Re: What do you do when your sid development system stops working?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2014-05-12 04:33, Paul Elliott wrote: But is there some kind of work around that will let you keep working somehow? depends on what you mean by working. a) the sid machine is your primary computer, where you do all kind of things (not only packaging); in this case, a broken X system will drop your productivity towards zero (if you are like me :-), so you can as well dedicate more of your now-free time to get a running system again. btw, i often found such problem to be a combination of upgraded kernel vs incompatible/non-upgraded gfx-driver (e.g. i have a system with a rather old nvidia card using the proprietary (shudder) drivers, which i found to be incompatible with linux-3.13; so i just downgraded to 3.12 for now (and consider switching to nouveau...) b) you have a nicely running system, only your packaging environment has a broken X. in my personal workflow, this would not be a problem, as all of my packaging tools do not require X at all. (obviously things are a bit different if you are packaging an X-related application and want to *test* whether everything works as expected after doing the packaging). if that system is *only* for packaging, you might just re-install the entire thing (preferably in a VM :-) fgamsdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTcHaVAAoJELZQGcR/ejb41j4QAIt1j9fjoQVjSqZphhy7E7QW Lu2ashlx8oNZ6IhJEBMBtqQ7Jrnx5sbvHGqgsXNLZkxdZ8ZY1Ppd7po5BjQ6oLKZ k8j/miD2cHsP1dhsKGkPt8l+uId7nMzuxlCq8fLD0Z7fVbNVgqmL1fMPEZAbbecU wNihIL/kcHLjacfCdnJj4hCRxu46c8rc+hQL1D0AG3c3qHFc2LbgoI+2r6fWORKi 0SqtxqoPvYTdxPtP1VzMfZhQHNUyQhiD3sYI4vYYGa0SaDkrhZ/It3xkRo84LNnX /BfQ2UdPk7xHppESYg1KQ9V1pcHvNnQAiukNnSZLEjKfuuVMYDyFgVlz/Kf/4u7r 3trge66ewjBEisKw76xQWD/t3VUteKMyuuLCzBumXLRnz0WnA6BdFEw7Fy6VSRDt EHGXyBrHx3GU8vbbRhDfkJVZtK2rdXJoeqDqaeLVfC3E5uPUc0mx1eROly4c09y1 ymwjIk4GwGhIC+BOtLe/cZS+ANUsxIBS79qfg7F6nEZKo5ZdcWMbZRwJ0eicl95u HA0j7B5rhhTir5PFFVN7tMl/8tibzTyTfbxDMDbROxrv0+y6YpUha1PtcKENbH1A PnmJkimE2LPlL4+3sauXEVesP/IVbGBoVamQqovTHE0mtCDQJPbMm+5+u22ONxbS ACkWfGjUplbqnIK257IB =U8AC -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: https://lists.debian.org/53707698.2050...@iem.at
Re: RFS swiftmailer new upstream release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2014-05-08 14:37, Nicolas wrote: so why did you change dh compat-level from 8 to 9 then? I don't know exactly. There's no change that affect my package and the others packages I work on used compat level 9 that's a rather lame reason. if there is no change that affects your package, you should probably go for compat-level 8, to ease backporting. read: don't use overly tight (that is: more strict than needed) dependencies Ok I understand. Do you think I should make a revert and add severals commits for that release or should I do it for next ones ? the latter. you might also upload your package to mentors.debian.net to ease reviewing. Done. thanks. looking at the mentors-page, it becomes quite obvious that by now there is a newer upstream version (5.2.0) available. you might want to package the newest version. (i'm aware that your initial request for sponsorship predates swift-5.1.0; but then was then and now is now :-)) also: it's somewhat useless to mention tell lintian to not complain in your lintian-override also the override description might be a bit more to the point: what the script is used for, is not so interesting; what i find more interesting is why do you think it should stay non-executable? (the fact that upstream distributes it like this and that (afaict) it is only used on an ad-hoc basis may be enough) fgasdmr IOhannes PS: i don't want to raise too many expectations; as i'm not into php (packaging), it's unlikely that *i* will sponsor your package; in any case, i hope that my comments will help bringing the package into a state that a potential sponsor will find more useful. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTbn0BAAoJELZQGcR/ejb4CqIP/RR9NjjjP9O4sREFgr1QJgqj 4sLGc/V75USy6tRQZ5ASR2aVBZpuw6sGbRF6wmwnXVU1mJK56VxTDIRaqc96g+OD ZxSjl09EdsQemcyVQznAgMYTTbdEA7lrSKA3PXHQ0CJ7VLej3Z/4Ev7sXapcZPTl Q1ZvwO54q1Vxn8I3/OZQf/uxAQ0myTwTH27tmrfGNyBQ09w3x1Y6MAoSwsS2GV3d vs2LtJqGbGb45C+crcLQHYkttv7wzS1IpHSRBnZ4iTFiBLFQWRl173g3i40ZDyyq auI+OCvmxyXnmEoic8sUjPloaU9jyHMNMDRKTIbi6nH/jBX0eSDl8gWTe/OkhmZo fEIzQ5ker45aTrzt7/5/6vvNtjBQ+PKtcW1CS7+BgNHWal0pNH19x06G+mrJYPH+ COATlOzJ+qQsDG54HcnQc15gWtybjgIOYFGCgLsFWs++JGkksU5Vv6D+1wze2cQS rdBzYSx+ztHvWSQAGPVNC/Ozh4pEek3JMvlJFkaP6yxez/OsKKxh85peHIyfkxbP nUoxo6hgH7U4F9HtsPq7wmTroxAy56yd3LOwX5f7TF8Favw0knocpsZThraj9US3 jPBnGpDYEoBimlTeL18eYKPIQTv6AKyyGsm78BuEmAeo6VchgjvyCAhD8vbldlvh c9iCtP0kQto7ScUdabcy =P7cV -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: https://lists.debian.org/536e7d09.3010...@iem.at
Re: Package closes bugs in a wrong way ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-10-01 07:07, Guo Yixuan wrote: Hello everybody, I uploaded a packge, gcc-doc-defaults, which closes some bugs of gcc-doc (a binary package built from src:gcc-doc-defaults). However, mentors.debian.net displays an error: Package closes bugs in a wrong way.[1] Did I make mistakes or is it a bug of Debexpo? [1] https://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-doc-defaults it seems your package (gcc-doc-defaults) closes a bug from another package (gcc-doc). if your package can really close the bugs of the other package, the bugs should first be reassigned to the correct (your) package. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBsezAACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTXBgCeKBydmSpbrFkxeR8UoCh8c5Wk q0cAoIkgi/7KNS8AR0NFJSJecVrnnuGH =+6GV -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Q: multiple binary packages and Provides:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ola, i have a question regarding one of the packages i'm co-maintaining (puredata, a graphical realtime computer music language). when puredata was packaged first (~1999), this was done under the name of pd. later it has been re-named to puredata, which in turn Provides: pd, with pd being a virtual package for the language/environment. this is starting to become useful now, as there are plans to package another implementation of the engine, which would also Provide: pd. recently, the package has been split into a number of binary packages, e.g. the language interpreter can now be installed separately from its editor. the puredata binary package is now a meta-package depending on its components. after the split, both the puredata-core package (the interpreter) and puredata (the meta package, that also Depends: puredata-core), have now a Provides: pd clause in debian/control i'm a bit unsure, what the best practice for the Provides: clause would be in such a case. somehow, having 2 (interdependent) packages provide the same virtual package seems wrong to me. there is also a bug-report[652383], that _might_ be related to the double Provides: line, though i was unable to reproduce the reported bug on my machine. any thoughts on this? fgmasdr IOhannes [652383] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652383 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8LK9gACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTRQwCfTqd4lp0BtPtHpQDrReP5kowL BHoAn1LhGGDhBGoNHez+BDI1bifxTcGZ =/57X -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: splitting packages: trouble with overwriting/replacing files during upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-21 23:25, Jakub Wilk wrote: hmm, i only now realized that my package actually uses an epoch, so it should read 1:0.93, but this doesn't seem to help either. It should help. Are you sure that you corrected versions in both Breaks and Replaces? i did. and indeed it does help! dpkg bails out, but this time it complains about the old version conflicting with the replacement package, which is obviously what i asked for (i only misread the error message, believing i still get the error about overwriting files) thanks. fmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7OWSkACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRIZACgpsWxsYAdJvNpah8IBh+jgDEt UYcAnRapvdsU7mCEwWUYvN0x4b+6saOH =1yTE -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: splitting packages: trouble with overwriting/replacing files during upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-11-21 21:58, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: hi all, i'm currently in the process of splitting a package i'm co-maintaining into several sub-packages. unfortunately i experience some problems with test upgrades, which i would like to solve. the original package gem has been split into gem and gem-doc. gem-doc contains documentation, that is also of (limited) use if the main package gem is not installed. i read [1] and tried to follow it closely, so i end up with a debian/controls file: snip Package: gem Recommends: gem-doc [...] Package: gem-doc Section: doc Recommends: gem Replaces: gem ( 0.93) Breaks: gem ( 0.93) /snip obviously, 0.93 is the new version with the split packages (the old one is 0.92) hmm, i only now realized that my package actually uses an epoch, so it should read 1:0.93, but this doesn't seem to help either. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7KwNkACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQQiwCeIzj72Sk3qgW44WI8IXHuhTRl 00cAoKnJU/BLl5ws+h8gVfPRbob/nRUN =s7cY -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
splitting packages: trouble with overwriting/replacing files during upgrade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hi all, i'm currently in the process of splitting a package i'm co-maintaining into several sub-packages. unfortunately i experience some problems with test upgrades, which i would like to solve. the original package gem has been split into gem and gem-doc. gem-doc contains documentation, that is also of (limited) use if the main package gem is not installed. i read [1] and tried to follow it closely, so i end up with a debian/controls file: snip Package: gem Recommends: gem-doc [...] Package: gem-doc Section: doc Recommends: gem Replaces: gem ( 0.93) Breaks: gem ( 0.93) /snip obviously, 0.93 is the new version with the split packages (the old one is 0.92) now here's the weird thing: when i upgrade the package using dpkg -i, success depends on the order of the packages passed to dpkg. that is, if i install it with dpkg -i gem gem-doc everything works fine (the old version of gem is removed, the new version of gem is installed and then gem-doc is installed) however, if i run dpkg -i gem-doc gem it bails out, as gem-doc (==0.93) tries to overwrite files in gem(==0.92). hein? what will happen if the user wants to do a simple upgrade (e.g. via aptitute)? afaict, there is no way to force front ends like aptitude to install the selected packages in a given order. at least, without resorting to Breaks, which is actively discouraged on [1] for the purpose i'm pursuing. i can't believe that i triggered a bug, so there must be something wrong. any ideas? fgamsdr IOhannes [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces [2] here's the output of an upgrade process when i first install gem and then gem-doc:: zmoelnig@ferrari:/tmp/debian$ sudo dpkg -i gem_0.93.3-1_i386.deb gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb (Reading database ... 418116 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace gem 1:0.92.3-2+b1 (using gem_0.93.3-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement gem ... Selecting previously unselected package gem-doc. Unpacking gem-doc (from gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb) ... Setting up gem (1:0.93.3-1) ... Setting up gem-doc (1:0.93.3-1) ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Processing triggers for menu ... Processing triggers for doc-base ... Processing 1 changed doc-base file... Registering documents with dwww... Registering documents with scrollkeeper... [3] here's the output of an upgrade process when i first install gem-doc and then gem:: zmoelnig@ferrari:/tmp/debian$ sudo dpkg -i gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb gem_0.93.3-1_i386.deb Selecting previously unselected package gem-doc. (Reading database ... 418116 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking gem-doc (from gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/gem/examples/10.glsl/01.simple_texture.pd', which is also in package gem 1:0.92.3-2+b1 dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe) Preparing to replace gem 1:0.92.3-2+b1 (using gem_0.93.3-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement gem ... Setting up gem (1:0.93.3-1) ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Processing triggers for menu ... Processing triggers for doc-base ... Processing 1 removed doc-base file... Registering documents with dwww... Registering documents with scrollkeeper... Errors were encountered while processing: gem-doc_0.93.3-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7Ku1sACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvStggCcCeXUQTqPsl1vwent2vrDo6gX WFcAoMVVvrmAN8o4fSy5QgREtnMcxrD7 =enS8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: not installing files...(with cdbs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-10-13 02:10, Charles Plessy wrote: - - removing the files right after the install target. Dear IOhannes, I tend to exclude files by removing them. This way, it is self-documenting (but a comment on why they are removed may be very useful sometimes). I do not use the --force option of rm, so that it is immediately noticed when the file to remove is not installed anymore at a later upstream update. thanks for your confirmation (and sorry for the long delay) fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6dl+cACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQmJwCgkl78EH0a1+9//qykJiItre3s aFMAoOlWvL+r4yAm7GKGdEilf33N4fGs =Mzha -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
not installing files...(with cdbs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hi, i was wondering, what is the best way to *exclude* files from a package that get installed by upstream's make install target? at the same time i don't want to miss the comforts of packaging systems like cdbs. e.g. upstream uses autotools as build system and installs LICENSE.txt (GPL2) into some non-standard location (pkglibdir). i would use a symlink to common-licenses. - - modifying the build system (exclude LICENSE.txt from the Makefile.am) seems a bit of an overkill. - - using debian/mypackage.install to move files from a temporary installdestination (debian/tmp/) to the the real one (debian/mypackage) this usually works well, but not so good if a given source package generates only a single binary package. this might be a problem with CDBS - - removing the files right after the install target. - - ??? the 2nd attempt seems to be most the most promising, but i seem to be unable to make it work. maybe i'm missing something, like debian/mypackage.noinstall... fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6UM0YACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvR0twCgk315bvFd2eGdpFxNwj9vUnFS bnUAoNfTBG/c1+JJ+41QArDwRTWwKOaT =/NMK -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RFS: acsccid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-09-20 09:14, Godfrey Chung wrote: I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. according to http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acsccid/news/20110818T224710Z.html, this package has already been uploaded two days ago :-) but maybe this is only some mail delay... fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk54RUkACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRgggCgisuu8TKlkTq6xEEDfU3dkf6n sKQAoNs7evzugxsZBKY87CUdYfmKIndq =LCqR -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RFS: acsccid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-09-20 10:26, Godfrey Chung wrote: Dear IOhannes My package is 1.0.2-3 and not 1.0.2-2. oops, sorry about that. i checked and double checked before writing the email, but obviously was unprepared that the mentors.d.n would give me both versions on one page, so obviously i checked against the wrong version. probably it would have been good to clarify this in the RFS (you did mention the changes, but about 90% of the email is rather generic, so i missed that line also) fgamsdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk54YuIACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvStigCgkBchWuhEm6ZopM8cDhkGnQSe CVwAoLHCvEWt+tuQJ+by5tRZpsuqv0fv =wKu0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RFS: flare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-08-23 20:55, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Jan-Hendrik (hennr) Peters he...@hennr.name wrote: But there is another lintian warning that bugs me and I could use some advices with this one: W: flare: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/share/games/flare/fonts/white.png I checked the orig.tar.gz The file is not executable at all. After packaging, the file is executable, I greped for white.png in the debian folder but only found a md5sum. Any ideas why this file gets the x flag? I can't find anything special about it: $ file fonts/white.png fonts/white.png: PNG image data, 128 x 72, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced I've no idea why a .png image would be made executable by debhelper, hmm, but doing: $ ls -l fonts/white.png - -rwxr-x--- 1 zmoelnig iemusers 1876 18. Jul 10:49 fonts/white.png and $ tar tvzf ../flare_0.14.1.orig.tar.gz | grep white - -rwxr-xr-x henner/henner1876 2011-07-18 10:49 ./fonts/white.png so the original file definitely _is_ executable. so the file became executable but I suppose you could change it manually yourself, e.g.: override_dh_fixperms: dh_fixperms chmod -x usr/share/games/flare/fonts/white.png (This is probably a rather ugly workaround though...) and it makes the package FTBFS on my machine: snip make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/deb/flare/flare-0.14.1' dh_fixperms chmod -x debian/flare/usr/share/games/flare/fonts/white.png chmod: debian/flare/usr/share/games/flare/fonts/white.png: new permissions are rw-r--r-x, not rw-r--r-- make[1]: *** [override_dh_fixperms] Error 1 /snip probably using chmod a-x usr/share/games/flare/fonts/white.png will do a better job. oh, and your orig.tar.gz contains a .git directory that seems to not come from upstream at all. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5UvKMACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQtRwCdGJM1u1joG07N1XZZ+BGoRpfB wSkAnRGdriPmGQDGK9YerkZAHnHpwulF =fMZB -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RFS: assimp (3rd try)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, sponsors and fellow Debianistas, here is my third attempt to find a sponsor (or more reviewers) for my package assimp. since the main package description has not really changed much since last friday, i will give you just a quick overview about what has changed. (full description can still be found at the end of this email) - - removed debian/TODO - - more cleanup in the python bindings (as hinted by jakub) - - finally fixed the debian/libassimp2.symbols file (no more FTBFS on amd64) using gcc's visibility feature and a version-script, i managed to get the count of exported symbols from 4167 (mainly internal classes, libstdc++, boost and template expansion) down to 150; thanks a lot to jakub and sune on the IRC for providing a lot of useful information that helped me on that quest - - fixed a number of spelling mistakes in debian/patches and debian/rules, which were spotted amazingly fast by jakub i can hardly believe that so few DDs are interested in getting a nice 3d-scene importer library into Debian :-) cheers fgmasdr IOhannes and here is the announcement/RFS * Package name: assimp Version : 2.0.863+dfsg-1 Upstream Author : ASSIMP Development team * URL : http://assimp.sf.net * License : BSD (3-clause) Section : graphics Assimp is a library to import a large number of well-known 3D model formats (assets) in a uniform manner. Assimp aims at providing a full assetconversion pipeline for use in game engines / realtime rendering systems of any kind but is not limited to this audience. The library is designed for maximum stability and flexibility. While written in C++, a pure C API exists, as well as bindings to various other languages, including Python, D and Blitzmax. Assimp loads models into a straightforward data structure for easy processing by your application. Various post processing steps (such as general optimization or computation of extra data like normal or tangent vectors) can be executed on the imported data to suit your needs. To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/assimp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/assimp/assimp_2.0.863+dfsg-1.dsc the repository for the packaging can be found at ssh+git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/assimp the package uses cdbs for packaging. the package is lintian --pedantic clean. the package has been repackaged to strip away non-dfsg parts from upstream tarball. i someone would be willing to have a look at it, i would be very thankful. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5T5RYACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQh7gCfRKhmMJdNRsYy1rdytuzNmDRH JlYAoKaG3pMqvNeeTbtLpYzsLai6D/SF =34Cs -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RFS: assimp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, sponsors and fellow Debianistas, I am looking for a sponsor for my package assimp. * Package name: assimp Version : 2.0.863~dfsg-1 Upstream Author : ASSIMP Development team * URL : http://assimp.sf.net * License : BSD (3-clause) Section : graphics Assimp is a 3D model import library, meaing you can use it to import 3D scenes (as exported by blender, alias/wavefront, maya, 3dmax, and lots more) into your applications (typically game engines or 3D modellers / realtime renderers) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/assimp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/assimp/assimp_2.0.863~dfsg-1.dsc the repository for the packaging can be found at ssh+git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/assimp the package uses cdbs for packaging. the package has been repackaged to strip away non-dfsg parts from upstream tarball. i someone would be willing to have a look at it, i would be very thankful. i would especially like to hear comments on the following topics: - - repackaging (for dfsg-compliancy) - - the debian/libassimp2.symbols file - - python bindings package - - D bindings package - - ... and the last stanza from the RFS-template: I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. cheers, IOhannes m zmölnig -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5NL9MACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTSowCcDV8tCfKbt2DvKFvpYGEcBayf fYAAn3/MgZIuoaHNi9F7fXfBd4w81XHX =bdl+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: News about the mentors.debian.net transition to upgraded software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-08-11 10:50, Asheesh Laroia wrote: Okay! As of Thu Aug 11 08:47:29 UTC 2011, mentors.debian.net now runs the Debexpo code. thanks to asheesh (with big cheers) for doing all the work. i really appreciate it. i believe that the few remaining bugs will be sorted out soonish. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5Lh/0ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQX6wCgs+NDJcEAZxtFzF9i82jAKUVd gGUAn3GTowGBX0v+eTynmW/ccz0DoWXB =B7gW -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RFS: gem (updated package) [ITA]
hi all, i finally have re-uploaded the new version of Gem, this time with hopefully all the lintian warnings fixed, but one (see below). Barry deFreese wrote: IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.92.1-1 of my package gem. It builds these binary packages: gem- Graphics Environment for Multimedia - PureData library The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 485972, 546956, 549720 As gem is currently an orphaned package, i would volunteer to maintain this package in the future, The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gem - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gem/gem_0.92.1-1.dsc Thanks to Barry for reviewing the package and hinting at some problems / helping me to fix more bugs... I would still be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. In the meantime i would also be thankful for reviews/comments/gifts/... Couple of minor issues left: bdefre...@bddebian3:~/debian/gem/gem-0.92.1$ lintian -I /home/bdefreese/pbuild-unstable/result/gem_0.92.1-1_i386.changes I: gem source: debian-watch-file-is-missing fixed. I: gem: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2060kB 32% this is still the case, since Gem is a small package but unfortunately comes with a big manual. (see the other posts in this thread for a better explanation) W: gem: menu-command-not-in-package /usr/share/menu/gem:5 /usr/bin/pd ok, fixed this by creating a tiny wrapper script /usr/bin/pd-gem which is called from the menu. this seemed to be simplest, with dh_fixperms fixing the permissions in /usr/share/gem/ and then having lintian complain about a script-not-being-executable. added manpage for the script as well. W: gem: wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog usr/share/doc/gem/ChangeLog.gz fixed. W: gem: debian-changelog-line-too-long line 5 fixed. these are the remaining lintian warnings i get with pedantic/experimental: P: gem source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system gem-0.92-1.tar.gz.cdbs-config_list hmm, cdbs creates this file automatically; do i have to take extra action to remove it? X: gem: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/lib/pd/extra/Gem/Gem.pd_linux treshold threshold hmm, cannot really change this, as fixing the spelling mistakes would break the API of the plugin so long - hope to hear from you. fgamsdr IOhannes smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
request for review/sponsorship: gem-0.92.1-1.1
Dear Mentors, I kindly request you to review the package gem: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gem It builds these binary packages: gem- Graphics Environment for Multimedia - PureData library Changes - The package appears to be lintian clean. - The upload would fix these bugs: 485972, 549720 - added instructions how to workaround #454731 Any comments on what is still missing to get the package uploaded/sponsored would be most welcome. In the meantime, I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards IOhannes m zmölnig smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RFS: gem (updated package)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.92.1-1 of my package gem. It builds these binary packages: gem- Graphics Environment for Multimedia - PureData library The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gem - - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gem/gem_0.92.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Some background: I am the upstream maintainer of Gem, debian being my primary development platform. the version of gem included in debian is somewhat outdated (0.90 has been released about five(!) years ago). currently gem has been orphaned (#546956). i would very much appreciate if gem can be kept in debian and am willing to invest time into this. Kind regards IOhannes m zmölnig -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrgJCgACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQ3wgCfVk1RgI6gY7dbtSAzdSO1/GfS GYgAn3Ldbq/4Md3yeAypb+f5tNDmXFrl =ovrc -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
