Re: RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 22:44, Ben Westover wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On 7/29/22 5:50 AM, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Still a couple of Lintian warnings to fix, then you can finalize the > > changelog and I'll upload: > > > > I: pacman-package-manager source: duplicate-long-description libalpm-dev > > libalpm13 [debian/control] > > I: libalpm-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > > Fixed > > > I: libalpm13: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > > There's not really much more information to say on libalpm; I don't know > what else to put in the description without making it a word salad. > > > I: libalpm13: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/libalpm/hooks/] > > I: makepkg: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/makepkg-template/] > > Fixed > > > This one doesn't need to be fixed in the package, just send a patch > > upstream and it can be picked up in the next version: > > > > I: pacman-package-manager: typo-in-manual-page "allows to" "allows one to" > > [usr/share/man/man8/pacman.8.gz:264] > > Sent the patch upstream. > > I didn't even know about these Lintian tags since lintian by default > only shows warnings and above (these are info tags). I've updated my > machine's Lintian config to show me everything, even down to pedantic. > My (minor) changes have been pushed to Salsa and Mentors. Looks good, uploaded.
Bug#1006020: marked as done (RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager)
Your message dated Fri, 29 Jul 2022 23:20:47 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager has caused the Debian Bug report #1006020, regarding RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager 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.) -- 1006020: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1006020 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 "pacman-package-manager": * Package name: pacman-package-manager Version : 6.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Pacman Development Team * URL : https://archlinux.org/pacman/ * License : GPL-2+, MIT, curl, unlicense, public-domain * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/benthetechguy/pacman Section : admin It builds those binary packages: pacman-package-manager - Simple library-based package manager libalpm13 - Arch Linux Package Management library makepkg - Arch Linux package build utility To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/pacman-package-manager/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pacman-package-manager/pacman-package-manager_6.0.1-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: pacman-package-manager (6.0.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial Package (Closes: #511994) Regards, -- Ben Westover OpenPGP_0xC311C5F54E89B698.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 22:44, Ben Westover wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On 7/29/22 5:50 AM, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Still a couple of Lintian warnings to fix, then you can finalize the > > changelog and I'll upload: > > > > I: pacman-package-manager source: duplicate-long-description libalpm-dev > > libalpm13 [debian/control] > > I: libalpm-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > > Fixed > > > I: libalpm13: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > > There's not really much more information to say on libalpm; I don't know > what else to put in the description without making it a word salad. > > > I: libalpm13: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/libalpm/hooks/] > > I: makepkg: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/makepkg-template/] > > Fixed > > > This one doesn't need to be fixed in the package, just send a patch > > upstream and it can be picked up in the next version: > > > > I: pacman-package-manager: typo-in-manual-page "allows to" "allows one to" > > [usr/share/man/man8/pacman.8.gz:264] > > Sent the patch upstream. > > I didn't even know about these Lintian tags since lintian by default > only shows warnings and above (these are info tags). I've updated my > machine's Lintian config to show me everything, even down to pedantic. > My (minor) changes have been pushed to Salsa and Mentors. Looks good, uploaded.--- End Message ---
Re: RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager
Hi Luca, On 7/29/22 5:50 AM, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Still a couple of Lintian warnings to fix, then you can finalize the > changelog and I'll upload: > > I: pacman-package-manager source: duplicate-long-description libalpm-dev > libalpm13 [debian/control] > I: libalpm-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short Fixed > I: libalpm13: extended-description-is-probably-too-short There's not really much more information to say on libalpm; I don't know what else to put in the description without making it a word salad. > I: libalpm13: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/libalpm/hooks/] > I: makepkg: package-contains-empty-directory [usr/share/makepkg-template/] Fixed > This one doesn't need to be fixed in the package, just send a patch > upstream and it can be picked up in the next version: > > I: pacman-package-manager: typo-in-manual-page "allows to" "allows one to" > [usr/share/man/man8/pacman.8.gz:264] Sent the patch upstream. I didn't even know about these Lintian tags since lintian by default only shows warnings and above (these are info tags). I've updated my machine's Lintian config to show me everything, even down to pedantic. My (minor) changes have been pushed to Salsa and Mentors. Thanks, -- Ben Westover OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1016350: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/0.4-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lsb-release-minimal": * Package name: lsb-release-minimal Version : 0.4-1 Upstream Author : Gioele Barabucci * URL : https://gioele.io/lsb-release-minimal * License : ISC * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/gioele/lsb-release-minimal Section : misc The source builds the following binary packages: lsb-release-minimal - Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/lsb-release-minimal/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsb-release-minimal/lsb-release-minimal_0.4-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: lsb-release-minimal (0.4-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release * Upload to unstable * d/control: Bump Standards-Version to 4.6.1 (no changes needed) * d/control: Build-Depend on podlators-perl for pod2man Regards, -- Gioele Barabucci
Bug#1016136: marked as done (RFS: libmad/0.15.1b-10.1 [NMU] [RC] -- MPEG audio decoder development library)
Your message dated Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:02:20 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: libmad/0.15.1b-10.1 [NMU] [RC] -- MPEG audio decoder development library has caused the Debian Bug report #1016136, regarding RFS: libmad/0.15.1b-10.1 [NMU] [RC] -- MPEG audio decoder development 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.) -- 1016136: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1016136 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 "libmad": * Package name: libmad Version : 0.15.1b-10.1 Upstream Author : * URL : * License : * Vcs : Section : sound The source builds the following binary packages: libmad0 - MPEG audio decoder library libmad0-dev - MPEG audio decoder development library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libmad/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libm/libmad/libmad_0.15.1b-10.1.dsc Changes since the last upload: libmad (0.15.1b-10.1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Non-maintainer upload. * Bump debhelper to 7. (Closes: #965663) * Update package version in pkg-config file. (Closes: #990838) Regards, Håvard --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 15:28:28 +0200 =?UTF-8?Q?H=c3=a5vard_F=2e_Aasen?= wrote: > reopened, since this wasn't uploaded. > > and uploaded. Thanks.--- End Message ---
Bug#1015169: RFS: mir-eval/0.7-1 [ITP] -- Common metrics for common audio/music processing tasks
Am 29.07.22 um 14:44 schrieb Nilson Silva: A total of 356 tests passed out of 250. I think it was better than ignoring the wrong ones or disabling everything. Did you mix up the number here? I read 356/250 tests pass, which is impossible.
Bug#1015169: RFS: mir-eval/0.7-1 [ITP] -- Common metrics for common audio/music processing tasks
Hello Bastian! > Disabling all tests is a bit of a stretch. Please disable > only those who > need these deprecated classes. > It should be enough to disable test_display and mpl_ic. In fact, of the 20 tests that the tests directory has, 12 have errors. It didn't make sense for me to ignore them with this pybuild parameter "export PYBUILD_TEST_ARGS=--ignore=tests" So I had to study which functions are giving error in each file and I disabled it with patches. A total of 356 tests passed out of 250. I think it was better than ignoring the wrong ones or disabling everything. I didn't tick - info - because you told me to only do this if I was sure I was ready. If everything is ok let me know and I will answer the bug as done. Nilson F. Silva De: Bastian Germann Enviado: quinta-feira, 21 de julho de 2022 23:13 Para: Nilson Silva ; 1015...@bugs.debian.org <1015...@bugs.debian.org> Assunto: Re: Bug#1015169: RFS: mir-eval/0.7-1 [ITP] -- Common metrics for common audio/music processing tasks Control: tags -1 moreinfo Disabling all of the tests is a bit of an overkill. Please only disable the ones that need those deprecated classes. It should be enough to disable test_display and mpl_ic.
Bug#1016206: RFS: budgie-desktop/10.6.2+git20220728-1 -- Desktop package for budgie-desktop
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "budgie-desktop": * Package name: budgie-desktop Version : 10.6.2+git20220728-1 Upstream Author : Budgie Developers * URL : https://github.com/buddiesofbudgie/budgie-desktop * License : GPL-2, GPL-2+, CC-BY-SA-3.0, LGPL-2.1+ * Vcs : https://github.com/ubuntubudgie/budgie-desktop/tree/debian Section : x11 The source builds the following binary packages: budgie-core - Core package for Budgie-Desktop budgie-core-dev - Development package for budgie-desktop budgie-desktop - Desktop package for budgie-desktop budgie-desktop-doc - documentation files for the budgie-desktop gir1.2-budgie-1.0 - GNOME introspection library for budgie-desktop libbudgie-plugin0 - Plugin library for budgie-desktop libbudgie-private0 - Budgie Private library for budgie-desktop libbudgietheme0 - Theme library for budgie-desktop libraven0 - Raven library for budgie-desktop libbudgie-appindexer0 - Menu library for budgie-desktop To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/budgie-desktop/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/budgie-desktop/budgie-desktop_10.6.2+git20220728-1.dsc Additional Information: This is a preparatory package upload to experimental: 1. the next version of budgie-desktop is due soon after the GNOME 43 release. This version of budgie-desktop introduces a new budgie specific library and as such needs to be acceptable via the NEW queue. This may introduce a delay the GNOME 43 transition. 2. The version is a preparatory package that will be updated as and when GNOME 43 components are released into experimental. This package (or an updated future upload) will need to be compatible with GNOME 43 components. Taken together, this upload will aid in the GNOME 43 transition. Changes since the last upload: budgie-desktop (10.6.2+git20220728-1) experimental; urgency=medium . * git master release - includes menu rewrite. This introduces a new packaging library binary libappindexer0 - drop fractional.patch since this is contained in this release - Resolve login issues due to reverseDNS changes Update-session-and-components-to-use-reverseDNS.patch - Resolve multi-keyboard layouts switching Rework-keyboard-handling-to-layouts-ibus-handling.patch * Packaging Changes d/rules correct ubuntu recommendation to use nemo rather than the invalid nemo-desktop package Correct lintian warning for screenshot man-page: screenshot/More-meaningful-name-description.patch * d/control add libbudgie-appindexer0 binary package d/control add libbudgie-appindexer0 to dev package * d/watch and d/upstream change to unsigned temporarily for this git tarball release * d/libbudgie-private0.symbols update * d/libbudgie-appindexer0.symbols create and populate * add d/budgie-core.maintscript to remove old budgie /etc config files; these have been replaced with reverseDNS named config files Regards, -- David Mohammed
Re: RFS: pacman-package-manager/6.0.1-1 [ITP] -- Simple library-based package manager
On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 22:55 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> Hello Luca and Michel,
>
> On 7/28/22 5:50 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> > I was independently working on pacman, and (thanks to the name
> > collision with the existing pacman package) didn't notice this until
> > it's mostly done.
>
> That existing package is orphaned anyway, so it's annoying that it's
> already there and not even being maintained. I do think it's still a
> good idea to keep the current package name so people don't get confused
> and accidentally install a potentially dangerous package manager for
> another distribution instead of an arcade game.
>
> > My use case is helping make systemd/mkosi CI easier (since it's hosted
> > on GitHub, which provides Ubuntu LTS builders) - I'll flag this to
> > some relevant people so they can help get this sponsored.
> >
> > PS archlinux-keyring is on its way to unstable, and per some feedback
> > the keyring target directory is moved to the standard Debian path:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/michel/archlinux-keyring/-/blob/main/debian
> > /patches/use_std_keyring_dir.diff
> >
> > might want to apply this to your pacman, and configure pacman to use
> > this path:
> >
> > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/merge_requests/11
>
> Okay, I've added the patch to my package and configured the keyringdir
> option in debian/rules.
>
> On 7/28/22 6:27 PM, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can sponsor this.
> >
> > A few remarks, aside from the keyring change mentioned by Michel:
> >
> > - all the doc build-dependencies (asciidoc, doxygen, help2man) can be
> > marked with so that nodoc builds can be done
> > - are curl and fakechroot really needed to build the package, or are
> > they just used by self tests? if they are used only by tests, mark them
> > as
> > - is pkgconf really needed instead of pkgconfig, which is the default?
> > - you need to add a libalpm-dev and ship the headers, pkgconfig file,
> > unversioned .so and manpage in it, instead of in libalpm13, and remove
> > the lintian override
> > - libalpm13 is missing Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
> > - no need to specify the libarchive-tools and libgpgme11 dependencies
> > on libalpm13, they will be autogenerated
> > - does libalpm13 really need to depend on the binary curl executable?
>
> Thanks, all of those have been fixed.
>
> > - makepkg should not depend on build-essential nor on sudo
>
> I was under the impression that makepkg depended on sudo, but after a
> deeper look into the code, it appears to fall back on su if sudo is not
> detected. I put build-essential there since makepkg expects base-devel,
> the Arch Linux equivalent of build-essential, to be installed. I've now
> removed sudo from Depends and moved build-essential to Recommends since
> in most cases you would want it installed but it's not required.
>
> > - no need to manually specify the dependency on libalpm13 in makepkg,
> > it will be autogenerated
> > - libalpm13 is missing the symbols file, you can generate it after
> > building the library with:
> > dpkg-gensymbols -plibalpm13
> > -edebian/tmp/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libalpm.so.13.0.1
> > -Odebian/libalpm13.symbols
> > - makepkg is missing a dependency on ${perl:Depends}
>
> Fixed
>
> > - are you sure all of these can run on GNU/Hurd and debian/kFreeBSD? If
> > not, use 'linux-any' instead of 'any' as the architecture
>
> Funny you should say that; I actually have a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD system
> that I installed out of curiosity last year. When I was originally
> making this package, I tested it out on that system and it worked.
>
> > - it is not necessary anymore to specify the build system in
> > debian/rules, meson is autodetected
> > - use execute_before_dh_auto_clean instead of override_
>
> Fixed
>
> > - 228 tests fail when running in a pbuilder chroot, this is a strong
> > hint that the build might fail once uploaded
>
> I use sbuild instead of pbuilder since it's considered to be legacy at
> this point. As Michel noted, these failures are solved by two additional
> build depends (one of which you should've already had) which I've added.
>
> > - you should try and fix the reproducible build, rather than disabling
> > it in the CI
>
> I've tested reproducibility with reprotest and it's perfectly
> reproducible. Salsa CI fails a bunch of tests on its second
> reproducibility build, and I haven't been able to find the root cause.
> It's been suggested to me that Salsa CI's reprotest job might be faulty.
> I'll do some more research into the topic when I have time.
>
> > - the GPL-2+ in debian/copyright says in the last paragraph:
> > "On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU General Public
> > License version 3 can be found in the file"
> > instead of version 2
>
> Fixed
>
> Thank you both for your interest and deep review of this package! I
> learned a lot of minor Debian things that I didn't know about before.
> I've published
Bug#1016200: marked as done (RFS: ffmpegfs/2.11-1~bpo11+1 [ ITP] -- read-only FUSE filesystem which transcodes between audio and video formats on the fly))
Your message dated Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:30:17 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: ffmpegfs/2.11-1~bpo11+1 [ ITP] -- read-only FUSE filesystem which transcodes between audio and video formats on the fly) has caused the Debian Bug report #1016200, regarding RFS: ffmpegfs/2.11-1~bpo11+1 [ ITP] -- read-only FUSE filesystem which transcodes between audio and video formats on the fly) 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.) -- 1016200: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1016200 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 "ffmpegfs" to upload it to bullseye-backports, hoping to find someone who's interested. Package is the same as in Bookworm testing, see https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/ffmpegfs, just repackaged for backports. * Package name : ffmpegfs Version : 2.11-1~bpo11+1 Upstream Author : Norbert Schlia nsch...@oblivion-software.de * URL : https://github.com/nschlia/ffmpegfs * License : GPL Section : mutimedia It builds those binary packages: ffmpegfs - read-only FUSE filesystem which transcodes between audio and video formats on the fly To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/ffmpegfs Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/ffmpegfs/ffmpegfs_2.11-1~bpo11+1.dsc More information about ffmpegfs can be obtained from https://nschlia.github.io/ffmpegfs/html/index.html. -- Oblivion Software Development and Internet Services Norbert Schlia Hans-Thoma-Str. 24 76327 Pfinztal Germany Telefon: 0721 48 48 8928 Fax: 0721 48 48 8929 Mobile: 0178 5365230 www: http://www.oblivion-software.eu/ --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the update!--- End Message ---
