Bug#934029: RFS: ima-evm-utils/1.2.1-1 -- Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #934029

Now that ima-evm-utils version 1.1-1 have entered sid, I'm looking
(again) for a sponsor for ima-evm-utils 1.2.1-1 upload.

It builds those binary packages:

  ima-evm-utils - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools
  libimaevm1 - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools - library
  libimaevm-dev - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools - 
development files

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

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/ima-evm-utils

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ima-evm-utils/ima-evm-utils_1.2.1-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   * New upstream release
   * d/control: rename lib package to libimaevm1 to follow soname
   * d/control: bump Standards-Version to 4.4.0, no changes needed
   * d/*: cleanup
   * d/libimaevm1.symbols: add symbols file
   * d/control: extend long package descriptions
   * d/rules: enable full hardening

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.3.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/bash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#941355: RFS: midisnoop/0.1.2+git20141108.bc30f600187e-1 [RC] -- MIDI monitor and prober

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

Dear mentors,

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

 * Package name: midisnoop
   Version : 0.1.2+git20141108.bc30f600187e-1
   Upstream Author : 2012 Devin Anderson 
 * URL : https://github.com/surfacepatterns/midisnoop
 * License : GPL-2+
 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/midisnoop
   Section : sound

It builds those binary packages:

  midisnoop - MIDI monitor and prober

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

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

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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/midisnoop/midisnoop_0.1.2+git20141108.bc30f600187e-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   [ Ondřej Nový ]
   * d/copyright: Use https protocol in Format field
   * d/control: Set Vcs-* to salsa.debian.org
 .
   [ Felipe Sateler ]
   * Change maintainer address to debian-multime...@lists.debian.org
 .
   [ Ondřej Nový ]
   * Use debhelper-compat instead of debian/compat
 .
   [ Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov ]
   * New upstream version 0.1.2+git20141108.bc30f600187e
   * Update to qt5 (Closes: #875047)
   * Refresh debian patches
   * Add 0005-src-engine.h-another-qt5-fix.patch to fix compilation with qt5
   * d/gbp.conf: disable pristine tar for snapshot builds
   * d/control: Bump Standards-Version to 4.4.0 (no changes needed)
   * Switch to python3 (Closes: #937045)
   * d/control: add myself to uploaders


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#934029: RFS: ima-evm-utils/1.2.1-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ima-evm-utils"

 * Package name: ima-evm-utils
   Version : 1.2.1-1
   Upstream Author : Dmitry Kasatkin ,
 Mimi Zohar 
 * URL : https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home/
 * License : GPL-2 with OpenSSL exception
   Section : utils

It builds those binary packages:

ima-evm-utils - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools
libimaevm1 - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools - library
libimaevm-dev - Linux IMA Extended Verification Module signing tools - 
development files

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/ima-evm-utils


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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ima-evm-utils/ima-evm-utils_1.2.1-1.dsc

More information about ima-evm-utils can be obtained from 
https://www.example.com.

Changes since the last upload:

ima-evm-utils (1.2.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium

  * New upstream release
  * d/control: rename lib package to libimaevm1 to follow soname
  * d/control: bump Standards-Version to 4.4.0, no changes needed
  * d/*: cleanup
  * d/libimaevm1.symbols: add symbols file
  * d/control: extend long package descriptions
  * d/rules: enable full hardening

 -- Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:00:21 
+0300

ima-evm-utils (1.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Upload to Debian (Closes: #923792)
  * d/control: mark myself as maintainer
  * d/control: split library and -dev packages per Debian policy
  * d/copyright: fix format
  * d/rules: simplify
  * d/clean: remove generated evmctl.1 file on clean
  * d/control: add Vcs-* information
  * d/control: add Homepage

 -- Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov   Wed, 06 Mar 2019 01:45:56 
+0300


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#931377: RFS: gcc-8-doc/8.3.0-1 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

ср, 31 июл. 2019 г. в 06:25, Adam Borowski :
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:43:08PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> > > > I can also backport gcc-doc-defaults afterwards.
> > >
> > > Good idea, yeah.
> >
> > Uploaded to mentors.d.o
>
> In bpo-NEW, thanks!  These packages were sorely missing from Buster.

Thank you!

> About that VLOCAL part: I think it'd be nice to have it in unstable as well,
> to ease future backports, and to reduce their diffs.  The variable would be
> empty in regular versions.

Yes, it will be a part of 5:19 upload defaulting to gcc-9 (once it
hits unstable).

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#933493: RFS: gcc-9-doc/9.1.0-1

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-9-doc"

 * Package name: gcc-9-doc
   Version : 9.1.0-1
   Upstream Author : FSF
 * URL : https://gcc.gnu.org/
 * License : GFDL-1.2+, GFDL-1.3+, GPL-2+, GPL-3+
   Section : doc

It builds those binary packages:

cpp-9-doc_9.1.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gcc-9-doc_9.1.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gcc-9-doc_9.1.0-1_amd64.buildinfo non-free/doc optional
gccgo-9-doc_9.1.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gfortran-9-doc_9.1.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gnat-9-doc_9.1.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
  
To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-9-doc


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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/g/gcc-9-doc/gcc-9-doc_9.1.0-1.dsc

More information about gcc-9-doc can be obtained from https://www.example.com.

Changes since the last upload:

gcc-9-doc (9.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium

  * New upstream branch.
  * Synced patches with gcc-9, 9.1.0-10
  * New upstream version 9.1.0
  * d/patches: refresh patches
  * d/control: bump Standards-Version to 4.4.0, no changes needed.

 -- Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:28:18 
+0300

Regards,
 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

Bug#931377: RFS: gcc-8-doc/8.3.0-1 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

вт, 30 июл. 2019 г. в 18:23, Adam Borowski :
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:12:33PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> > I have uploaded gcc-8-doc targeted buster-backports. Would you agree
> > to sponsor it?
>
> Looks good, in bpo-NEW.

Thank you!

> > I can also backport gcc-doc-defaults afterwards.
>
> Good idea, yeah.

Uploaded to mentors.d.o

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#931377: RFS: gcc-8-doc/8.3.0-1 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

ср, 3 июл. 2019 г. в 20:14, Adam Borowski :
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:00:27PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> > ср, 3 июл. 2019 г. в 18:52, Adam Borowski :
> > > It's a pity neither Guo nor you managed to update the docs before Buster,
> > > but 1. we can upload this to buster-backports soon,
> >
> > Should I do anything manually to do this upload?
>
> There's nothing we can do before this package passes NEW and migrates to
> testing.

I have uploaded gcc-8-doc targeted buster-backports. Would you agree
to sponsor it?

I can also backport gcc-doc-defaults afterwards.


--
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#931395: RFS: gcc-doc-defaults/5:18 [RC]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-doc-defaults"

* Package name: gcc-doc-defaults
  Version : 5:18
* URL : http://gcc.gnu.org/
* License : GNU-meta-license
  Section : doc

It builds those binary packages:

gcc-doc - documentation for the GNU compilers (gcc, gobjc, g++)
cpp-doc - documentation for the GNU C preprocessor (cpp)
gfortran-doc - documentation for the GNU Fortran Compiler (gfortran)
gnat-doc - documentation for the GNU Ada Compiler (gnat)
gccgo-doc - documentation for the GNU Go compiler (gccgo)
gcc-doc-base - several GNU manual pages

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-doc-defaults


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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/g/gcc-doc-defaults/gcc-doc-defaults_18.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  * New uploader.
  * Thanks to Guo Yixuan for his work on this package.
  * Support proper NMU package versioning.
  * Build gcc-8 docs (Closes: #905022)
  * Bumped standard version to 4.3.0, no changes needed.
  * Point VCS-* tags to salsa.d.o

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

Bug#931377: RFS: gcc-8-doc/8.3.0-1 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-8-doc"

* Package name: gcc-8-doc
  Version : 8.3.0-1
  Upstream Author : FSF
* URL : http://gcc.gnu.org/
* License : GFDL-1.2+, GFDL-1.3+, GPL-2+, GPL-3+
  Section : doc

It builds those binary packages:

cpp-8-doc_8.3.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gcc-8-doc_8.3.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gcc-8-doc_8.3.0-1_amd64.buildinfo non-free/doc optional
gccgo-8-doc_8.3.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gfortran-8-doc_8.3.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional
gnat-8-doc_8.3.0-1_all.deb non-free/doc optional


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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-8-doc


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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/g/gcc-8-doc/gcc-8-doc_8.3.0-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]
  * New maintainer.
  * Thanks to Guo Yixuan for his work on this package.
  * New upstream branch. (Closes: #908589)
  * Synced patches with gcc-8, 8.3.0-6
  * d/control: correct Vcs-* tags
[Guo Yixuan]
  * Mark the package as auto-buildable.
  * Bumped standards version to 4.1.0, no changes needed.
  * Synced patches with gcc-7, 7.2.0-3, no changes needed.

Regards,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

Bug#931370: RFS: cryptodev-linux/1.10-1 [ITP] kernel module for accessing Linux kernel cryptographic drivers

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cryptodev-linux"

* Package name: cryptodev-linux
  Version : 1.10-1
  Upstream Author : Michal Ludvig and the rest of authors
* URL : http://cryptodev-linux.org/
* License : GPL-v2+
  Section : kernel

It builds those binary packages:

cryptodev-linux-dkms - kernel module for accessing Linux kernel cryptographic 
drivers
cryptodev-linux-dev - kernel module for accessing Linux kernel cryptographic 
drivers - header file

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/cryptodev-linux

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

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cryptodev-linux/cryptodev-linux_1.10-1.dsc

More information about cryptodev-linux can be obtained from
https://cryptodev-linux.org.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

I've uploaded new 1.19.0.2-1 version to mentors.d.o.
I've added manpages, fixed copyright info, fixed alternatives
and enabled auto-tests. Could you please review it?

сб, 2 июн. 2018 г. в 7:08, Lumin :
>
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 03:24:07AM +, Lumin wrote:
> > Please fix the aforementioned problems. Hopefully we'll have the last
> > round of check next time. Thank you for working on this.
> >
> > [1] 
> > http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/odp/1.19.0.1-1/buildlog
>
> Forgot to check the copyright ... The copyright looks incomplete. A
> simple search on the source tree would reveal many non-Linaro copyright
> holders:
>
>   grep -ri copyright | grep -vi linaro | grep -i copyright
>
> The package will be rejected by ftp-master if we don't fix the
> copyright.

Should be fixed now.

>
> When checking odp-dpdk, one more problem was found:
>
>   root@b69fed1c16e0 ~/odp-dpdk-1.19.0.0# update-alternatives --config 
> libodp-linux.so-x86_64-linux-gnu
>   There are 2 choices for the alternative libodp-linux.so-x86_64-linux-gnu 
> (providing /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so).
>
> SelectionPath   
> Priority   Status
>   
>   * 0/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-generic/libodp-linux.so   40   
>  auto mode
> 1/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-dpdk/libodp-linux.so  40   
>  manual mode
> 2/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-generic/libodp-linux.so   40   
>  manual mode
>
>
>   * 0/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-dpdk/libodp-linux.so.119  
> 60auto mode
> 1/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-dpdk/libodp-linux.so.119  
> 60manual mode
> 2/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/odp-generic/libodp-linux.so.119   
> 40manual mode
>
> Taking BLAS as an example, the generic and slow libblas3 provides
> libblas.so.3 symlink with a priority of 10. Faster implementations
> provides the same symlink with higher priorities, e.g. 40 for openblas.
>
> Maybe you want to adjust the priority values in those postinst scripts?
> The exact value is up to you, as long as it helps to tell the difference
> among different implementations.

I'll fix odp-dpdk later.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

Thank for your review.

2018-05-25 9:31 GMT+03:00 Lumin :
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:50:57PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have updated odp & odp-dpdk packages on mentors.d.n.
>
> Please file another RFS bug for the odp-dpdk package since it is a
> different source.

Sure, filled #900407.

>> 2018-05-06 3:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov :
>> > I will make my next upload use alternatives, thank you.
>>
>> This upload uses alternatives to select ODP library to be used.
>
> The package is going in the right way, but the alternatives still needs
> to be improved.

Thanks. I've updated -dev packages to also use alternatives.

> Nitpickings about the updated package:
>
> 1. README.Debian
>"Library packages should contain libodp-linux.so.FOO"
>It should be "libodp-linux.so.SOVER", which is more precise.

Hmm. I have checked buster package lists. Only blas/lapack packages
use soname as virtual package name in provides. The rest of packages
use libsomethingSOVER. Wouldn't it be logical to stick to convention
used by the rest of packages?

> 2. command `dot` comes from graphviz, but it is missing from B-D.

Ack, fixed.

>
> 3. libodp-generic119 should provide libodp-linux.so.119 instead of
>libodp-linux119. And applications that need libodp-linux.so.119
>could declare Depends: libodp-linux.so.119 | libodp-generic119 .
>
>This is similar to libblas.so.3 | libblas3 setting of the BLAS
>implementations.

See above.


> 4. libodp-generic-dev should Privides: libodp-linux.so .
>odp-generic/libodp-linux.so should be registered in the alternatives
>system to provide a /usr/lib/DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH/libodp-linux.so .
>
>The static library /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.a should
>be put to the /.../odp-generic directory, and be registered as a slave
>of the libodp-linux.so alternative.
>
>I also noticed that the symlink points to an invalid path.
>Please solve this issue by the alternatives system as said above.
>
>root@bfb95763d3d6 ~/odp-1.19.0.1# ll 
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so
>lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 May 23 16:01 
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so -> libodp-linux.so.119.0.1
>
> libblas3 and libopenblas-base and their corresponding -dev packages are
> good examples at this point. If you have doubts, you can carefully
> examine these packages which may possibly provide help.

I have fixed alternatives usage for -dev packages (and removed Conflicts
entry in d/contron and README.Debian files).

> Please ping me if you have question, or ready for the next round of
> review :-)

New packages are uploaded to mentors.d.n. Hopefully with this upload
I will have just two remaining issues:
 - manpages
 - dh_auto_test override.

I plan to look onto adding package autotests afterwards.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#900407: RFS: odp-dpdk/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Control: block -1 by 896970
Control: block 899383 by -1

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "odp-dpdk"

 * Package name: odp-dpdk
   Version : 1.19.0.0-1
   Upstream Author : Linaro / ODP community
 * URL : https://www.opendataplane.org/
 * License : BSD-3-Clause
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

  libodp-dpdk-dev - OpenDataPlane DPDK faceplate library (development)
  libodp-dpdk119 - OpenDataPlane DPDK faceplate library (runtime)

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

https://mentors.debian.net/package/odp-dpdk


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

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odp-dpdk/odp-dpdk_1.19.0.0-1.dsc

More information about hello can be obtained from https://www.opendataplane.org.
These packages provide hardware-optimized implementation of ODP API
(using DPDK as a backend).

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.16.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

I have updated odp & odp-dpdk packages on mentors.d.n.

2018-05-06 3:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbarysh...@gmail.com>:
> I will make my next upload use alternatives, thank you.

This upload uses alternatives to select ODP library to be used.

>> * move all the executables to /usr/bin. Their name starts with odp_, so
>>   I don't expect them to pollute the public name space. Putting these
>>   test programs in a private directory just makes it hard to find and
>>   use them.
>
> This looks logical to me. I will move some (usefull) programs to /usr/bin
> and will drop the rest of them.

I have moved several executables to /usr/bin and removed the rest of them.

This upload does not have manpages for those binaries, I will fix that in
the next upload.

>>> > 11. Why is dh_auto_test overrode to empty?
>>>
>>> We had issues with make check before, they interacted strangely with
>>> build environment, that is why it is disabled for now. I plan to
>>> reenable it later.
>>
>> How strange is it? And what happend during the test?
>>
>> As per policy, network access during the build is not availble. If this
>> is the cause of test problem, we can omit the test part. However, we
>> should still write the tests in the override_dh_auto_test target, if our
>> user want to test it somehow.
>
> Some of the validation scripts are trying to create/remove network
> interfaces.
>
>>   override_dh_auto_test:
>>   -test_binary
>>
>> This should be ok.
>
> Ack

This is not fixed yet. Also will be fixed in the next upload.

Could you please review alternatives system, so that I can be sure that
I've used them correctly?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

2018-05-05 16:47 GMT+03:00 Lumin <cdlumin...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:58:26PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> > 5. Could you explain why these lines exist? Package libodp-linux-dev
>> > seems not exist.
>>
>> Packages libodp-linux-dev and libodp-linux119 are virtual package,
>> provided by different implementations of ODP API. We are providing
>> another ODP implementation, implemented specifically on top of DPDK
>> (https://github.com/Linaro/odp-dpdk). It is not packaged (yet). These
>> two implementations are binary compatible. It is planned that odp-dpdk
>> will have libodp-dpdk119 (Provides: libodp-linux119) and libodp-dpdk-dev
>> (Provides: libodp-linux-dev) packages.
>>
>> Would you recommend how should I better document and/or implement these
>> packages.
>
> How many libodp-linux.so.119 providers are there?

It is not known yet. For previous long term support release we had more than 6
providers. Not all of them are going to be packaged/provided through Debian,
as they were provided by hardware vendors.

> If there are only a few alternatives, why should we make a virtual
> package, whose SOVERSION might bump regularly? From the policy we can
> find a list of authoritative virtual packages:
>
>   https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
>
> All of these packages are widely used and be depended by a lot of
> packages. If the list of libodp-linux.so.* providers is short, we can
> write the Depends field of an application package like this:
>
>   Depends: libodp-implement1 | libodp-impl2 | ...,
>
> where there is no virtual package.

Unfortunately it is not easy to predict in advance, which
libraries/implementations
will be provided (and when).

I will make my next upload use alternatives, thank you.

> By doing so you will get rid of the 'package-name-doesnt-match-sonames'
> warning, and be able to keep several implementations at the same time.
> This situation must be better for your next package.
>
> To implement this, you first need to rename libodp-linux.so.* to match
> your package name. Then write some postinst and prerm scripts. Here is a
> good example:
>
>   
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/openblas/blob/master/debian/libopenblas-base.postinst.in
>   
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/openblas/blob/master/debian/libopenblas-base.prerm.in
>
> By looking around in the openblas packaging you'll also find the example
> for -dev package.

Quite interesting, thank for the pointer. The idea of generating these scripts
during build time didn't occur to me before.

>> libodp-test-utils? These tools are mostly testing programs, that can be
>> used either by autotests (in future) or users (to check that their ODP
>> installation works).
>
> odp-linux-tools:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x root/root 31016 2018-04-28 14:48 
> ./usr/lib/odp/linux/examples/odp_l3fwd
> -rwxr-xr-x root/root 18504 2018-04-28 14:48 
> ./usr/lib/odp/linux/examples/odp_pktio
>
> This still look weird. The convention is that -utils/-tools packages
> would install executable binaries under /usr/bin (or /usr/sbin in some
> cases). I think either of the two solutions will do
>
> * move all the executables to /usr/bin. Their name starts with odp_, so
>   I don't expect them to pollute the public name space. Putting these
>   test programs in a private directory just makes it hard to find and
>   use them.

This looks logical to me. I will move some (usefull) programs to /usr/bin
and will drop the rest of them.

>> > 11. Why is dh_auto_test overrode to empty?
>>
>> We had issues with make check before, they interacted strangely with
>> build environment, that is why it is disabled for now. I plan to
>> reenable it later.
>
> How strange is it? And what happend during the test?
>
> As per policy, network access during the build is not availble. If this
> is the cause of test problem, we can omit the test part. However, we
> should still write the tests in the override_dh_auto_test target, if our
> user want to test it somehow.

Some of the validation scripts are trying to create/remove network
interfaces.

>   override_dh_auto_test:
>   -test_binary
>
> This should be ok.

Ack

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #896970

Hi Lumin,

I've updated ODP package on mentors.d.n, according to most of your
comments. Could you please review it?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #896970

For the reference I've uploaded a preview of ODP-DPDK 1.19.0.0 package
to mentors.d.n. It features library and -dev packages, which provide
libodp-linux119 and libodp-linux-dev packages.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #896970

Hi Lumin,

I have uploaded next iteration of ODP package to mentors.d.n. It fixes
all issues you have pointed out, except issues 5, 6, 10, 11.

I'd like your advice wrt points 5 and 10 (we would like to keep virtual
packages in place).

For point 6 I'll consider installing less tools (and renaming a
package). Where should I install them? Is /usr/bin fine from your point
of view?

I'm considering reenabling make check (point 11), however I haven't
decided at this point.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #896970

> 1. This package misses dependency libconfig-dev

Added.

> 2. Please fix the lintian warnings. e.g.
> 
>  W: odp-doc: privacy-breach-generic

I will try to. Privacy breaches come from generated documentation.

> 3. debhelper compat level and the standards-version is a bit old.
> The latest compat is 11, and standards-version is 4.1.4.
> See debhelper(7) section COMPATIBILITY LEVELS for compat checklist.
> See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ for the standards upgrading
> checklist.

Ack

> 4. Please break the lines whose length exceeds 80 characters in
> debian/control and rules.

Ack

> 5. Could you explain why these lines exist? Package libodp-linux-dev
> seems not exist.

Packages libodp-linux-dev and libodp-linux119 are virtual package,
provided by different implementations of ODP API. We are providing
another ODP implementation, implemented specifically on top of DPDK
(https://github.com/Linaro/odp-dpdk). It is not packaged (yet). These
two implementations are binary compatible. It is planned that odp-dpdk
will have libodp-dpdk119 (Provides: libodp-linux119) and libodp-dpdk-dev
(Provides: libodp-linux-dev) packages.

Would you recommend how should I better document and/or implement these
packages.

> 6. Must we provide a example package with pre-built binaries shipped?
> 
> 77 Package: odp-linux-examples
> 
>Why can't we put the source of these examples into the doc package?
>Or why don't we choose a name such as libodp-tools / libodp-utils
>to avoid ambiguity?

libodp-test-utils? These tools are mostly testing programs, that can be
used either by autotests (in future) or users (to check that their ODP
installation works).

> 7. your patch directory is empty, could you please remove it?

Sure, removing

> 8. Changelog: This is the first-time upload. Could you change the file
> so that it looks like this:

OK. I will upload updated package with shortened changelog.

> 9. debian/docs This file looks useless ?

Dropping now.

> 10. Why is the package containing
> ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodp-linux.so.119.0.0
>   named libodp-generic119?

See point 5.

> 11. Why is dh_auto_test overrode to empty?

We had issues with make check before, they interacted strangely with
build environment, that is why it is disabled for now. I plan to
reenable it later.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist


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

 * Package name: odp
   Version : 1.19.0.0-1
   Upstream Author : Linaro / ODP community
 * URL : https://www.opendataplane.org/
 * License : [fill in]
   Section : libs

  It builds those binary packages:

 libodp-common-dev - OpenDataPlane library (common development files)
 libodp-generic-dev - OpenDataPlane reference implementation library 
(development)
 libodp-generic119 - OpenDataPlane reference implementation library (runtime)
 libodphelper-dev - OpenDataPlane helper library (development)
 libodphelper119 - OpenDataPlane helper library (runtime)
 odp-doc- OpenDataPlane library (documentation)
 odp-linux-examples - OpenDataPlane examples

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

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


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

dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odp/odp_1.19.0.0-1.dsc

  More information about odp can be obtained from
  https://www.opendataplane.org.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Bug#817961: RFS: awesfx/0.5.1e-1 [RC] [ITA]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

2016-03-18 4:22 GMT+03:00 Mattia Rizzolo :
> A couple more (introduced with the last iteration):
>
> * d/changelog:
>   + s/DEB-5/DEP-5/ (it's "Debian Enhancement Proposal"), that particular
> one has been formalized as copyright-format 1.0.
>   + move "This version has internal buffer overflow fixed. LP: #744794."
> in a seblevel of the "New upstream release"; clearly, no need to say
> "This version has" while you're in the correct sublevel of a list
>   + document the removal of debian/dirs

Updated the package at mentors.d.o. Please review.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#817961: RFS: awesfx/0.5.1e-1 [RC] [ITA]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

2016-03-17 17:35 GMT+03:00 Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org>:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:56:07AM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
>> Current maintainer of awesfx (Ove Kaaven) asked to consider him MIA, so I'm 
>> adopting
>> the package.
>
> where asked todo so?
> I can see how he is not active, but I'd like to read something about it.

Sent corresponding e-mail in private.

>>   * List myself as an uploader.
>
> * please drop this last line from the changelog, as there is already
>   "New maintainer"

Done.

> * please drop debian/dirs, looking at it seems useless
> * please bump standards-version to 3.9.7
> * please document more stuff in the changelog:
>   + DEP-5 copyright
>   + patch to fix typos
>   + source format 3.0 (quilt)
>   + new watch file
>   + rules file rewritten using dh(1) (that's not implied by the new
> compat level)
> * what about using dh-autoreconf instead of autotools-dev?
>   see wiki.d.o/Autoreconf.  Also, you should be aware that newer
>   debhelper does the very same thing autotools-dev does.

Done.

> For the rest it looks good, just please check whether some more bugs can
> be closed.

Added a fix for another Debian bug and for a Launchpad bug.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Bug#817961: RFS: awesfx/0.5.1e-1 [RC] [ITA]

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for the package "awesfx"

 * Package name: awesfx
   Version : 0.5.1e-1
   Upstream Author : Takashi Iwai 
 * URL : http://www.alsa-project.org/~tiwai/awedrv.html
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : sound

It builds those binary packages:

awesfx - utility programs for AWE32/64 and Emu10k1 driver

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

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/awesfx


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

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/awesfx/awesfx_0.5.1e-1.dsc

Right now package was removed from testing suite, because of RC bug #800262,
usage of deprecated debhelper compat level.

Current maintainer of awesfx (Ove Kaaven) asked to consider him MIA, so I'm 
adopting
the package.

Changes since the last upload:
  * New upstream release.
  * New maintainer.
  * Update to debhelper 9. Closes: #800262, #817311.
  * Update to standards version 3.9.6.
  * Use linux-any architecture. Closes: #745179.
  * Stop providing libawe.a, it seems nobody uses it. At least nobody
complained about missing headers for this library.
  * Provide udev rules to automatically load sound fonts.
  * Suggest soundfont packages.
  * Enable hardening of built utilities.
  * Provide doc-base files.
  * List myself as an uploader.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Bug#712491: RFS: libgpg-error/1.11-0.1 [NMU] -- library for common error values and messages in GnuPG components

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #712491

Adding Maintainer/Uploader to cc list (should have done from the
begining).

I have packaged 1.11 version of libgpg-error. It is required (e.g.) to
build new versions of libgcrypt. I'm still looking for the sponsor for
this upload.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.9-1-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20130624202445.20976.57426.report...@anuminas.rup.mentorg.com

Bug#712491: RFS: libgpg-error/1.11-0.1 [NMU] -- library for common error values and messages in GnuPG components

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package libgpg-error

 * Package name: libgpg-error
   Version : 1.11-0.1
   Upstream Author : g10 Code GmbH c...@g10code.com
 * URL : http://www.gnupg.org/related_software/libgpg-error/
 * License : LGPL v2.1
   Section : libs

  It builds those binary packages:

libgpg-error-dev - library for common error values and messages in GnuPG 
components
libgpg-error0 - library for common error values and messages in GnuPG 
components
libgpg-error0-udeb - library for common error values and messages in GnuPG 
components (udeb)

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

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error

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

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.11-0.1.dsc

  More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com.

  Changes since the last upload:

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * New upstream release (Closes: #711995)
  * Fix dpatch leftovers cause deeply confusing source package layout
Drop dpatch-related files (Closes: #689604)
  * Disable l10n patch. All changes uplied by upstream
  * Use hardening options to compile source files
  * Add libgpg-error0 symbols file
  * Bump standards-version to 3.9.4, no changes required
  * Fix autoconf update for arm64 building - fixed by upstream
(Closes: #689621)

  Regards,

Dmitry

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20130616123214.28371.19119.report...@fangorn.rup.mentorg.com

RFS: gppcscconnectionplugin

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package gppcscconnectionplugin.

 * Package name: gppcscconnectionplugin
   Version : 1.1.0-1
   Upstream Author : Karsten Ohme widerst...@t-online.de
 * URL : http://globalplatform.sourceforge.net/
 * License : LGPL-v3
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

libgppcscconnectionplugin1 - PC/SC connection plugin for GlobalPlatform Library

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

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/gppcscconnectionplugin

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

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gppcscconnectionplugin/gppcscconnectionplugin_1.1.0-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards,

Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123100317.ga2...@valinor.lumag.spb.ru

RFS: gpshell

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package gpshell.

 * Package name: gpshell
   Version : 1.4.4-1
   Upstream Author : Karsten Ohme widerst...@t-online.de
 * URL : http://globalplatform.sourceforge.net
 * License : GPL-v3
   Section : utils

It builds those binary packages:

gpshell- GlobalPlatform smart card script interpreter

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

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/gpshell

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

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gpshell/gpshell_1.4.4-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards,

Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123100528.ga2...@valinor.lumag.spb.ru

RFS: globalplatform

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package globalplatform.

 * Package name: globalplatform
   Version : 6.0.0-1
   Upstream Author : Karsten Ohme widerst...@t-online.de
 * URL : http://globalplatform.sourceforge.net/
 * License : LGPL-3
   Section : libs

It builds those binary packages:

libglobalplatform-dev - library to handle communication with GlobalPlatform 
cards (develo
 libglobalplatform6 - library to handle communication with GlobalPlatform cards

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

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/globalplatform

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

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/globalplatform/globalplatform_6.0.0-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards,

Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123095910.ga2...@valinor.lumag.spb.ru

RFS: mspdebug

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package mspdebug.

* Package name: mspdebug
  Version : 0.16-1
  Upstream Author : Daniel Beer dlb...@gmail.com
* URL : http://mspdebug.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPLv2+
  Section : devel

It builds these binary packages:
mspdebug   - free debugger for use with Texas Instruments MS430 MCUs

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The upload would fix these bugs: 637345

My motivation for maintaining this package is: I'm currently
using this package for my msp430 boards.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mspdebug
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
contrib non-free
- dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mspdebug/mspdebug_0.16-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110810151324.ga8...@anuminas.rup.mentorg.com

Re: RFS: lowpan-tools

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Hello,

On 9/8/10, Luca Bruno lu...@debian.org wrote:
 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov scrisse:

 I am looking for a sponsor for my package lowpan-tools.

 Sorry for taking so much time.
 I found some minor issues, which shouldn't be so hard to work our as
 you are also upstream author.

:)

 First of all, I'm also interested in this package, but I can't maintain
 it on my own, as I don't have enough hardware to test it. So, would you
 mind co-maintaing it? I'd be useful to put it under alioth collab-maint
 in a VCS of your choice (eg. git). Is it fine?

Collab-maint is fine for me.

I ain´t sure about best current practices in Debian if the upstream
source provides debian/ directory in the first place. Currently lowpan-tools
has gits on sf.net (git://linux-zigbee.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/linux-zigbee/
linux-zigbee) and kernel.org (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/networking/
lowpan/lowpan-tools.git). If you can use either of them (and it´s not agains
Debian recomendations for collaborative maintenance), I think it would
be the best way to go. If you´d prefer to have a repo on alioth, you
can create it the way you´d prefer.


 Then, some comments:

Thank you for the comments.
I´m currently on vacation, I´ll look on them after 20th, as I return back to my
usual computer.


 * your debian/rules contains some old and commented lines, it could
 benefits some cleaning and refactoring (the way you call binary-common
 seems a bit strange to me, at a first glance). You may also consider
 using helpers from dh7.

IIRC that was (mostly) generated by some version of dh_make. I´ll look into
cleaning it up.

 * your debian/copyright is a bit incomplete; the repo on github seems
 to be vanished, and some files are not GPLv2 (eg. include/ieee802154.h
 is LGPLv2.1+ and IMHO coord-config-parse.c may benefit of some
 clarification)

ACK.
BTW: what clarifications would you like for the parser code? Is
phrasing like this
enough:
 parser files are generated by bison and contain some bison code (licesed
under GPL3+), however by special upstream exception those files are distributed
under GPL2, as those files are a part of a greater wok.

Also I´d need to add some clarifications for the flex-generated file
(coord-config-lex.c).


 * your debian/changelog should mention that this version is the first
 officially uploaded, and in theory should refer to an ITP (which I
 haven't found, I think you didn't open it).

Let´s mark ¨first uploaded¨ version right before one will really upload it
to d.o. Do I need to file ITP? If so, I´ll do it after 20th.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=qiacz66±6huevt8hdkhvl9taaydw5wcp...@mail.gmail.com

RFS: lowpan-tools

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package lowpan-tools.

* Package name: lowpan-tools
  Version : 0.2.2-1
  Upstream Authors: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov and Sergey Lapin
* URL : http://linux-zigbee.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPLv2
  Section : net

It builds these binary packages:
liblowpan-dev - Include files and examples for writing programming for LoWPAN
lowpan-test-tools - Testing programs for LoWPAN stack in Linux
lowpan-tools - Base programs for LoWPAN in Linux, the net-tools for LoWPAN

The package appears to be lintian clean.

My motivation for maintaining this package is: [fill in].

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lowpan-tools
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
contrib non-free
- dget 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lowpan-tools/lowpan-tools_0.2.2-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100818104349.ga16...@doriath.ww600.siemens.net