Team upload
   * New upstream version 2.8.0
   * Add Rules-Requires-Root
   * Update package description.

Regards,
Håvard

Re: search for sponsor for osc2midi and multimail

[Tobias Frost]

Hi Fernando,

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 10:40:37PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote:

> Hi! im search for sponsor to these two packages!!
> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail
> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/osc2midi

Please open RFS bugs against the sponsorship-requests pseudo
package... This usually works best nowerdays...

 
> thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Toledo
> Dock Sud BBS
> http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
> telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar
> 

Bug#948099: RFS Not Needed

[Tobias Frost]

Hallo Michael,

I have to chime in as I probably encouraged Phil for this RFS.

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 22:26:35 -0600 Michael Lustfield <
mich...@lustfield.net> wrote:
> Thanks for your interest contributing to Debian.
> 
> Unfortunately, the packages you built are not DFSG-free and have
additional
> problems that would prevent them from being included in Debian. Check
out the
> lintian warnings, ideally with "lintian -EviIL +pedantic *.changes".

> typically does a good job predicting whether or not a package will
find a
> sponsor and/or pass NEW.

This is actually the reason why we have the sponsoring process to help
people understanding the processes and requirements of contributiong to
Debian. We do not expect, especially on new contributors that they know
everything from the first upload already. Frankly, imho, your language
is not well suited to encourage new contributors 

Looking at the packages, the lintian situation is not that bad, I have
seen worse even in the archives.

imho the correct procedure would have been to mark this bug "wontfix"
or "moreinfo" as per https://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS. Closing it
seems a bit rough.

> Fortunately, these packages are already present in Debian and are
being
> actively maintained. If you would like to contribute, you should
reach out to
> the current maintainer to discuss collaborative maintenance.

The maintainer chimed in in #947270#30 saying that he would appreciate
help because of ETIME.

Depending on
> their time, they may be willing to review/sponsor your updates to the
> package.
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/filezilla
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libfilezilla
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gnome-maps
(I did not find a RFS for the last one)

> 
> FWIW-
> I noticed that this is not the first time you've submitted this sort
of bug.
> 
> You should be aware that working *with* the current maintainer is the
ideal way
> to begin contributing to a maintained packages. An NMU (non-
maintainer upload)
> is one of those last resort options, typically reserved for
unreachable
> maintainers or urgent issues.

You saw that Phil was doing an Team Upload? Both packages are in the
debian namepsace on salsa, thus a team upload is completly in order.
[1]
(Of course it is always good to talk to each other.) 


[1] 
https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/Doc#Collaborative_Maintenance:_.22Debian.22_group

> When you don't work with the package maintainer and instead just try
to build
> updates and have others upload, it circumvents said maintainer. Ths
is why
> this particular type of behavior is often seen as an attempt at a
"hostile
> takeover" of the package.

Neither of the both packages has a change in maintainer ship recorded,
so there is no package hijacking. It is a team upload as documented in
the changelog.

Of course a question to ask in the RFS is, espescially if there are
bigger changes, are if the sponsoree have checked with the recorded
maintainer and in best case to establish a link between them. At least
this is what I would have done while marking the bug "moreinfo" 

> I'm sure that wasn't you're intention and suspect you're attempting
to follow
> a process for packages that are not yet in Debian. In most cases, if
you didn't
> file an ITP, you won't be filing an RFS.
>

-- 
tobi