Bug#877430: RFS: debdate/0.20170714-1 [ITP] -- Convert Gregorian dates to Debian Regnal dates
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "debdate" * Package name: debdate Version : 0.20170714-1 Upstream Author : Elena Grandi * URL : http://git.trueelena.org/cgit.cgi/software/debdate/about/ * License : WTFPL Section : utils It builds those binary packages: debdate- Convert Gregorian dates to Debian Regnal dates To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/debdate Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/debdate/debdate_0.20170714-1.dsc The packaging is currently on collab-maint: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/debdate.git (clone) https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debdate.git (browse) Changes since the last upload: This would be the first upload, closing the ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877404 Regards, Elena Grandi
Re: Best GPG practices before sending computer to maintenance.
On 2016-11-12 at 17:15:49 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > The best practice is: Use full-disk encryption. The only cost to this is > setting it up before you start using the storage device, and entering > the passphrase every time you start it. or, if you're only worried about gpg (and ssk keys), move them outside the main storage, ideally to a dedicated device (OpenPGP smart card or usb implementation of it), or at the very least an usb stick. I would feel safe sending my main disk out for repairs, since it has no crypto secrets (they are on a smartcard) nor confidential data (stored on different storage), but by the time it came back I would consider it compromised and requiring a full format + reinstall, so you might as well start by doing a wipe + basic reinstallation now before you send it away, to be sure that any interesting datai, including your deleted .gnupg, is very hard to retrieve. -- Elena ``of Valhalla''
Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1
On 2017-08-19 at 20:54:34 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > No, it just means that I rashed too much at reviewing it last night and > was already sleeping. > I didn't notice all those files where inside a directory -.-' lol :) > > That's exactly the issue, I've added a comment with a pointer to > > https://github.com/ema/pycodicefiscale/issues/6 > The project doesn't strike me as very active, but thanks :) Well, the scope of the project is quite limited, and it its feature set is basically complete or nearly so, so the lack of commit activity doesn't worry me. Around the time when I opened that issue I also proposed a (small) pull request to add python3 support and that one was accepted in a very short time, so the project didn't look abandoned. https://github.com/ema/pycodicefiscale/pull/5 > > > * just quickly skimming over the README, I think it would make sense to > > > include in the binaries, as it provides quick documentation (I think) > > > > yes, it does, you're right (added in git) > [...] > This is not going to do what you expect, check both the produced > binaries ;) yeah, that did exactly half of what I expected :) should be fixed now (also in git) > (`debc` right after having built the package is handy for that, I run > it in a pbuilder hook for example) Thanks. I currently check packages with lintian (--pedantic) and piuparts, and I sort-of-know-but-still-don't-use check-all-the-things: is there something else I should/can add to the list? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1
On 2016-08-18 at 22:27:42 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> FYI: no need to explicitly CC d-mentors@, RFSes are somehow sent there
> anyway.
ack
> This is DPMT, where the usage of git is mandated, so I expect the git
> repository to match the generated .dsc (hence I'm ignoring mentors here)
it does (hopefully) match, yes
> A few small things I'd like to see:
>
> * you email address in d/copyright
added in git
> * Files-Excluded in d/copyright doesn't list all the files that are
> removed (at least according to `git diff --stat
> upstream/0.9..upstream/0.9+ds0`)
> besides, wrapping that list might not be a bad idea
Uhm, I used uscan to remove the files, so nothing that wasn't listed was
removed.
Do you mean that I should explicitely list all of the content of the
directory ``codicefiscale.egg-info``, instead of just listing the
directory?
> * Also would be nice to see Build-Depends wrap-and-sort'ed
done in git
> * python3-codicefiscale uses ${python:Depends} instead of
> ${python3:Depends}
uooops, fixed in git
> * why do you disable the tests? (a comment on d/rules might not be a
> bad idea here either)
> + I see setup.py lists non-existant tests, if that's the issue maybe
> you can get that tests= arg removed (or the actual tests included)
> upstream?
That's exactly the issue, I've added a comment with a pointer to
https://github.com/ema/pycodicefiscale/issues/6
> * in d/watch, you dversionmangle '.ds0' away, but you're using '+ds0'
> actually, so it's not actually mangling anything
I hate single character typos, fixed in git (it appeared to work in
practice, but only because of versions ordering)
> * just quickly skimming over the README, I think it would make sense to
> include in the binaries, as it provides quick documentation (I think)
yes, it does, you're right (added in git)
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1
On 2016-08-18 at 21:48:05 +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > To access further information about this package, please visit the following > URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/codicefiscale > > > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/codicefiscale/codicefiscale_0.9-1.dsc > > Or directly from git at: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/codicefiscale.git sorry, I forgot about removing the codicefiscale.egg-info, the actual dsc is: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/codicefiscale/codicefiscale_0.9+ds0-1.dsc (all other urls are ok, and their content have been updated, sorry) -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#834768: RFS: codicefiscale/0.9-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "codicefiscale" * Package name: codicefiscale Version : 0.9-1 Upstream Author : Emanuele Rocca * URL : https://github.com/ema/pycodicefiscale * License : LGPL-2.1+ Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-codicefiscale - Generate and validate Italian "codice fiscale" (Python 2.x) python3-codicefiscale - Generate and validate Italian "codice fiscale" (Python 3.x) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/codicefiscale Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/codicefiscale/codicefiscale_0.9-1.dsc Or directly from git at: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/codicefiscale.git This is the first upload for this package (the it ITP bug is at https://bugs.debian.org/834710 ). Regards, -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to upgrade my gpg key to debian standards?
On 2016-07-10 at 22:53:46 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > - https://debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/48 > - https://help.riseup.net/en/security/message-security/openpgp/best-practices > - the hopenpgp-tools package to check your key -- very useful! I would also recommend: https://wiki.debian.org/Subkeys And possibly https://wiki.debian.org/GnuPG/AirgappedMasterKey https://wiki.debian.org/GnuPG/SmartcardSubkeys -- Elena ``of Valhalla''
Re: Bug#827907: RFS: evil/1.2.12-1 ITP
On 2016-06-23 at 18:53:08 +0900, Sean Whitton wrote: > 2. In d/copyright, I think you need to specify copyright years for the >copyright holders. Just their names is not enough, since on a desert >island ~60 years from now with no newer versions of evil available >for download, the code would become public domain :) (well, I guess >the old version of the code would be public domain on the mainland too) AFAIK as long as the copyrigth date is recent enough (i.e. it doesn't end in one of the miriad exceptions for past works) and the copyright holder is not anonymous/a company the date of publication isn't relevant for copyright expiry, just the date of death of the author (which of course is not known in advance, so people on a desert island have no way to know for sure whether something is in public domain because of copyright expiry). -- Elena ``of Valhalla''
Re: [OT] Re: user want messages removed from mailing list
On 2015-11-18 at 23:10:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:18:04PM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit : > > Reporting non-spam messages as spam is counter-productive. It won't help the > > message disappear. > there are definitely precedents were messages containing private information > that the poster did not want to send or regrets to have sent have been removed > with the spam-removal interface. isn't it going to give an illusion that the message has been removed, when instead it is available on a number of 3rd party archives on which nobody in this list has any control? It isn't very useful to remove a message from https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2015/11/threads.html when it is available e.g. on http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.mentors https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-mentors@lists.debian.org/info.html and at least gmane has even bigger chances to end up on a google result than lists.debian.org did. -- Elena ``of Valhalla''
Re: Facilitating contributions by newcomers
On 2014-11-10 at 11:41:39 +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > But I can see that rewarding individual tasks with badges and the like > can have their appeal, especially for newcomers not yet having > aspirations of becoming DM/DD, instead only wishing to contribute a > little something back to Debian, even if it's just a one-off thing. I > think rewarding contributions in this fashion is a great way to inspire > an "I'm part of this" feeling in contributors. Speaking of giving an "I'm part of this" feeling: do you already know about contributors_? It is meant to track contributions to Debian, with the aim to thank both newcomers and continuing contributors, altought it doesn't work at the single task level, but is more focused on continuity. Some more informations about it are available on the announce_ email. .. _contributors: https://contributors.debian.org/ .. _announce: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/12/msg9.html -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110120641.gb24...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: Bug#758715: RFS: bgfinancas/2.0-1 [ITP]
On 2014-08-21 at 14:38:53 +0300, José Robson Mariano Alves wrote: > > I think it would be best to just use the user's locale to decide which > > language to display. > Hi Paul, the user decide is better, because some users have systems in > English and prefer the Portuguese language, or otherwise. > I have friends who think this way. > Example: people learning new languages. > Personally I would find it quite bothersome if I had to set the language for every program instead of just setting a locale for my user and having everything following it. Users on shared computers can easily (I believe: how easy may depend on the desktop environment used) set their own locale, even if the system-wide default is different from their choice, even just for a session, and it is also possibile to change the locale shown to a single locale respecting program, to support the mixed language environment you mentioned, but the reverse is not true. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140821132446.ga19...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Bug#753110: RFS: mrrescue/1.02c-1 ITP
On 2014-07-17 at 20:28:59 +1000, Steven Hamilton wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:03:59 +0200 > Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > > Did you write to the author? > I did. Should I include the email somewhere? I believe it is better to have this email somewhere public (with author's permission). When something similar happened to me there was a ticket on the upstream bugtracker and I posted the clarification email there, so that it could be available also to people looking for it outside debian, but in this case I guess that unless somebody else has better ideas the debian BTS will do. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140717113934.gc2...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Bug#753110: RFS: mrrescue/1.02c-1 ITP
I can't sponsor either, I'm not even into NM I'm wondering about the license of mrrescue/TSerial.lua: in the copyright file you claim it is copyright Matthias Richter and under Zlib license, but the file only states that the author is "Taehl (selfmadespi...@gmail.com)". With an internet search I've found this source for TSerial https://love2d.org/wiki/Tserial which however isn't any more useful as far as licensing is concerned. Did you write to the author? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140717080359.gb2...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: Uploading new version of package to mentors.debian.net
On 2014-01-07 at 10:11:50 +0100, matus valo wrote: > I haven't found documentation about procedure how to upload new version of > package to mentors.debian.net. So I tried to upload it the same way as I > uploaded original version. Nothing happened. dput creates a $PKG.$ARCHIVE.upload file to prevent multiple, different, uploads to the debian archives for the same package. since mentors.debian.net does not require uploads to be unique, you can just delete that file and resend the package using the same command; you can delete the old versions on mentors manually, or you can leave them online to be autoremoved later. > As I found later, the package is stucked in upload queue, since > my package is found in: > > ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/ I believe that this is the upload queue for the main archive, for which you don't have upload rights (the files will be deleted when they will fail the signature check). Maybe during your tests you used the wrong dput configuration? IIRC if you don't specify a destination it will put files there by default. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- 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/20140107093348.ga3...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: Bug#719920: RFS: gramps/3.4.1-0.3 [NMU]
On 2013-10-16 at 18:02:14 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote: > 1. Unless I missed something, mentors.debian.net forces subsequent > uploads to have the version incremented. So that would mean doing it > right first time! it's not mentors that forces it, it's dput: if the package hasn't been uploaded to the repositories yet you can just delete the $PKG_NAME$VERSION.mentors.upload file and reupload on mentors -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- 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/20131016180448.ga12...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: Volunteer in need of a mentor
On 2013-09-23 at 20:17:23 -0300, Beco wrote: > Good! I'll start with that. But without a mentor it will be hard to > know if I'm doing the right things, and I don't want to pollute the > list with too basic questions. Anyway, thanks. I'll manage somehow. You may also consider joining #debian-mentors on irc.debian.org (see https://wiki.debian.org/IRC ), where you can ask questions in a medium that is a bit less formal than the mailing list. I have read about Debian Women's mentorship program, but I believe it currently is suspended for lack of volunteers. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- 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/20130924074547.ga4...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: modifications by sponsors
On 2012-07-11 at 11:34:20 +, Bart Martens wrote: > I have the following questions about sponsorship. I would like to welcome > answers from sponsors and from people maintaining packages via sponsorship. As somebody who has just started maintaining via sponsorship. > Is it OK that a sponsor adds modifications to a sponsored package ? Minor changes that don't change my packaging workflow are fine. Silent changes on the other hand are bad, since they don't allow me to learn. > Is it OK that a sponsor adds him/herself to "Uploaders" ? If his/her involvement is significant (in terms of suggested / applied changes, not just time spent testing) I guess that the package is already co-maintained in practice, so why not? This should be done in agreement with the maintainer, however. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: python-gnupg
On 2012-03-27 at 18:39:11 +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > I'm also very interested in this python-gnupg, and I've made some > small modifications to your packaging, namely: That's great, thanks > [...] > - Added python-modules team to Uploaders and added Vcs-* tags (I > believe you'll want to maintain the package within the team, let me > know if you don't want that); Of course, I was just planning to ask permission to the team before adding it. > [...] > Can I please upload the updated version to mentors.d.n? I don't think I will be able to do it before thursday, but I'll upload it as soon as I can. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: python-gnupg
On 2012-03-01 at 11:54:05 +0100, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > > > Question to upstream: does random_binary_data need to be _that_ big? > > > Seriously, it takes >97% of space in the tarball. :| > > I've written upstream and asked about it. > I'm still waiting for an answer from upstream, so I haven't done > anything for this issue yet. Upstream answered: the file was generated using os.urandom() or something to be able to test on a non-trivial file and will be removed from future releases to be generated as needed before running the tests. Should I repackage the orig tarball for this release or is it fine to keep it for now? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: python-gnupg
On 2012-02-23 at 15:58:37 +0100, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > Thanks for your comments, I'm going to fix the package and reupload it. I've uploaded a new version which should fix most problems in the first attempt (and add new problems, of course), it is available at http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-gnupg or via dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gnupg/python-gnupg_0.2.8-1.dsc as usual. I would be grateful for any comment/review/suggestion. > > Question to upstream: does random_binary_data need to be _that_ big? > > Seriously, it takes >97% of space in the tarball. :| > I've written upstream and asked about it. I'm still waiting for an answer from upstream, so I haven't done anything for this issue yet. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: python-gnupg
On 2012-02-22 at 13:22:53 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Elena ``of Valhalla'' , 2012-02-22, 12:23: > > dget -x > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gnupg/python-gnupg_0.2.8-1.dsc > > [many different problems] Thanks for your comments, I'm going to fix the package and reupload it. One question: should I increase the revision number or is that needed only after a certain version+release has reached the actual repo? > Question to upstream: does random_binary_data need to be _that_ big? > Seriously, it takes >97% of space in the tarball. :| I've written upstream and asked about it. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: python-gnupg
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-gnupg". * Package name: python-gnupg Version : 0.2.8-1 Upstream Author : Vinay Sajip * URL : http://code.google.com/p/python-gnupg/ * License : BSD Section : python Description: python-gnupg is a python module that wraps the gnupg command and allows to generate and manage keys, encrypt and decrypt data, sign and verify messages in a pythonic way. Compared to alternatives such as python-gpgme it is fully documented both with docstrings and a manual available at http://packages.python.org/python-gnupg/ It builds those binary packages: python-gnupg - pythonic wrapper for the gnupg command To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-gnupg Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gnupg/python-gnupg_0.2.8-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
