Bug#1030528: RFS: mg/20221112-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Hi folks, I am looking for a new sponsor for my "mg" package, which is already in Debian and hosted on Salsa. I tried to contact the old sponsor several times, but I got no response. * Package name : mg Version : 20221112-1 Upstream contact : Han Boetes * URL : https://github.com/hboetes/mg * License : public-domain * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg The source builds the following binary packages: mg - microscopic GNU Emacs-style editor To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg https://packages.debian.org/sid/mg https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mg Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: none yet Changes since the last upload: mg (20221112-1) unstable; urgency=medium * new upstream version 20221112 -- Harald Dunkel Sat, 19 Nov 2022 19:16:48 +0100 Thank you very much Harri
Re: RFS: looking for a sponsor to upgrade mg (repost)
On 2021-09-22 15:04:43, Hilmar Preuße wrote: Please refer to the mentors FAQ: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_get_a_sponsor_for_my_package.3F Hilmar The package is already in Debian, but the previous sponsor did not reply to my EMail. Regards Harri
RFS: looking for a sponsor to upgrade mg (repost)
Hi folks, I am looking for a sponsor to review the new mg package for Sid, as it can be found on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg . Its not tagged yet. (I missed the RFS in the subject line, so this is a repost.) Thank you very much in advance Harri
looking for a sponsor to upgrade mg
Hi folks, I am looking for a sponsor to review the new mg package for Sid, as it can be found on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg . Its not tagged yet. Thank you very much in advance Harri
is Salsa frozen?
Hi folks, I have a new version of mg ready to go, but I am concerned that pushing it to Salsa might trigger an unwanted change to Bullseye during code freeze. Does it? Hope you don't mind asking. I am just careful. Harri -- [1] https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=mg [2] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mg
RFS: network-manager-strongswan
Hi folks, I am looking for a sponsor for network-manager-strongswan. https://bugs.debian.org/964076 Regards Harri
Bug#964076: RFS network-manager-strongswan
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Hi folks, my previous sponsor became unresponsive, so I am looking for a new sponsor for network-manager-strongswan. The source package is on salsa. Package name: network-manager-strongswan Version : 1.5.2-1 Upstream Author : strongswan project URL : https://strongswan.org/ License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: C Section : net Description : network management framework (strongSwan plugin) https://salsa.debian.org/debian/network-manager-strongswan https://packages.debian.org/sid/network-manager-strongswan Regards Harri
RFS: #888743 (lsb-base)
Hi folks, I would need a sponsor to fix lsb-base (#888743). The patch is trivial (see the BR), but nevertheless this is a hot story, since every service has this package on its dependency list. Are there volunteers? Should this fix go to experimental first? Regards Harri
Re: RFS: network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2-1
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:26:52 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Harald Dunkel writes ("RFS: network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2-1"):
> > I am looking for a sponsor to upload a new version of
> > network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2-1.
>
> I'm willing. (Looking at my emails I seem to have dropped your
> previous sponsorship request to me. Sorry.)
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
I see the new version is online. Thanx for your support.
Harri
RFS: network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2-1
Hi folks, I am looking for a sponsor to upload a new version of network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2-1. Regards Harri
NMU for autofs failed for binary package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi folks, I tried an NMU for autofs, but this failed for the binary package: % dput mentors autofs_5.1.2-1.1_source.changes /export/pbuilder/stretch-amd64/result/autofs_5.1.2-1.1_amd64.changes Checking signature on .changes gpg: /home/harri/debian/autofs/autofs_5.1.2-1.1_source.changes: Valid signature from 0A9E2A9E66D381CB Checking signature on .dsc gpg: /home/harri/debian/autofs/autofs_5.1.2-1.1.dsc: Valid signature from 0A9E2A9E66D381CB Uploading to mentors (via http to mentors.debian.net): Uploading autofs_5.1.2-1.1.dsc: done. Uploading autofs_5.1.2-1.1.debian.tar.xz: done. Uploading autofs_5.1.2-1.1_source.buildinfo: done. Uploading autofs_5.1.2-1.1_source.changes: done. Successfully uploaded packages. Checking signature on .changes gpg: /export/pbuilder/stretch-amd64/result/autofs_5.1.2-1.1_amd64.changes: error 58: Invocation of gpgme_op_verify Invocation of gpgme_op_verify: GPGME: No data Since the binary package is of no use since everything is rebuilt anyway, I wonder if this is a problem at all. Is it? Every helpful comment is highly appreciated. Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEH2V614LbR/u1O+a1Cp4qnmbTgcsFAljzI3MACgkQCp4qnmbT gcu2XggAg4SzTMhP76Ll/1Ywngd+IiATxywXjE3iMAbjXMXNNq1VaLUytfPzJhW+ vXZQM2rCE6Ry8K0lZBu4Tqp7YB2v7nw2g2k/seiUDJoWgcDFvWS5yoFKD/fCsW1g 6Tpd/gbzjx8dcoBwWJwbIegHsu6yE0qdH3zN5RfHTopkav7twtJC1ZEDKj8jUgZt TM0XOBjcFTSd42dMIz2CZshjrr8n/Iftdjo63m3YeqxgubEHbtLl/2L9CzsX2aoD 3+RCMJNs1pUwGr4aAFHvqg9wDq0MdGQFazJc4eCHD0sYuP/r0sTZfQzDpjaaecx/ UC2AAp7qMejs9N23+N2OGs9bHNzYAg== =Mle9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: looking for a sponsor to nmu #767016
On 03/08/2016 12:12 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU to get rid of #767016. > Somebody with systemd experience would be welcome. > PS: I posted a patch in the BTS. Regards Harri
looking for a sponsor to nmu #767016
Hi folks, I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU to get rid of #767016. Somebody with systemd experience would be welcome. Regards Harri
RFS: blockade upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, I had sent this before, but there was no volunteer :-(. Please don't feel offended if I try again. I am looking for a sponsor for blockade. Its a sokoban-like XWindow game. The game itself is public domain, but most of the the levels included are not. blockade is already in the official non-free repository. Here is whats new: * move from gcc-4.2 to gcc * use maintainer's new email address * fix lintian problems: * follow up-to-date standard 3.9.1 * use debhelper compatibility #8 * install to /usr/games * fix whatis entry in man page * Switch to dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format The new version 20041028-14 can be found on mentors. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2UUfkACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfk1gCfY/P0Qv0qHBPx6K4Mxot42zNk rUwAnAwYYLWFMvlwJ+exkEQif1lxK2lm =ZF69 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d9451f9.6050...@afaics.de
Re: ubuntu keyring?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Bob, On 03/19/11 03:35, Robert James Clay wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 2:18 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> >> Of course that could be done for all packages. The disadvantage is that >> these packages are not kept up-to-date. > > I'm not sure what you're referring to, there... You did note that what > I was referring to, to download & install locally, was the ubuntu keyring > package? > Yes, but you cannot add the Ubuntu repository to your sources.list on Debian. Ubuntu's keyring package wouldn't be integrated, AFAICS. pbuilder relies upon an integrated keyring file. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2ET2IACgkQUTlbRTxpHjeTxQCfdo39OAAEiD9NvWFy0LvErH2Q 5IcAniNPnJ0X2K1v5H20r3138Po17+Jg =U97W -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d844f6f.8000...@afaics.de
Re: what if upstream provides debian build directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/18/11 21:13, Adam Borowski wrote: > > The 3.0 format has a number of upsides and one downside: quilt. Sadly, the > variants are only 3.0 (native) which doesn't apply and 3.0 (quilt). The > latter interacts disastrously with keeping the packaging under version > control -- and the very idea of _not_ using version control today is quite > ridiculous. > I like quilt, but coming from release management I would second that. It would be a pretty nice idea to be able to use git (or something better) to manage the conversion from upstream's sources into a Debian source package. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2DwbMACgkQUTlbRTxpHjcc2wCfd9IUxXUV1FyJ3+XDhXZYGeog f6kAoIJ7Rv3rJ4Ht2PagmBmD+ykwT8y7 =Kdvp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d83c1b3.10...@afaics.de
Re: what if upstream provides debian build directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/18/11 20:57, Harald Jenny wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 07:46:46PM +, The Fungi wrote: >> >> Not ignored at all... maintainers who find an upstream debian >> directory getting in the way (and who are unable to successfully >> convince upstream of the inconvenience) usually either repackage the >> upstream source to remove it, or use v3 packaging format which >> clears and replaces it with the contents of the maintainer's files >> when unpacking. > > While the first option may be more elegant the second one may resemble more > the > usage pattern of a Debian user trying to build a new Debian package version > (download the new source and then use the diff or tar containing the debian > directory on top of it). > Actually I never understood why the "debian" directory had to be put _into_ upstream's source directory tree. Changing upstream's directories is just asking for troubles. IMU the "debian" directory provides the framework for building a Debian package from upstream's sources. We have a hierarchy here, but the source package directory tree shows a _different_ hierarchy. When I started building Debian packages I found this highly confusing, but maybe this was just me. If upstream's sources would be embedded inside the debian build directory, then it would be easier to avoid conflicts and to manage patches. It wouldn't be necessary to distinguish between native and non-native packages, either. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2DwJ4ACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfGngCbBi7Y0VveQQvw2DnDEcU057hI fuwAni2iivAi6JBCgVvPHF7wT7OqEVbf =Vyty -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d83c09e.8020...@afaics.de
what if upstream provides debian build directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, What is Debian's policy, if upstream provides its own debian directory or package build procedure? Is upstream always right? Does or should this source package become a "native" package? How do I include patches? What if upstream's package sets conflict with Debian's packages, and I want to install upstream's packages? Is it the DM's responsibility to avoid this conflict or to preserve compatibility? Famous example for this would be the Linux kernel sources. Of course I checked Debian's Policy Manual, but AFAICS this subject has been successfully ignored by now. Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2DsMgACgkQUTlbRTxpHjeFYwCdHnLTPJMYJhntv+lEOPhd3Cy9 Fv8AmwT5L6GT625Zbn/vOAWgB16YSkWR =WvzN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d83b0c8.7060...@afaics.de
Re: ubuntu keyring?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/11 15:40, Robert James Clay wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> I have Ubuntu on my Laptop, but of course I would prefer to keep Debian >> as the base platform for package development. What would you suggest >> how to include the Ubuntu keyring into Debian? > > Download the source archive for it, build it locally, then install it. > That's what I did for my local systems, for similar reasons... > Of course that could be done for all packages. The disadvantage is that these packages are not kept up-to-date. The Ubuntu solution seems to be very smart. Package developers are attracted, moving them away from Debian. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2Bp8UACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfTrQCeParL0hwq8ptGALypEBaKhrMm K34Ani8JPCycQcbk91F+JXh8wEfbJNYT =9bwM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d81a7ca.7030...@afaics.de
ubuntu keyring?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, I am trying to setup a pbuilder environment for mixed amd64 and i386. Google pointed me to this page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto Seems that Ubuntu provides the Debian keyring as well. According to this page this makes Ubuntu a very powerful package development platform for both Ubuntu _and Debian. I have Ubuntu on my Laptop, but of course I would prefer to keep Debian as the base platform for package development. What would you suggest how to include the Ubuntu keyring into Debian? Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk18jBAACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfO+ACggihBDlNHAZ4UJXLr9JKLKTDi 5nIAnR4JQ8sXSJjf9GuL77eLzYRgeRP8 =GE5m -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d7c8c15.3080...@afaics.de
Re: ${xviddriver:Provides} broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Sven, On 02/23/11 20:24, Sven Joachim wrote: >> >> Do you think this is OK? > > Well, if you don't want to support xserver-xorg-core versions with a > different ABI in the same binary package, then that's probably okay. > >> You can find my repository at http://afaics.de/debian/ > > Not really, it gives me a 403 error. > Sorry, I missed to restart Apache. It should work now (hopefully), but its difficult for me to verify. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1lgJ8ACgkQUTlbRTxpHjf7KwCfR88ipjCOUnpqoUr+O9Lv6Kef 45EAn2zGrgVyqKh+JbJgQeTM4aM+gYhb =SFqj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d65809f.2090...@afaics.de
Re: ${xviddriver:Provides} broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Sven, On 02/23/11 17:06, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2011-02-23 16:39 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Sorry, I got confused myself. That should have read > xserver-driver-video, not xserver-xorg-video. > Sorry, but this doesn't seem right. xserver-xorg says it depends upon xserver-xorg-video-all | xorg-driver-video The free video drivers provide xorg-driver-video, too. >> >> : >> VIDEOABI = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/videoabiver 2>/dev/null) >> INPUTABI = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/inputabiver 2>/dev/null) >> VIDDRIVER_PROVIDES = xserver-xorg-video-$(VIDEOABI), xorg-driver-video >> INPDRIVER_PROVIDES = xserver-xorg-input-$(INPUTABI), xorg-driver-input >> : >> : >> # This makes sure that the xserver ABI is bumped to match the current one >> when the >> # packages are built >> .PHONY: serverabi >> serverabi: >> echo "xviddriver:Provides=$(VIDDRIVER_PROVIDES)" >> >> debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars >> echo "xinpdriver:Provides=$(INPDRIVER_PROVIDES)" >> >> debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars > > This stuff is rather obsolete with current xorg-server versions. > OK, I kicked it out. xorg-driver-video is hardcoded in debian/control now. AFAICS dh_xfs_substvars is not integrated in cdbs, nor is it documented at all, so I kept VIDEODEP = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/videodrvdep 2>/dev/null) INPUTDEP = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/xinputdep 2>/dev/null) : : .PHONY: serverabi serverabi: echo "xviddriver:Depends=$(VIDEODEP)" >> debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars echo "xinpdriver:Depends=$(INPUTDEP)" >> debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars # the following is there for compatibility... echo "xserver:Depends=$(VIDEODEP), $(INPUTDEP)" >> debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars Do you think this is OK? You can find my repository at http://afaics.de/debian/ Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1lV+IACgkQUTlbRTxpHjdK4wCcDlkMC0QKXzvvdB5zWNxWMpFQ eAYAoIIBSnHPmBLCk32J4BwjxwoMCDdo =b7Rx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d6557e2.4070...@afaics.de
Re: ${xviddriver:Provides} broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sven,
On 02/22/11 23:29, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-02-22 23:08 +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>
>> On 02/22/11 21:29, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you using xsfbs? If so, this is probably because the
>>> /usr/share/xserver-xorg/videoabiver file is gone.
>>>
>>>> instead of
>>>>
>>>>xserver-xorg-video-6.0
>>>> or
>>>>xserver-xorg-video-8.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How comes? Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated.
>>>
>>> You should just provide xserver-xorg-video and not any particular ABI.
>>> In xserver-org-dev 2:1.9.4-1 and later, dh_xsf_substvars will expand
>>> "${xviddriver:Provides}" accordingly.
>>>
>>
>> I have xserver-xorg-dev 2:1.9.4-3 installed, so instead of
>> "xserver-xorg-video-"
>> it should have set "xserver-xorg-video", right?
>
> If you are using dh_xsf_substvars. But I suspect you don't, and
> ${xviddriver:Provides} gets expanded by a makefile snippet in your
> source tree instead which tries to read a non-existent file.
>
Yup, you are right, its set in debian/rules:
:
VIDEOABI = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/videoabiver 2>/dev/null)
INPUTABI = $(shell cat /usr/share/xserver-xorg/inputabiver 2>/dev/null)
VIDDRIVER_PROVIDES = xserver-xorg-video-$(VIDEOABI), xorg-driver-video
INPDRIVER_PROVIDES = xserver-xorg-input-$(INPUTABI), xorg-driver-input
:
:
# This makes sure that the xserver ABI is bumped to match the current one when
the
# packages are built
.PHONY: serverabi
serverabi:
echo "xviddriver:Provides=$(VIDDRIVER_PROVIDES)" >>
debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars
echo "xinpdriver:Provides=$(INPDRIVER_PROVIDES)" >>
debian/$(PKG_driver).substvars
:
Unfortunately xserver-xorg-core version 2:1.9.4-3 explicitly lists
both xserver-xorg-video and xserver-xorg-video-6 in its "Breaks"
list, so providing "xserver-xorg-video" instead of the old
"xserver-xorg-video-6" does not resolve the conflict.
What would you suggest where I should get the abi version from? Should
I rely upon this volatile procedure at all, or should I simply hardcode
it in debian/rules?
You mentioned "dh_xsf_substvars", but this is not in debhelper, as it
seems.
Regards
Harri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1lKhUACgkQUTlbRTxpHjd49gCfXD0I9GCIY878j1k2CsrazOMc
VaYAnA7McxquuQSrl499vsCGGjJQe1sP
=8fIy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
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/4d652a1a.90...@afaics.de
Re: ${xviddriver:Provides} broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sven,
On 02/22/11 21:29, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> Are you using xsfbs? If so, this is probably because the
> /usr/share/xserver-xorg/videoabiver file is gone.
>
>> instead of
>>
>> xserver-xorg-video-6.0
>> or
>> xserver-xorg-video-8.0
>>
>>
>> How comes? Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated.
>
> You should just provide xserver-xorg-video and not any particular ABI.
> In xserver-org-dev 2:1.9.4-1 and later, dh_xsf_substvars will expand
> "${xviddriver:Provides}" accordingly.
>
I have xserver-xorg-dev 2:1.9.4-3 installed, so instead of
"xserver-xorg-video-"
it should have set "xserver-xorg-video", right? The ${xinpdriver:Provides}
seems to have the same problem.
Bug report?
Regards
Harri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1kM+YACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfptACgiaOrbWTnRUgr117UECPR0Ihp
XgEAn14rskipCUI+u4uFd3EhnhegtBis
=dcA9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
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/4d6433e6.1040...@afaics.de
${xviddriver:Provides} broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
I am running my own NVidia graphics package. Problem: After the most
recent upgrade of xorg the "${xviddriver:Provides}" macro in the
"Provides:" line expands to
xserver-xorg-video-
instead of
xserver-xorg-video-6.0
or
xserver-xorg-video-8.0
How comes? Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated.
Regards
Harri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1kEtYACgkQUTlbRTxpHjeTFQCeLZq6+ryjhovtwAqP1rVPjNyc
jX8An2QwCXoNsGUgvCMUWMtuR/tNlfHK
=a8Zb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
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/4d6412d6.3080...@afaics.de
Re: RFS: blockade upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Paul, On 02/12/11 12:06, Paul Wise wrote: > > This is a topic I would like to bring up at the upcoming Debian games > team meeting in March: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/02/msg9.html > I wouldn't like to postpone an ugrade of the existing blockade package for such a long time. Do you think it would be possible to move the upgrade to the official non-free repository now? Many thanx for your help Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1cy0UACgkQUTlbRTxpHjcakACdHgirys3+rKVFAeofcgtLAg7c DzAAoITv7sEyFkrywnOIj9uG/4ZsTxKp =nuPh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d5ccb4a.4020...@afaics.de
Re: RFS: blockade upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/12/11 04:12, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for blockade. Its a sokoban-like >> XWindow game. The game itself is public domain, but most of >> the the levels included are not. > > Have you considered splitting the source package in two to create > blockade and blockade-nonfree? > Sure. Another option suggested on this list before was to drop the non-free levels completely and to rely upon some contributors to get in new levels. Both options would imply to host a new source tree somewhere. Which hoster would you suggest? Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1WTZMACgkQUTlbRTxpHjf8iwCdENo+CHPN+pm8eNLTkM2m1nJt /BoAoIjxeMdCPNflS0iveMSCBKj/cgdc =61S/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d564d98.1030...@afaics.de
RFS: blockade upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, Sorry, I missed the "RFS:" in my previous EMail. I am looking for a sponsor for blockade. Its a sokoban-like XWindow game. The game itself is public domain, but most of the the levels included are not. blockade is already in the official non-free repository. Here is whats new: * move from gcc-4.2 to gcc * use maintainer's new email address * fix lintian problems: * follow up-to-date standard 3.9.1 * use debhelper compatibility #8 * install to /usr/games * fix whatis entry in man page * Switch to dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format The new version 20041028-14 can be found on mentors. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1VulkACgkQUTlbRTxpHjcZNgCfUs0bWmoCzHSeDRzhR+d7DNeo Y/4An2vGqUQAUE97ng7hiKKaBhPEilhe =NgfH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d55ba59.2050...@afaics.de
somebody please upload a new version of my package?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, It would be very nice if somebody could volunteer to verify and upload a new version of my package "blockade" into unstable (non-free). I just brought it up-to-date wrt Debian policy and debhelper and lintian. There were no bugs to fix. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1VtWEACgkQUTlbRTxpHjdhhwCePDringssbUiwHLbQdi+8MTC6 iMIAn1gq71V55wTFKrexSGWzEVLejWQJ =fy1g -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d55b561.4010...@afaics.de
new version of blockade on mentors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, I have updated blockade and put it on mentors. Do you think it would be possible to forward it to the official repository? Of course it is lintian-clean, but it would be very nice if someone could take a look. Many thanx Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1TAHkACgkQUTlbRTxpHjenZACeLgUA3fKLplZEZ0drQR0dbmJG se8An2xgbgI2tSYpUr+uoIsx26cVZrPk =eA0k -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4d530079.8070...@afaics.de
Re: Conflicts vs Replaces vs Provides
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/05/10 13:37, Sven Joachim wrote: > Am 05.12.2010 um 12:05 schrieb Harald Dunkel: > >> Doesn't this mean that no other >> packages providing libgl1 can be installed, > > Not along libgl1-mesa-glx, yes. It's not like there are many other > providers currently. > >> making /etc/alternatives useless? > > There are no alternatives in the libgl1-mesa-glx package, could you > please elaborate? > What if someone _wants_ to install 2 libraries providing libgl and wants to choose later using update-alternatives? Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkz7318ACgkQUTlbRTxpHjd3twCfSRo5g77yPmLT7SNS/rylMaYK wooAnR8AjAGN/ETcSNMlargVwYxW7/Ew =ZcDV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4cfbdf5f.8080...@afaics.de
Conflicts vs Replaces vs Provides
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, I found this in debian/control for libgl1-mesa-glx: : Conflicts: libgl1, libgl1-mesa-dri (<< 6.4.0) Replaces: libgl1, libgl1-mesa-dri (<< 6.4.0) Provides: libgl1 : This looks weird to me. How can it replace and conflict with its own virtual package name? Doesn't this mean that no other packages providing libgl1 can be installed, making /etc/alternatives useless? Any helpful comment would be highly appreciated. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkz7cgMACgkQUTlbRTxpHjdD4ACgkLrxGGbl18f7ETvYfoEuXES8 ptYAn3utZMkPDk/05mlv+Cjp1t0X3c5R =Ibdk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4cfb7203.8090...@afaics.de
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On 10/12/09 07:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Fixing bugs is very welcome, especially RC ones. Actually, you can save time to fix more RC bugs by not fixing the less important ones in the packages that you try to rescue :) I still recommend to not include a new upstream release in the NMU you are proposing. Especially because the package is poorly maintained: the side effect of the NMU is to rescue the package from removal, so if nobody feels responsible for it, it is safer to not introduce changes that can introduce new bugs. Sorry to say, but this is counterproductive. AFAICS the new upstream version works better than the old one, and it includes almost all bug fixes done for Debian. If you suggest to ignore upstream's new version and add patches to the old version instead, just because the package maintainer is not interested anymore, then this leads to just another dead package. I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On 10/10/09 08:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Hello Harald, unless you are ready to take responsability for any breakage introduced by the version change in this library, which basically means to hijack the package, I strongly recommend against including the upstream update in the bug correction that you prepared. I understand, but AFAICS upstream has included many of Joe's changes/fixes into the new version. The open problems listed in the BTS were easy to fix. The worst part was cleaning up the patches done fore Debian, because not all of Joe's changes were included. This said, despite its maintainer seems to be active with other Debian activities, it looks like libkarma needs more care. Maybe Joe Nahmias can give us his thoughts about having co-maintainers or transferring libkarma to a team? Of course I would be glad if I can forward the new package to Joe. I don't want to hijack his package, it is just to get rid of the bugs. Maybe there are not so many Rio Karma users out there, anyway. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Hi folks, To fix several bugs I would like to do an NMU for libkarma. Two weeks ago I sent an EMail to the package maintainer asking for his permission, but there was no response. Two problems: - I would need a sponsor to review and upload the new package. - The NMU includes a new version from upstream, i.e. a new libkarma_0.1.1.orig.tar.gz . Should the new version number be 0.1.1-0 or 0.1.1-0.1? Regards Harri http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libkarma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Neil Williams wrote: > > A dead upstream effectively requires that the Debian maintainer (you) > become the upstream - are you ready to take on that task? > Lets say I am not completely unprepared, at least from the software engineering side ;-). But I am not sure about the options I have to release new "upstream" versions. Do I have to run my own web page for this purpose? [snip] > > In that case, the new upstream for the game (you) can write some new > levels that are free. It seems pointless to consign the game to > non-free when for the sake of a few game levels, it could be in main. > The "game" is not non-free, so package the game and a few new levels > and invite people to contribute new levels that are under the same > licence as the game itself. > This is surely an interesting option. Blockade can read, edit and write ASCII files providing new levels. It is just not that good in managing these levels. I could improve this. And surely I can create a few new run levels. But don't you think it would be a pity to loose the 80 existing game levels? Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Paul Wise wrote: > > All too common unfortunately. In that case, I suggest a fork (since > you can't hijack it). At least FreeBSD also includes blockade too BTW. > I found this version, too, even though I did not know that it is shipped with FreeBSD. It is surely a different version. Especially some copyright messages have changed. Would you suggest to move to FreeBSD's sources for blockade? Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Paul Wise wrote: > > Get upstream to replace the non-free bits with free bits. Upstream doesn't support this package anymore. > Some free > game resources are listed here: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Resources > The non-free part is not a wallpaper or some background music, but the game levels. If you don't know Blockade yet: Imagine every run level of Sokoban would be non-free, and developed by somebody else. Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Hi all, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > Hi Harald, > > so, I suppose that could be difficult to separate is as library with dynamic > linking, etc > I think the real problem is mixing free and non-free sources in the same *.orig.tar.gz. What would be your recommendation to handle this? Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Hi Stephane. Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > See: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/11/msg00012.html > A very helpful link. Many thanx Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Hi Leo, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > A Dissabte 11 Juliol 2009, Harald Dunkel va escriure: >> >> The sources are public domain except for the game scenes, so it >> has to go to non-free. > > Then has to go to contrib. Or better, two packages, one in main (the free > part) and another to non-free. > I am not sure about using contrib in this case. The game scenes are compiled into the binary. Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Hi Bart, Bart Martens wrote: > > Where is the Debian package ? > The upstream sources of "blockade" are already in the official repository. Maybe I can mail the new diff and *.deb files to you (130 KB )? What would you suggest? I have a question, anyway: The game is supposed to build and work on all platforms, but I can build it only for i386 and amd64. Are non-free packages built for the other platforms automagically? Or would you suggest to restrict the list of platforms? Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
looking for sponsor for a non-free package
Hi folks, To fix a FTBFS I would like to upload a new version of my game package "blockade". I am not a Debian Developer, so I am looking for a sponsor. The sources are public domain except for the game scenes, so it has to go to non-free. Is this a problem? Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Moving "blockade" from non-free to main?
Hi folks, I am pretty optimistic to clarify the license conditions for blockade (http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/blockade.html), making it possible to move it to from non-free to main (hopefully). Currently the game is public domain, except for the game scenes. Is there some specialist for this legal stuff (I am surely not), who has some time to look at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/b/blockade/current/copyright ? Many thanx Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
changelog of debian policy?
Hi folks, Is there a changelog of the Debian policy online? Actually I would have expected a pointer on http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/, but maybe I am too blind to see. Thanx in advance Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bug got stuck in "Fixed and Pending"? How comes?
Hi Mike.
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:58:12PM +0200, Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Thijs,
>>
>> Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>>> Hello Harald,
>>>
>>>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/blockade.html shows that
>>>> bug #346938 is set to "Fixed and Pending" :-{. This
>>>> bug was fixed more that 6 months ago, so what is the
>>>> BTS waiting for?
>>> The upload that fixed the bug, 20041028-9, contained these fields:
>>> | Maintainer: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> | Changed-By: Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> and thus, this is considered an NMU (the one uploading != the maintainer).
>>>
>> Blockade is one of the packages I created during the NM process.
>> I cannot upload anything yet, so Marc (my AM) did the upload,
>> too. We have (the one uploading == the maintainer) here.
>
> If you are the maintainer, you should be listed as such. Your AM only
> needs to sign your upload. That's how works sponsoring.
>
Whom should I contact to be registered as the maintainer? Should
I open a bug?
Regards
Harri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: bug got stuck in "Fixed and Pending"? How comes?
Hi Thijs,
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Hello Harald,
>
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/blockade.html shows that
>> bug #346938 is set to "Fixed and Pending" :-{. This
>> bug was fixed more that 6 months ago, so what is the
>> BTS waiting for?
>
> The upload that fixed the bug, 20041028-9, contained these fields:
> | Maintainer: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Changed-By: Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> and thus, this is considered an NMU (the one uploading != the maintainer).
>
Blockade is one of the packages I created during the NM process.
I cannot upload anything yet, so Marc (my AM) did the upload,
too. We have (the one uploading == the maintainer) here.
Seems that "NMU" is pretty misleading. IMHO it should be called
"non-maintainer change" (NMC). For the bts it should not matter
who did the change (i.e. who is mentioned in changelog). My
suggestion would be to look at the identity of the person running
dput or similar. If this is the maintainer, then the bug could be
closed immediately without setting it to "fixed and pending".
> A fixed-in-NMU (tag 'fixed') bug is not closed. You need to close it
> separately. I see you have done that today. Good, that means that it's
> now considered closed, and the PTS will update later today to reflect
> that.
>
> One more note, you closed the bug with the message "This bug was fixed
> in version 20041028-9.". You should have added a "Version: 20041028-9"
> pseudo-header to your mail so the BTS version tracking handles this
> correctly.
>
Hopefully this was not a big problem? Or should I send another
EMail to the bts?
Regards
Harri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
bug got stuck in "Fixed and Pending"? How comes?
Hi folks,
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/blockade.html shows that
bug #346938 is set to "Fixed and Pending" :-{. This
bug was fixed more that 6 months ago, so what is the
BTS waiting for?
Regards
Harri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gmail] Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Marc Leeman wrote: > > As long as my sponsors don't mind uploading the packages and I can use > aloith to cooperate with others, I don't feel the need anymore to > continue and try again for full DD; though I'm sure I would have > contributed more (a number of packages never found a sponsor, so I > dropped them). > > Sorry, but this doesn't sound very efficient to me. Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > The problems is that we're not rejecting 50% of our applicants, but > they're still in the queue. We have more and more applicants joining the > queue, but few becoming developers, and *the rest creating a backlog*. > They're still in the application process, not being rejected. > > Cheers! > Benjamin (Who needs to finish his T&S) > There is another side of the story. I was in the NM process for several months, doing many contributions (esp. for initrd- tools), while my AM was unresponsive and preferred to work on Ubuntu instead. Now I've got a new job and not so much time to work on Debian anymore, even though I am still very interested. I've got a new AM, I completed the questions part, I did some more contributions, and yet the whole procedure got stuck somehow. How comes? Since the old Pet I am in computing. The first Linux kernel I had booted was 0.95c (on a lightning-fast 33 MHz PC, AFAIR). I've got a master in CS, so I would say I am qualified. I am just trying to contribute to Debian, I am not looking for a second job. But currently I feel kept out by a bureaucratic and slow procedure. Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
