Bug#734611: RFS: libfixbuf/1.4.0 ITP -- Implementation of the IPFIX protocol
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libfixbuf": * Package name: libfixbuf Version : 1.4.0-1 Upstream Author : Brian Trammell, Dan Ruef, Emily Ecoff * URL : http://tools.netsa.cert.org/fixbuf/index.html * License : LGPL-2.0 Section : net It builds those binary packages: libfixbuf2 - Implementation of the IPFIX protocol - shared library libfixbuf2-dev - Implementation of the IPFIX protocol - development headers libfixbuf2-doc - Implementation of the IPFIX protocol - documentation To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libfixbuf Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libf/libfixbuf/libfixbuf_1.4.0-1.dsc cheers, josch -- 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/20140108144116.10764.97409.reportbug@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fuseloop" * Package name: fuseloop Version : 1.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Johny Mattsson * URL : https://github.com/jmattsson/fuseloop * License : BSD Section : utils It builds those binary packages: fuseloop - loopback mount using FUSE To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/fuseloop Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fuseloop/fuseloop_1.0.1-1.dsc Fuseloop allows one to populate a disk image which includes a partition table with file systems by loop mounting one partition of that disk image to a new file. This allows tools like mke2fs and fuse-ext2 which are able to work on regular files but do not allow to specify an offset and size to indirectly work on that disk image. cheers, josch -- 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/20140113153130.19925.22983.reportbug@hoothoot
Bug#734611: RFS: libfixbuf/1.4.0 ITP -- Implementation of the IPFIX protocol
Hi, Quoting Wookey (2014-01-14 01:59:22) > +++ Johannes Schauer [2014-01-08 15:41 +0100]: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libfixbuf": > OK. Looks sound to me. thanks for looking at it! > A couple of minor points: You might want to include a watch file for new > upstream releases. I indeed wanted to but the website which offers the releases hides the correct url behind a JavaScript. It took me a while to find out that I had to enable JavaScript to be able to click on their links. Because of that it would be necessary for uscan to parse a JavaScript file. I did not find to out how to do this with uscan or if it is even possible at all. The default seems to just be searching for tag values which does not work here because the is generated by JavaScript. > Should you do something with the included pyfixbuf-0.1.tar.gz, like drop it > or add a python package?. It's mostly wasting 400K of space. I guess > currently you have a pristine upstream tarball - it just happens to have > another dollop of software somewhat unhelpfully included, and not in a format > conducive to bulding from it. I guess that's fair enough. I forgot to remove that tarball from the upstream orig.tar.gz before my upload to mentors.debian.net. I solved the debian/watch issue when I noticed that apart from the download links, there are also links to the individual headers on that website which include the version number. The resulting debian/watch file is a bit cryptic but seems to work. I also added debian/repack.sh to debian/watch debian/repack.sh repacks the upstream tarball, removing the tarball with the python bindings and some pre-generated documentation. I added a debian/README.source to explain the changes. The new version is on mentors as 1.4.0+ds-1 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libf/libfixbuf/libfixbuf_1.4.0+ds-1.dsc Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20140114124539.2307.86235@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 06:51:13) > * I had to modify the hardening patch to get fuseloop to build, modified > patch is attached. I think you forgot to attach your patch but notice that after informing upstream of the issue, they fixed it for fuseloop 1.0.2 which is packaged on https://mentors.debian.net/package/fuseloop > * I think it would be useful to install upstream's README.md (just add it > in debian/fuseloop.docs) Good idea! Added in 1.0.2-2 on mentors. > * The README isn't clear about how to actually mount the exposed partition It is clear for me. Maybe if you tell me how it is not clear for you I can fix it accordingly. I especially like how the README even includes steps to use fdisk to figure out the partition offsets. Thanks for your comments! cheers, josch -- 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/20140122063905.2407.47299@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 08:51:02) > Sorry, that I forgot to attach it. Please find it attached in this email. thanks! What problem does that patch fix? The only differences in comparison to my patch that I can make out are: 1) you add -lpthread but `pkg-config --libs fuse` already takes care of adding that 2) you explicitly write `$(CC) $^ $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@` but this already is the implicit default make rule to compile C files, so there is no need to explicitly state it, is there? What problem did you observe with the patch that I submitted? cheers, josch -- 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/20140122092212.2407.14552@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Hi, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 10:36:11) > Actually what happens implicitly (at least on Ubuntu precise) is: $(CC) > $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $^ -o $@ > > which causes the compilation to fail, because the -l<...> should be > after the object files (or source files in this case). Ah funny, so it's a ubuntu problem. I did not observe this problem with Debian unstable. After trying it out myself in a ubuntu precise and saucy chroot and asking on #debian-mentors, the reason why this error happens only on Ubuntu seems to be: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ToolChain/CompilerFlags#A-Wl.2C--as-needed https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyNarwhal/ToolchainTransition Should I contact upstream to yet again change his makefile or are things okay as they are because everything works fine in Debian? cheers, josch -- 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/20140122101209.2407.71197@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Hi, Quoting The Wanderer (2014-01-22 15:14:34) > Do things still work fine in Debian when using ld.gold (by installing the > binutils-gold package) rather than ld.bfd? I know there's an important > difference in ld.gold related to --as-needed (or possibly to - > --no-as-needed, I don't recall offhand). I dont think the binutils-gold package exists anymore. binutils-gold seems to be provided by the binutils package which now seems to ship /usr/bin/ld.gold Do you happen to know an easy, undisruptive way to test with ld.gold? > I seem to recall that there are long-term plans to switch Debian over to > ld.gold or to produce the same effect in ld.bfd, and that it's recommended > (or at least preferred) to make sure your package builds with the gold > linker; I suspect that this is the "similar change... being discussed for > Debian" mentioned in the ToolchainTransition article you linked. > > There's no expected completion date for this AFAIK, but trying to be > compliant with it isn't a bad idea; I've already got the upstream of > something I haven't even packaged yet to accept a compliance patch, just > based on test packaging attempts. Thanks you for the information! cheers, josch -- 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/20140125102429.11514.34170@hoothoot
Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE
Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 08:52:43) > At the end of the README it says to use mountlo, but there isn't such a > utility in Debian. there is also no such utility in other distributions it seems. After some digging I found out that mountlo is a utility which uses fuse and a minimal usermode linux to mount any filesystem the linux kernel understands with fuse (at least in theory). Unfortunately it only ever built on i386 and upstream is long dead. I might have a look at mountlo as well and become its new upstream if it seems worth it because I have a high interest in being able to mount any filesystem in userspace [1]. For now, it's maybe makes sense to patch that line in the readme with: fuse-ext2 -o rw,force mydisk.img /mnt Do you agree? cheers, josch -- 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/20140125105728.11514.41749@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "vcmi" Package name: vcmi Version : 0.95-1 Upstream Author : Micha³ Urbañczyk and others URL : http://forum.vcmi.eu/portal.php License : GPL2+ Section : games It builds those binary packages: vcmi - Rewrite of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine cmi-dbg - Debug symbols for vcmi package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/vcmi Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/vcmi/vcmi_0.95-1.dsc VCMI is a free implementation of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine as well as a platform for mods. VCMI is a turn-based strategy game where the player controls a number of heroes commanding an army of creatures. It extends the original capabilities of the game by supporting maps of any size, greater display resolutions. I'm also working on a project which allows to easily replace the proprietary graphics of the original game by a free version at https://github.com/josch/lodextract More information is available in the respective ITP bug#741640 which includes some discussion on the debian-devel-games list. cheers, josch -- 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/20140318223806.12867.34343.reportbug@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-03-18 23:58:19) > [I don't intend to sponsor this package. Sorry!] dont worry, I'm happy for any help that can improve my packaging! :) > We don't have "³" or "ñ" in the Polish alphabet. :-P It should be: Michał > Urbańczyk. Please update debian/copyright accordingly. Oh awesome! That makes lots of sense! It seems that the AUTHORS file is not utf8 but either windows-1250 or iso-8859-2 Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20140319053103.1302.53879@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Jakub, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-03-23 20:11:17) > I don't think that the “After installing this package, …” instructions belong > in the package description. I'd rather put them in README.Debian. Personally I didnt find myself reading README.Debian after package installation very often. I read the package description much more regularly. Though I could put a hint into the description that directs the user to README.Debian for further instructions. > But if you decide to keep them, the enumerated list should be indented by two > spaces (see Policy §5.6.13). A very useful read! Thanks, I wasnt aware of the description format other than lines with a full stop. I also investigated your other remarks and submitted solutions to them upstream. Some of them are already fixed. Your comments also made me remember https://wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian as a very helpful first stop. > I wouldn't repack the .orig.tar just to remove debian/. If you're using > the "3.0 (quilt)" format, dpkg-source removes upstream debian/ for you at > unpack time. Ah, I didnt know that either, thanks! It seems that repacking the original tarball is necessary nevertheless though because there is an osx directory which contains some mac binaries. Upstream doesnt do the osx packaging and the person who does didnt respond yet. Thanks for your help! cheers, josch -- 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/20140324063049.1302.68234@hoothoot
Re: Build-Deps
Hi, Quoting Daniel Lintott (2014-06-01 00:00:03) > I've had a look at dose-builddebcheck, but this doesn't seem to have an > option for running on a single package. dose-builddebcheck is what you are looking for and it can check a single package by using the --checkonly option. cheers, josch -- 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/20140531220249.12998.23827@hoothoot
Re: Build-Deps
Hi, Quoting Daniel Lintott (2014-06-01 00:15:09) > Okay... In fairness I haven't tried that as yet... But the option doesn't > appear to mentioned in the manpage [0]. > > [0] > http://manpages.debian.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=dose-builddebcheck&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=Debian+7.0+wheezy&format=html&locale=en correct. Feel free to file a bugreport. Try to call dose-builddebcheck with --help for a full list of available options. The --checkonly argument takes a comma separated list of cudf package names in case you want to check more than one package at once. cheers, josch -- 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/20140531221840.12998.57264@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pdf2htmlex" * Package name: pdf2htmlex Version : 0.11+ds-1 Upstream Author : WANG Lu * URL : http://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX * License : GPL3, MIT, CC-BY-3.0 Section : misc It builds those binary packages: pdf2htmlex - Converts PDF to HTML while retaining most formatting To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pdf2htmlex This is the most advanced PDF to HTML converter that I have seen so far. I was looking for a way to publish the scientific papers I wrote over the years and I wanted to offer a way such that one could view them without having to use a PDF viewer. Unfortunately it seems that the existing options for converting PDF to HTML are missing many features which make them unusable for complex PDF as those produced by latex for scientific conferences and journals (multi column, complicated figures). While not 100% pixel perfect, pdf2htmlEX produces HTML pages that are absolutely readable for all the content I tried. Using the fallback mode it is even possible to view them with javascript disabled. cheers, josch -- 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/2014074759.23101.66334.reportbug@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, wow, thanks a lot for looking into this! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 20:59:44) > fix-spelling seems to be mainly about fixing the use "-" as minus sign in > manpage... Could split the patch into two, one for hyphens, another for > actual spelling mistakes? okay. Done. > More typos I found: > > contributers -> contributors > actualy -> actually > positionig -> positioning > cosider -> consider > tempory -> temporary > deconstructign -> deconstructing > matices -> matrices > new_line_stauts -> new_line_status > Someting -> something > natrual -> natural > negaive -> negative > othere -> other > optimzation -> optimization > cannnot -> cannot > Inactiviy -> Inactivity > calulating -> calculating > lanauges -> languages > costy -> costly How did you find them? I ran codespell but that didnt find the ones you found. The ones you found are now fixed in the packaging. > What is ./debian/pdf2htmlex.README for? That should've been pdf2htmlex.docs. Fixed. > Is debian/dirs really needed? It should be normally job for upstream build > system to create the directories it needs. It is not needed. Removed, thanks! > adequate says: > pdf2htmlex: broken-symlink /usr/share/pdf2htmlEX/compatibility.js -> > ../javascript/pdf/compatibility.js I fixed that too. The dependency on libjs-pdf was missing. I'm unsure how I should handle the minified js. Surely it is desirable to include the minified js in the output pdf2htmlex generates but that means that pdf2htmlex has to ship a minified version of compatibility.js from the libjs-pdf package. Should the minified version not be shipped by libjs-pdf instead? What is the right way to do this? Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20140711193353.31130.51357@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 23:48:15) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-11, 21:33: > >How did you find them? I ran codespell but that didnt find the ones you > >found. > > I read carefully the source code. :-) (I admit that vim's spell checking > helped me a bit.) I just discovered that my Vim spell checking was broken. I fixed it and thus was able to fix some more misspellings. Thank you for your manual effort of compiling the list in your last email! :) > >I'm unsure how I should handle the minified js. Surely it is desirable to > >include the minified js in the output pdf2htmlex generates > > Probably, but is it worth the trouble? The non-minified version is only > 8 kilobytes bigger. That's negligible overhead, IMHO. Maybe. But if 100 people convert 10 files each that's already 8M saved. I'll see how much effort it takes to let it use the minified version and will give up if it's too much trouble. > >but that means that pdf2htmlex has to ship a minified version of > >compatibility.js from the libjs-pdf package. > > Hmm, there is no protection against the two versions getting of sync. > Which means that there is no guarantee that we are shipping source for > the minified version. :( But setting "Built-Using: pdf.js" would guard against that, would it not? The only disadvantage then would be that a rebuild of pdf2htmlex would be needed every time pdf.js releases a new version. > >Should the minified version not be shipped by libjs-pdf instead? What is the > >right way to do this? > > I see a few ways to go forward: > > 1) Stop worrying and love the bomb^Wunminified JS. > > 2) Ask pdf.js maintainers to provide compatibility.min.js, and wait > patiently until they implement it (or not). > > 3) Keep minifying compatibility.js yourself, but use Built-Using to > ensure we always have the source. I filed a wishlist bug against pdf.js (#754533) and at the same time introduced a "Built-Using: pdf.js". Should pdf.js decide to ship a minified version in the future I can remove the Built-Using. > I wouldn't say “In contrast to other converters …” in the package > description. It sounds a bit like an advertisement. And it means that changes > in other packages could make your package description inadequate. I find the latter part a strong argument and rephrased the description. > Priority should be probably "optional". Done. > Section should be "text" or maybe "graphics"; probably not "misc". I chose text because I guess most people use pdf for that or associate pdf with that rather than a graphics format. > In debian/rules you have this: > > ( cd logo; ./update_png.sh; ) > > You don't need parentheses here. You should use && between the > statements (see Policy §4.6). Thanks. I updated myself on the relevant policy section and the inner workings of make. Indeed the changed directory only affects the subshell and thus does the right thing even without parenthesis. Semicolon is replaced with && as well. > dh_clean deletes all files listed in debian/clean. If you took advantage of > this, you wouldn't need to override dh_auto_clean. This is indeed a much nicer method than overriding dh_auto_clean. Fixed. > The watch file doesn't work here: > > $ uscan --destdir . --force-download > pdf2htmlex: Version (0.11) available on remote site: > https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/archive/v0.11.tar.gz > (local version is 0.11+ds, mangled local version number 0.11) > Could not read .//coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/archive/pdf2htmlEX-0.11.tar.gz: No > such file or directory at /usr/bin/mk-origtargz line 310. > uscan: error: mk-origtargz --package pdf2htmlex --version 0.11 --compression > gzip --directory . --copyright-file debian/copyright > .//coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/archive/pdf2htmlEX-0.11.tar.gz gave error exit > status 2 Somehow it didnt come to my mind to use --force-download to test whether my watch file was able to download an archive in addition to picking the right version. Thanks! The problem was created because the uscan manpage explicitly recommends to use a filenamemangle for github projects. Apparently this does the wrong thing as it also affects the filename used in the download url. cheers, josch -- 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/20140712074050.31130.75120@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 11:50:39) > It would guard against the possibility of losing source. > > But it could still happen that compatibility.js and compatibility.min.js > versions (in /usr/share/pdf2htmlEX/) don't match. okay. Indeed that's undesirable. > Is the non-minified version used by pdf2htmlEX at runtime at all? I think it > isn't, but I could be wrong. If it's not, then maybe get rid of the symlink, > and drop libjs-pdf from Depends? Yes it is. You can check that it is used by running the test suite like this: `( cd obj-*-linux-gnu; ctest -V; )`. You will see that it aborts because it cannot find compatibility.min.js in ./share. You have to run the test suite like that because it wrongly shows success even though the tests fail. I'll have to fix that and report it upstream. The file share/manifest or /usr/share/pdf2htmlEX/manifest controls what gets included into the final pdf. It is the "@compatibility.min.js" line in that file which makes compatibility.min.js be included by the function HTMLRenderer::embed_file in src/HTMLRenderer/general.cc. compatibility.js is optional though. It is only useful for compatibility with older browsers. This even if not the minified version, I'd like to include compatibility.js in the output. > I don't think it worked: > dpkg-genchanges: warning: unknown information field 'Built-Using' in input > data in general section of control info file > > Built-Using should be used in the binary stanza, not in the source > stanza. Please see Policy §7.8. whoops. Sorry. I removed the Built-Using because while it retains the original source, it will not fix the version skew :/ I guess I use the unminified version of compatibility.js until bug#754533 is resolved. > Not quite. AIUI, the problem is that uscan expects that filenamemangle will > strip directory components from the filename. The uscan manpage suggests > using > > filenamemangle=s/(?:.*)?v?(\d[\d\.]*)\.tar\.gz/-$1.tar.gz/ > > which strip them (note ".*"), but your filenamemangle wouldn't. oooh - indeed that makes more sense now. Thanks a ton for all your very constructive and helpful advice :) cheers, josch -- 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/20140712110636.31130.85076@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, wow, amazing that you are still investing your time in improving my packaging - thanks a lot! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 18:24:26) > I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned is > whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package. Indeed. I missed the "non-" of "non-minified" in your message. The non-minified version was indeed not used and in fact some other non-minified file there are not used either so I just deleted them since it's fine to only ship the minified versions in the binary package as long as the source package has the real versions, right? > Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the > copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a Debian directory there which I used as a start for my packaging. Now I nearly changed everything. So I'm not sure anymore what would be appropriate as the copyright of the packaging itself. Probably putting both our names would be most fitting? I guess I just didnt pay attention to that because I put little importance on having my name as the copyright holder as long as the license is free enough for me to make all modifications I want to it. > The machine-readable debian/copyright file specification advices against > using “MIT” as the short license name. I'm currently reading https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and you probably mean the part where it says "There are many versions of the MIT license. Please use Expat instead, when it matches."? On the other hand it uses MIT as the short name in the section "Example 4. Complex". On the other hand, the license seems to also exactly fit the wording of the Expat license so I did s/MIT/Expat/ for clarity. > Short license name for GPL version 3 or a later version is “GPL-3+”, not > “GPL-3”. I do not think the package is GPL-3+. Have a look at README.md where it says the license is GPL-3 (without a "or later"). Or do you see it different anywhere else? I could clarify with upstream. > s/On On/On/ Yeah.. I'd like to have some standardized copy-pastable debian/copyright paragraphs for the standard licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses so that this kind of stuff does not happen :/ > IMO information about which files where excluded .orig.tar doesn't belong in > d/copright, especially when they weren't excluded for license reasons. Why not? debian/copyright lists the copyright of all files in the upstream source. Since I removed some files from it I list those in debian/copyright, saying that I will not state copyright information about those files as they have been removed. Indeed the files I removed were DFSG free. I only removed them to not have redundant copies of files that are otherwise in Debian. This in turn made it easier to write debian/copyright. If not listing them in Files-Excluded, should I instead write a repack script which is called by uscan? > Speaking of which, how exactly was the .orig.tar generated? The first one manually (by removing the items listed in Files-Excluded) and then by uscan. Since uscan understands Files-Excluded in debian/copyright it did the repacking for me and I didnt have to write a repack script or a get-orig-source target in debian/rules. I thought this was the most elegant way to achieve this. Which way is better? > It would be nice if the TMPDIR environment variable was honoured. Good catch! How did you find that? I fixed that and will forward the patch to upstream. There are still other accesses to /tmp without honoring TMPDIR but I cannot find the piece of code that makes these. It's just calling stat on /tmp, creating an empty file with random name and then deleting it without writing into it. Maybe one of the other libraries does it? > In the build log I see: > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if > debian/pdf2htmlex/usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX was not linked against libgunicode.so.3 > (it uses none of the library's symbols) > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if > debian/pdf2htmlex/usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX was not linked against > libpython2.7.so.1.0 (it uses none of the library's symbols) > > It would be nice to get rid of these warnings. Removing useless linking against libpython2.7.so.1.0 was easily fixed by not build depending on python-dev. I do not think that not linking against libgunicode.so.3 would avoid a useless dependency because libgunicode.so.3 is shipped by the libfontforge1 package and pdf2htmlEX links against libfontforge.so.1 and libgutils.so.1 which are both from the libfontforge1 package. > What is default-jre-headless in Build-Depends for? that was to execute the java jar files that the source package shipped in the 3rd party directory (like yui-compressor). This is not needed anymore as the dependency on yui-compressor draws that in anyways. Fixed. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi again, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-13 20:24:00) > >>Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the > >>copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P > >Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a > >Debian directory > > Oops, I missed it. > (Wouldn't it make sense to remove it from .orig.tar?) uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs. > I don't think there's anything left from the original packaging. You can put > only your name with clear conscience. :-) well, now you helped me so much I could start putting your name in ;) > >I could clarify with upstream. > > Please do. :-) I did ask upstream at https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/issues/387 > >Removing useless linking against libpython2.7.so.1.0 was easily fixed by not > >build depending on python-dev. > > Hmm, that doesn't sound right. It means that a user building in a > non-minimal environment can get a package with or without > libpython2.7-dev in Depends, depending on which packages they had > installed. I think I prefer to live with the dpkg-shlibdeps warnings, > than to have this sort of non-determinism. Right. So how about a Build-Conflict with the appropriate binary package? I don't want to uselessly increase the amount of dependencies of the resulting binary package (even though libpython is probably present on most systems). Though on the other hand it seems I managed to patch the build system such that it will not use libpython anymore (see patch "no-libpython"). What is your opinion about the tarball repacking and the Files-Excluded in debian/copyright? I'm not even a DD so if you tell me that the current way I do it is wrong than of course I'll change it and use a repack script instead :) cheers, josch -- 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/20140713202337.31130.43100@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 00:26:09) > >uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs. > > I don't believe this is the case. And the .orig.tar you uploaded to > mentors certainly contains debian/: indeed, you are right! I fixed it and the upstream tarball now comes without the ./debian directory. > >I don't want to uselessly increase the amount of dependencies of the > >resulting binary package (even though libpython is probably present on most > >systems). > > It wouldn't increase the amount of packages required to run pdf2htmlex, > at least not for the time being, because libfontforge depends on > libpython. Right. > The reason linking to unneeded libraries is bad is because it makes Packages > a tiny bit bigger, makes dependency resolved a tiny bit slower, and becomes > burdensome when one of the libraries change SONAME. Thanks for educating me :) I didnt think of especially the SONAME change. > >Though on the other hand it seems I managed to patch the build system such > >that it will not use libpython anymore (see patch "no-libpython"). > > That's much better. Now, can you do the same with gunicode? :-) It turns out that doing so was just as simple! :D > >What is your opinion about the tarball repacking and the Files-Excluded in > >debian/copyright? > > I don't like it, but I'm not going to stop anybody from using it. Then I think I will keep using it. I do see that using debian/copyright is the wrong place for repacking information but I find it easier to list the excluded files in a declarative way instead of embedding yet another fragile repack script. I do not think there is another way to state the excluded files from the original upstream tarball without using a turing complete language than using Files-Excluded. Once there is, I'll immediately switch to it. > Note that currently uscan would generate .orig.tar with wrong version; > see bug #753772. I can confirm that I was missing a uversionmangle in my debian/watch. This is fixed now. Thanks a lot for your help! If that is all, then all then I only need somebody to sponsor this :) cheers, josch -- 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/20140716063637.31130.98246@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 21:21:15) > Now --download-current-version is broken: > > $ uscan --download-current-version --destdir . > uscan warning: In debian/watch no matching hrefs for version 0.11 in watch > line > https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/releases .*/v(\d[\d\.]*)\.tar\.gz > It think you need to drop dversionmangle to fix it. you are right! Though it is quite strange that `uscan --destdir . --force-download` works and `uscan --download-current-version --destdir .` does not. On the other hand I now better understand how version mangling works. I indeed needed to remove dversionmangle. This kept working because uversionmangle will also mangle the links from the upstream site. So now instead of adapting the Debian version to be the upstream version (by removing +ds) the upstream version is adapted to the Debian version (by adding +ds). What do we do about debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle until #753772 is fixed? Ignore it or create an override? > >If that is all, then all then I only need somebody to sponsor this :) > > Do you mean _me_? It's been less than a weak, I haven't even warmed up > yet. ;-P good to hear - that means many more suggestions will be coming my way :) > I noticed that when you run pdf2htmlEX for the first time, ~/.FontForge/ gets > created. This is not itself a problem (even though personally I hate dotfiles > with passion). The problem is that it will also happen at build time, thanks > to the test suite. Creating dotfiles at build time is a no-no. I guess the > simplest way to fix it is to set HOME to something non-existent in > debian/rules. Is creating files outside the build directory and not in $TMPDIR a policy violation? I already gather statistics of file system access using the machinery to find unused build dependencies (the thing I wrote about on d-devel). But the gathered data could easily be used to find this kind of things as well. Would that make sense? I would have to adapt the call to sbuild though because by default, sbuild sets $HOME to /sbuild-nonexistent and thus, no dotfiles are created. Anyways, I set $HOME to a nonexistant directory in debian/rules. > I think it would be good to add a comment to d/copyright explaining that > upstream clarified the license; or maybe cherry pick the commit: > https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/commit/6e8d5396cdad Currently it > might be not obvious to a person who didn't read this RFS thread (such as > ftp-master) that your copyright matches upstream intentions. Correct. I cherry picked the relevant parts of the upstream commit. > I see you have lots of patches. Which of them are upstreamable? Which of them > have been already forwarded? You can answer the questions by adding > appropriate Forwarded: headers to the patches. :-) All done. :) cheers, josch -- 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/20140717063133.31130.61773@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 09:46:58) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-17, 08:31: > >What do we do about > >debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle until > >#753772 is fixed? Ignore it or create an override? > > Either way works for me. okay then I'll leave things as they are because #753772 seems uncontroversial enough such than one can assume that debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle should go away in the near future. > >Is creating files outside the build directory and not in $TMPDIR a policy > >violation? > > Policy doesn't say anything about it explicitly. It could be argued, > that if the package create such files, then there's no sane way to > implement policy-compliant clean target. The clean target “must undo any > effects that the ‘build’ and ‘binary’ targets may have had, except that > it should leave alone any output files created in the parent directory > by a run of a ‘binary’ target”. Good argument. > >All done. :) > > Hmm, I don't see the new package on mentors.d.n. Did you upload it? whoops... I indeed forgot. It is uploaded now and should appear online any minute. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140717075311.31130.14851@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 13:36:47) > export HOME=`mktemp --dry-run` > > This sets HOME literally to `mktemp --dry-run`. I think you wanted to > say: > > export HOME=$(shell mktemp --dry-run) oh shoot it's not shell, it's make... while that method will surely also yield a nonexistant home directory I see why that method is inferior ^^ > But there's a good reason --dry-run is described as “unsafe” in the mktemp > manpage. What is the reason? I thought the reason for it being called "unsafe" was that if you use --dry-run first and then create the directory with that name yourself then somebody else could hijack that location in the meantime. But this is no problem for this use case. > So how about something like this instead: > > export HOME=$(CURDIR)/nonexistent This is a good solution. As we have control about the directories in $(CURDIR) we can guarantee that no directory named like that exists during build time. I'll use it. cheers, josch -- 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/2014071810.31130.24913@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-19 23:38:14) > Your d/copyright says: > > Files: * > Copyright: 2012 WANG Lu > > Shouldn't it be s/WANG Lu/Lu Wang/? The latter seems to be the spelling > used in the code. upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me. > More importantly, some files have newer copyright dates. For example, > src/pdf2htmlEX.cc reads: > > // Copyright (C) 2012-2014 Lu Wang right, I bumped the dates to 2014 > Please bump date in d/changelog. :-) and bumped that one too. > From the wishlist department: > You might want to implement DEP-8 tests. I used the (fairly incomplete) testsuite of pdf2htmlEX to run a DEP-8 test. cheers, josch -- 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/20140726103720.4150.71655@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-26 18:35:23) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-26, 12:37: > >upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me. > > Perhaps also update patch headers? Done. > >I used the (fairly incomplete) testsuite of pdf2htmlEX to run a DEP-8 > >test. > > The DEP-8 tests fail here. I see lots of errors like this: > > Error: Cannot open file /home/jwilk/pdf2htmlex-0.11+ds/share/base.min.css for > embedding > Command return code 1: /usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX --data-dir > /home/jwilk/pdf2htmlex-0.11+ds/share --dest-dir /tmp/tmpTajvy6 > /home/jwilk/pdf2htmlex-0.11+ds/test/test_data/2-pages.pdf > > I suppose you shouldn't pass --data-dir when testing the installed > version. I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. Nevertheless I fixed this by overriding the --data-dir path with an environment variable as well. > I don't think the patch description is grammatically correct. I believe that > instead of “Allow to control …”, it should be “Allow us to control …” or > “Allow controlling …”. It seems that the word "allow" allows both, gerund and infinitive to follow it. Either should be grammatically fine. I changed it nevertheless to "Allow controlling" because I don't have a strong opinion on this. cheers, josch -- 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/20140728051845.4150.53514@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-28 23:08:11) > >I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. > > How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked source > tree. I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc --- schroot sid-amd64-sbuild` Both invocations work now. > >Nevertheless I fixed this by overriding the --data-dir path with an > >environment variable as well. > > I still think it would be better not to pass --data-dir at all. > > Unlike build-time tests, as-installed tests have the capability of > verifying that all the required files are installed, and that they are > installed in a place where the software actually expects them. Let's not > ruin this advantage by instructing the software where WE expect the > files to be. :-) Your reasoning makes lots of sense. I changed things accordingly. > Could you set HOME to a non-existent directory in the test script, just > like you did in d/rules? Done. > Could you remove the “The information above should follow the Patch > Tagging Guidelines …” template from d/p/control-test-executable-name? Woops... thanks for noticing! I uploaded the new version to mentors. > Have you seen this thread on d-devel@? > https://lists.debian.org/53ccf007.6020...@debian.org Yes, but how is it relevant to this? cheers, josch -- 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/20140730052427.19236.90380@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-01 22:31:46) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-30, 07:24: > >>>I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. > >>How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked > >>source tree. > > > >I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc --- > >schroot sid-amd64-sbuild` > > This is what the adt-run manpage says about the --source option: > "By default the package will also be built and the resulting binaries > will be used to satisfy test dependencies" > Presumably it also means that the built tree is used for running tests. > > (What I've been doing in my packages, as a defensive strategy against > accidentally testing against not-installed code, is to copy all the bits > necessary to run tests from the package directory to $ADTTMP, then chdir > to $ADTTMP, and run tests from there.) I think the last bit makes most sense. I changed the test accordingly. Notice that there is also a dedicated git repository for tests. https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX-tests But I'd have to ask upstream about copyright first. Also, maybe they can integrate that repository into their releases which would avoid having to make the upstream tarball generation more complex. > >>Have you seen this thread on d-devel@? > >>https://lists.debian.org/53ccf007.6020...@debian.org > >Yes, but how is it relevant to this? > > I'm a bit worried, because pdf2htmlex is built in C++11 mode, but it > links to libraries built in C++98 mode. If I understand correctly, this > is potentially a recipe for disaster. Maybe. I'm not familiar enough with the kind of disaster that may happen when linking C++11 compiled code to C++98 libraries and the thread does not expand much on that. I also do not see any advised fix or how to prevent the situation. What the thread is about is to ensure that the source is compiled with a C++11 capable compiler. I never tested building with an older compiler. > Now, it's probably not something that would stop me from uploading the > package. Just wanted to make sure that you are aware of this problem. I did not realize you were offering to sponsor the package but I'm very happy about it :) Upstream did a new release a few days ago. It turned out that it allows to drop nine patches because they integrated them. On the other hand I had to add another patch to be able to build with an older version of libfontforge. I uploaded the new version. I also noticed that the software allows to set ENABLE_SVG=ON which enables generating SVG backgrounds and converting type-3 fonts. But this feature requires CairoFontEngine, CairoRescaleBox and CairoOutputDev from the poppler sources. Should I integrate the required files into the upstream tarball so that we can build with ENABLE_SVG=ON? I also noticed that the required files are shipped by the emscripten binary package. But it'd be quite messy to depend on that binary package for the sources it ships for a different purpose. cheers, josch -- 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/20140802073350.19236.95968@hoothoot
Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-04 23:03:54) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-08-02, 09:33: > >I'm not familiar enough with the kind of disaster that may > >happen when linking C++11 compiled code to C++98 libraries > > Crashes, I suppose. > > >I also do not see any advised fix or how to prevent the situation. > > There's not much that can be done, other than: > - porting pdf2htmlEX to C++98 (unlikely to be feasible); > - not uploading the package yet; > - keeping your fingers crossed that nothing bad will happen. I would suggest going for the last option and handle problems once they appear in practice. > >I uploaded the new version. > > There's a new typo: > comparision -> comparison I created a new patch "fix-spelling". But since this is the only correction we have so far I guess we wait with forwarding it to upstream until there are more changes than just a single letter? > >I also noticed that the software allows to set ENABLE_SVG=ON which enables > >generating SVG backgrounds and converting type-3 fonts. But this feature > >requires CairoFontEngine, CairoRescaleBox and CairoOutputDev from the > >poppler sources. Should I integrate the required files into the upstream > >tarball so that we can build with ENABLE_SVG=ON? > > Embedding a copy of (a part of) Poppler doesn't seem appealing to me. > :-( > > It would be ideal if Poppler provided the required headers files, and > perhaps moved Cairo*.o to a separate library (they are currently part of > libpoppler-glib). But I have a hunch Poppler maintainers won't like this > idea... Just in case I filed wishlist bug #757055 > >I also noticed that the required files are shipped by the emscripten binary > >package. But it'd be quite messy to depend on that binary package for the > >sources it ships for a different purpose. > > Yeah, let's not go that way. Agreed. In case #757055 gets resolved we can revisit this feature. I uploaded a new version that fixes the spelling mistake you found. cheers, josch -- 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/20140804233454.19236.26640@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-18 16:55:20) > I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has several Lintian messages. > > IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing > all possible messages. which Lintian messages are you referring to? There is one pedantic warning 'debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature' which I cannot fulfill because upstream does not use gpg. There is 'binary-without-manpage' which I could fulfill but that would be a very empty man page because the game does not have any commandline options. There is 'hardening-no-fortify-functions' which is a false positive. And there is 'spelling-error-in-binary' which is a false positive as well. cheers, josch -- 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/20140818154752.14069.17190@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto Mota (2014-08-19 14:29:34) > Hi Johannes. Thanks for your reply. sorry for my late reply but I was at the Debian Bootstrap sprint in Paris over the weekend and am moving to Sweden tomorrow, so I'm a bit tight on free time right now :) > I understand your POV. However, from Debian Policy[1]: > > "Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual > page included in the same package. It is suggested that all > configuration files also have a manual page included as well. Manual > pages for protocols and other auxiliary things are optional. > > If no manual page is available, this is considered as a bug and should > be reported to the Debian Bug Tracking System (the maintainer of the > package is allowed to write this bug report themselves, if they so > desire). Do not close the bug report until a proper man page is > available." > > I have some very long manpages and short manpages too. When an user > see a command but he don't know what is this, he always tries '$man > command' to get an explanation. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html Thank you for elaborating on this and sorry for my dismissive last message. At the time of writing I had just finished writing man pages for 43 applications and at that point I couldn't see man pages anymore XD I added a man page to vcmiserver by patching the program to do the commandline parsing before other initialization which would fail if vcmi is not yet installed. Then I use help2man to generate the man page like for the other applications. For vcmilauncher I wrote a custom man page in `debian/vcmilauncher.1`. > > There is 'hardening-no-fortify-functions' which is a false positive. > > Ok, the same case of the GPG signature. I actually think they are different cases. Checking for the GPG signature would be a pedantic warning that I would like to receive every time I package a new upstream version because it reminds me to check whether upstream still does not provide GPG signatures. If I override the warning, then I will forget doing this. Checking with blhc showed that the flags -fstack-protector and --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 are not passed. But instead -fstack-protector-strong is used. So things showd be fine, no? > > And there is 'spelling-error-in-binary' which is a false positive as well. > > It is a classical Lintian override case. Right. > In your package, please: > > 1. I suggest you add a d/README.source explaining why it is DFSG and telling >which files have been removed. I saw it in d/copyright but I suggest a >detailed README too. I added a d/README.source. Does it contain everything you think it needs to contain? > 2. d/copyright: I suggest put the range of years to 'Files: *'. Can be a >unique range for all authors (2007-2014). I figured out that the range 2002-2014 seems to be correct. > I think that there are files with copyright not listed at d/copyright. I > found lib/minizip/mztools.h. You can use 'grep -sri copyright *' to see all > files. I added "Xavier Roche" as the author of lib/minizip/mztools.h and added further sections for cmake_modules/cotire.cmake and cmake_modules/FindFFmpeg.cmake. I hope I caught them all now. > 3. d/docs: the README.linux is useless because a Debian final user doesn't >compile codes. Please, remove it. That's right. I removed it. > 4. A doubt: why you didn't make a separated package for shared libraries? Upstream does not care about others using the shared library and will break ABI and API with every release. The shared library is not intended to have any users besides vcmi itself. There is a warning about this: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name 'libvcmi.so' hat's why I put it in the vcmi subdirectory in /usr/share/. Should the library be put somewhere different in this case? > 5. You need lintian overrides to 'I: vcmi: spelling-error-in-binary >usr/games/vcmilauncher tEH the' and to 'I: vcmi: spelling-error-in-binary >usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/vcmi/libvcmi.so tEH the'. I added those lintian overrides. > 6. Please, add a simple manpage to usr/games/vcmilauncher and >usr/games/vcmiserver. Done. > Thanks a lot for your work. Thanks a lot for your feedback. It is very much appreciated! I also refreshed the date in debian/changelog and uploaded the result to mentors. cheers, josch -- 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/20140822183019.3685.64083@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Dariusz Dwornikowski (2014-08-23 11:04:09) > Thanks for your work, but I think that your package should go to contrib, > because in order to work it needs HoMM game, so it depends on something non > free [1]. > > Installation instruction from upstream's web page clearly state that > you need to install Heroes data files [2] > > I also found info on this game on Debian Games suggested games > website [3] stating the above. > > I am CCing the Debian Games list too. you are right, vcmi is a classical case for a game in contrib as its assets (graphics, music, sounds, text) are non-free. That debian/control said it was for "main" is an artifact from when I started packaging it. I developed a tool with which I made it possible to play the game with colorful rectangle graphics instead of the original sprites. Here is the email thread about this: http://lists.debian.org/20140317153554.1302.95390@hoothoot While this makes the game playable, upstream disliked that their engine could be abused in such a way so I stopped doing this. Thus I changed the Section to contrib/games now. Thanks for noticing this! cheers, josch -- 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/20140824185700.3685.51565@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-24 07:09:20) > > Thank you for elaborating on this and sorry for my dismissive last message. > Ok. I just want help you. If you let me do it I will be grateful. your help is very much appreciated! My packaging can only get better with your help :) > > At the time of writing I had just finished writing man pages for 43 > > applications and at that point I couldn't see man pages anymore XD > I understand you. A very hard work. Do you know txt2man? I used pod2man. > Yes. You can suggest to upstream to provide a GPG signature. I did: http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1883 > > Checking with blhc showed that the flags -fstack-protector and > > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 are not passed. But instead > > -fstack-protector-strong is used. So things showd be fine, no? > Not ideal but appears acceptable. Jakub Wilk suggested that my blhc version was outdated and indeed after upgrading from the version in testing to the version from unstable, there are no warnings at all with "blhc --all" > I found a problem in d/changelog. For the first upload, the priority must be > 'low'. You probably mean urgency instead of priority? I cannot find anything in the devref or policy that states this: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Urgency https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog Not that I don't trust you about it but if it is like that then there could be: - a devscripts bug against dch that `dch --new` defaults to urgency=low (currently the default is urgency=medium which is how the value got there) - a lintian warning if the first entry in debian/changelog is not urgency=low I changed the urgency to low in debian/changelog. > >> 2. d/copyright: I suggest put the range of years to 'Files: *'. Can be a > >>unique range for all authors (2007-2014). > > > > I figured out that the range 2002-2014 seems to be correct. > > I didn't found 2002 in the upstream code. Can you point me this > information? You said about 2014 but wrote 2012 in d/copyright... That's odd... I was sure I read 2002 somewhere but I cannot find it. The upstream vcs has 2007 as the first commit date so I'll use that. > I suggest you to use this format (clean): > > Files: * > Copyright: > 2007-2014 Andrea Palmate >Benjamin Gentner >Frank Zago >Ivan Savenko >Lukasz Wychrystenko >Mateusz B. >Michał Urbańczyk >Rafal R. >Rickard Westerlund >Stefan Pavlov >Tom Zielinski >Trevor Standley >Vadim Glazunov >Xiaomin Ding >Yifeng Sun > License: GPL-2+ Okay, done. > >> I think that there are files with copyright not listed at d/copyright. I > >> found lib/minizip/mztools.h. You can use 'grep -sri copyright *' to see > >> all files. > > You put ' 2010 Juan Rada-Vilela' in last block. However, all files in > AI/FuzzyLite/ is under Apache 2. Correct. I created a new block for "Juan Rada-Vilela" and added Apache2. > It is a problem. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 > and http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html. So, in current > stage, I think that the source code is undistributable. But vcmi itself is GPL-2+ and both resources agreed that Apache2 is compatible with GPL3. So could vcmi in Debian thus not be shipped as GPL3+ instead of GPL2+? I submitted the problem to the upstream bugtracker. http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1884 > > Upstream does not care about others using the shared library and will break > > ABI and API with every release. The shared library is not intended to have > > any users besides vcmi itself. There is a warning about this: > > > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't extract name and version from library name > > 'libvcmi.so' > > > > hat's why I put it in the vcmi subdirectory in /usr/share/. Should > > the > > library be put somewhere different in this case? > > > I think that it is another problem. I don't know a case of shared libraries > put outside */lib or packaged with a non lib code. Well, as by FHS, /usr/lib seems to be the only place they could go, right? So I cannot imagine where else they should be put. > You also must consider the comment made by Dariusz. I responded to that email separately, though strangely, vcmi still shows as "Section: games" on mentors. That's probably a bug in the mentors.d.n web interface? I uploaded a new version of the vcmi package with the fixes from above. Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20140824202217.3685.23489@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, iyou dropped the ITP bug as a recipient - was that intended? In case it was I only quoted the small part below. I hope that's okay? Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-25 16:01:36) > 2014-08-24 17:22 GMT-03:00 Johannes Schauer : > > But vcmi itself is GPL-2+ and both resources agreed that Apache2 is > > compatible > > with GPL3. So could vcmi in Debian thus not be shipped as GPL3+ instead of > > GPL2+? > > I think that no. You can ask about this issue in mentors. However, I > think that this code is, currently, undistributable. I already had a > similar case and the upstream wrote a new code to drop an reused GPLed > code. The software is Yara. > > > I submitted the problem to the upstream bugtracker. > > > > http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1884 > > > Ok. I hope you get a solution. the upstream of fuzzylite relicensed from apache 2.0 to LGPL 3.0 with the release of fuzzylite 5.0 (but not the versions prior to that). So if upstream should upgrade their copy of the embedded fuzzylite, then the license problem should go away. cheers, josch -- 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/20140829135205.3685.59631@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-08-29 17:02:35) > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > the upstream of fuzzylite relicensed from apache 2.0 to LGPL 3.0 with the > > release of fuzzylite 5.0 (but not the versions prior to that). So if > > upstream should upgrade their copy of the embedded fuzzylite, then the > > license problem should go away. > > Please ask vmci upstream to remove the embedded copy of fuzzylite and > depend on the system version. > > https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies Would this solve the license incompatibility between fuzzylite (apache 2.0) and vcmi (gpl2+)? I asked upstream whether they can remove the embedded copy and depend on the system version instead: http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1886 Currently, fuzzylite is not in Debian nor does any other software in Debian carry an embedded copy of it (at least according to codesearch.d.n). This is why I did not consider packaging fuzzylite separately yet. But if it would solve the licensing problem, then I will certainly see if I can get fuzzylite packaged. A problem might be that vcmi as the only user of that library uses the old 4.0 version while upstream just released 5.0. Vcmi upstream expressed that migration to fuzzylite 5.0 would be very troublesome here: http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1884#c4932 Would it be okay to package fuzzylite 4.0 even though upstream is at 5.0? cheers, josch -- 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/20140829151623.3685.12351@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-08-29 17:47:10) > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Would this solve the license incompatibility between fuzzylite (apache 2.0) > > and vcmi (gpl2+)? > > Yes because the latest version (5.0) of fuzzylite (LGPLv3) is > compatible with vmci (GPLv2+). I'm confused. I asked whether removing fuzzylite from vcmi and making it a shared library instead would solve the license incompatibility. I am aware that using fuzzylite 5.0 will solve the issue but not using the embedded copy is a different issue than upgrading the code to be compatible with version 5.0. So the answer is: "No, but switching to 5.0 will"? > > I asked upstream whether they can remove the embedded copy and depend on > > the system version instead: http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1886 > ... > > A problem might be that vcmi as the only user of that library uses the old > > 4.0 > > version while upstream just released 5.0. Vcmi upstream expressed that > > migration to fuzzylite 5.0 would be very troublesome here: > > http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1884#c4932 > > > > Would it be okay to package fuzzylite 4.0 even though upstream is at 5.0? > > Since it is not GPLv2+ compatible, that wouldn't solve the problem. Okay. Thank you for clarifying this. > Perhaps fuzzylite upstream would be willing to apply the license change to > 4.0 too? I sent off an email to ask about that. > The code copy should be removed in any case, if that proves impossible > (perhaps it is patched), please contact the security team to report the > issue. It turns out that their embedded code copy is patched but I am in the process of clarifying with upstream which parts they patched. Maybe no patching is necessary anymore with fuzzylite 5.0 or maybe upstream can integrate their patches into the 4.0 branch. Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20140829155203.3685.39246@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-29 17:08:37) > 2014-08-29 12:02 GMT-03:00 Paul Wise : > > Please ask vmci upstream to remove the embedded copy of fuzzylite and > > depend on the system version. > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies > I thought about it too. This is the best option. I started packaging fuzzylite 5.0 and found out that they do not offer versioned SONAMES (I reported that and seven other bugs I found to fuzzylite upstream). At the same time I asked on debian-legal and it seems to be possible to distribute vcmi (gpl2+) together with fuzzylite (apache2) because gpl2+ implies gpl3 which is compatible with apache2. So the only remaining problem seems to be the embedded copy of fuzzylite in vcmi. I agree that embedded copies are not nice but given the following: - vcmi upstream uses an outdated copy of fuzzylite and is hesitating to upgrade to 5.0 because of api changes - fuzzylite upstream does not version their SONAME so it would be hard to maintain it in Debian - the fuzzylite version in vcmi contains their own set of patches which are unknown because when fuzzylite was imported into their version control system, their custom patches were already applied. - nobody else in Debian uses fuzzylite would letting vcmi include the embedded fuzzylite copy be an acceptable option given the other tradeoffs? cheers, josch -- 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/20140902100247.3685.43580@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]
Hi, Quoting Eriberto (2014-09-02 13:52:11) > vcmi (GPL-2+) with fuzzylite (Apache 2.0) can't be distributed from upstream. > It is the problem. IMHO, you can't make a -dfsg version because the source > code is 'improper', can't be distributed. These two emails suggest otherwise: http://lists.debian.org/54038d81.4050...@bitmessage.ch http://lists.debian.org/54039338.7090...@debian.org It can only not be distributed as (gpl2 and apache2) but since vcmi is gpl2+ it can be distributed as (gpl3+ and apache2). The vcmi authors let us freely choose which version of the gpl we want to comply with by saying gpl2+. Since we cannot possible comply with gpl2 since it conflicts with apache2, we choose to comply with gpl3 instead. > But, if the upstream distribute the source code without fuzzylite 4, then you > can package vcmi and fuzzylite 4 (you need use fuzzylite4 as name to avoid an > upgrade to 5). This is my idea. The fuzzylite version used by vcmi predates fuzzylite version in its git repository. Therefore, the fuzzylite version used by vcmi must be earlier than fuzzylite 1.5. I looked into how hard it is to port vcmi to fuzzylite 5.0 and it seems to be quite an undertaking because fuzzylite did a number of major refactorings between 1.5 and 5.0. Packaging the fuzzylite version prior to 1.5 which vcmi uses seems the wrong thing to do in my eyes because nobody else will use this outdated version. > What is your oppinion, Pabs? > > Thank you for your willingness to make the package and contribute to Debian. Thanks for mentoring me :) cheers, josch -- 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/20140902120607.3685.91403@hoothoot
Re: How to resolve circular build dependency?
Hi, Quoting Ole Streicher (2014-09-13 15:20:36) > Am 13.09.2014 um 15:09 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo: > > On Sep 13, 2014 3:01 PM, "Ole Streicher" wrote: > >> - the "casacore" needs the "casacore-data" package for unit tests > >> - the "casacore-data" needs "casacore" to be build from the source data. > > > > What's about upload casacore with the tests disabled, then upload > > casacore-data, then re-upload casacore with the tests re-enabled? > > Still, the packages would have a circular build dependency, which I think > should be avoided, right? It is indeed nice to bootstrappers if circular build dependencies are avoided. This is especially the case if a package has many reverse (build-)dependencies. But there are two bootstrapping scenarios to consider. One is the one where somebody wants to bootstrap a new architecture. The casacore-data binary package sounds as if it is Architecture:all? In that case you should not worry about circular build dependencies during bootstrapping for a new architecture because the bootstrapper can just take an existing casacore-data binary package to build first src:casacore and then src:casacore-data. The other scenario is bootstrapping from nothing just for the sake of checking bootstrappability of the archive including bootstrapping Architecture:all packages. To be nice to bootstrappers you have several options: 1. split the source package as Alexander Wolf suggested so that the unit tests are in their own package and cascore can be built without cascore-data. You could still run tests by using the cascore-unit-tests package as a autopkgtest 2. join src:casacore-data and src:casacore into a single source package and handle bootstrapping of both via debian/rules 3. make it such that src:casacore can be cross compiled from an existing architecture so that src:casacore-data can be compiled natively after which src:casacore can be compiled natively 4. use build profiles once Jessie is released. Once Jessie is released, you can 'tag' the build dependency of src:casacore on casacore-data with and then the build dependency would not be required when being built with the nocheck profile active Options 1-3 might make maintaining src:casacore and src:casacore-data very difficult, so that together with the fact that neither is currently in Debian and thus there are no reverse (build-)dependencies on it, you might want to wait until Jessie is released and then use build profiles. Until you can use build profiles, just write down in README.Source of both packages that this build dependency cycle exists and how to best break it manually. cheers, josch -- 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/20140913135312.3685.17954@hoothoot
Re: debian/control: Multi-Arch: no
Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-02-11 15:16:01) > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:20:14AM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > libcdk5-dev was rejected by ftp-masters because > > it has 'Multi-Arch: no' on debian/control. > You could just omit the field, no need to use the explicit "no". While this is correct, I don't see what should be wrong with explicitly stating the default. It could have the meaning of: the package was looked at for multi-archification but it was deemed that it is either not possible or that there is no need to make it multi-arch aware, so setting the value explicitly. Unfortunately, multi-arch is not in policy yet (#687900). > > "Multi-Arch: no support in Debian is broken (#768353)" > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768353 > The bug is closed in 2014, though. I do not understand why this bug was cited as the reason for the package not being allowed in Debian. If the messages in the bugs are right, then this dose3-related problem was fixed with version 3.2.2-3 and Jessie has version 3.3~beta1-3. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: sbuild “Failed to fetch source files”
Hi, Quoting Ben Finney (2016-04-21 04:17:02) > I am using ‘sbuild(1)’ successfully for some packages. For one package, > though, I'm getting an error I don't understand: The source package is not > found by Sbuild. > > One version finds the source package correctly: > > = > +==+ > | python-coverage 3.7.1+dfsg.1-1 (amd64) 21 Apr 2016 > 11:29 | > +==+ > > Package: python-coverage > Version: 3.7.1+dfsg.1-1 > Source Version: 3.7.1+dfsg.1-1 > […] > > +--+ > | Fetch source files > | > +--+ > > > Local sources > - > > /home/bignose/Projects/debian/python-coverage/build-area/python-coverage/python-coverage_3.7.1+dfsg.1-1.dsc > exists in > /home/bignose/Projects/debian/python-coverage/build-area/python-coverage; > copying to chroot > […] > = > > > When I try another version, Sbuild apparently can't find the source package: > > = > +==+ > | ./python-coverage 4.0.3+dfsg.1-1 (amd64) 21 Apr 2016 > 11:10 | > +==+ > > Package: ./python-coverage > Version: 4.0.3+dfsg.1-1 > Source Version: 4.0.3+dfsg.1-1 > […] > > +--+ > | Fetch source files > | > +--+ > > > Check APT > - > > Checking available source versions... > W: Unable to locate package ./python-coverage > apt-cache returned no information about ./python-coverage source > Are there any deb-src lines in your /etc/apt/sources.list? > […] > = > > Why does it need to check APT, when the source package is all local to > the source control file? could you show us the exact sbuild invocation you used in each of the above two cases? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Mass-rebuilding packages
Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2016-05-02 08:37:49) > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > Thanks for the responses, all. > > Another one is ratt (rebuild-all-the-things). > > I wonder if some of these should be merged together or removed. from this thread I gather that there are the following tools: reverse-depends (from ubuntu-dev-tools), build-rdeps (from devscripts) and ratt (from ratt). From reading the reverse-depends source I gather that it doesn't do the computation locally but queries http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/rdepends The source for that tool is available but seems to suffer from similar problems with dependency resolution as I reported for build-rdeps and ratt: - build-rdeps: https://bugs.debian.org/797858 - ratt: https://bugs.debian.org/801593 It probably doesn't make much sense to post a bug against reverse-depends because the tool it relies upon for its computation is not part of Debian. Both above bugs are fixed and both tools now use dose-ceve for reverse build dependency resolution. So both tools should yield the same results and there is only one source package that has to be touched if their results are wrong (dose3). I think the advantages of ratt over build-rdeps are: - ratt uses "apt indextargets" and "apt-helper cat-file" to retrieve Packages and Sources file contents while build-rdeps relies on manually interpreting the contents of /var/lib/apt/lists (See #752702 why this is problematic) - ratt also drives a package builder (only sbuild for now) to build the affected source packages I think it's suboptimal that reverse-depends only works when it can query an online resource. On the other hand, the dose-ceve run done by ratt and build-rdeps also takes quite a while (20 seconds on my laptop) so maybe it would be nice to have an online resource with the same API as http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/rdepends for Debian. Then users could choose to use that instead of waiting 20 seconds for each query. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#814859: RFS: runescape/0.1-1 [ITP] -- Set in a fantasy world of war, landscapes and sinister powers
Hi, On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:16:06 -0200 Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape is it me or did the package vanish from mentors.debian.net? How much sense does it make to package the java archive instead of the rsu-client or (possibly even better) the NXT client? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?
Hi Paul, Quoting Sean Whitton (2016-08-03 06:20:26) > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:06:31PM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Sometimes a user gets a sbuild chroot so screwed up that it does not > > work anymore, and the user has no idea how to fix it, because he does not > > know what he did wrong. > > > > He wants to start over from scratch. > > > > The problem is, it is not documented the correct way to delete > > the chroot and tar ball. The users want to put sbuild back to > > the way it was just after sbuild was installed. if it's not documented, you should file a bug about that. ;) The main issue here is, that it is not clear *where* the bug should be filed. Sbuild supports multiple backends. The probably most used one is the schroot backend because that is used by sbuild-createchroot and the default of the CHROOT_MODE configuration variable. Indeed I do remember having had a similar question when I started using sbuild but never got around filing a bug. As far as I know, schroot still doesn't document how to delete a chroot. > > What is the proper way to do that? > > Asking for a friend? ;) > > Assuming you used the suggestions for making the chroot on the sbuild > wiki page, this should do it: > > # rm -rf /srv/chroot/* /etc/sbuild/chroot/*-sbuild > /etc/schroot/chroot.d/*-sbuild > > If you didn't use the suggestions on the wiki page, just start nuking > stuff in those three directories. Paul was talking about "a chroot" (singular). The above advice kills all chroots including those that are not related to sbuild. Assuming that you are using the schroot backend, you can do the following: 1. figure out which schroot you were using with sbuild. If you used an unstable chroot on amd64, then look out for a file that is called like /etc/schroot/chroot.d/unstable-amd64-sbuild-XX where XX is a random ASCII string 2. look inside that file to figure out where the chroot data lives in your file system by looking at the directory= or the file= options 3. if you want to delete the schroot, just delete the configuration file under /etc/schroot/chroot.d/unstable-amd64-sbuild-XX together with the actual chroot the configuration file pointed to I never heard about /etc/sbuild/chroot/ but it seems it's used for the sudo backend. I don't even know where the code is that creates this. But if you don't care, then you can leave that directory alone. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?
Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2016-08-03 12:41:28) > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > The main issue here is, that it is not clear *where* the bug should be > > filed. > > Sbuild supports multiple backends. The probably most used one is the schroot > > backend because that is used by sbuild-createchroot and the default of the > > CHROOT_MODE configuration variable. > > > > Indeed I do remember having had a similar question when I started using > > sbuild > > but never got around filing a bug. As far as I know, schroot still doesn't > > document how to delete a chroot. > > Seems to me like sbuild should have an sbuild-deletechroot command > that should call the relevant tool for the chroot in question and > schroot should have a corresponding command that would DTRT. it is unlikely, that there will be a schroot command that does the right thing because schroot also leaves it up to the user to create the chroot in the first place. This is also why sbuild-createchroot is doing everything manually including assembling the right schroot configuration file. My last attempt at implementing a command that does this was stopped early on by the question how this tool should best be called: - sbuild-deletechroot - sbuild-removechroot - sbuild-destroychroot Maybe a native English speaker could tell me the most natural choice for a tool that does the opposite of what sbuild-createchroot does. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?
Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-08-05 09:49:11) > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:42:27AM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Before I was getting a different error complaining > > that debfoster does not exist under "testing". BTW why does debfoster fail > > to exist under testing? > Because it was removed from testing and the new version hasn't entered > testing yet. note, that version 0.70.0 of sbuild in unstable (also didn't migrate to testing yet) doesn't add debfoster to the chroot by default anymore. So your problem shouldn't exist anymore with the most recent sbuild release. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?
Hi Paul, Quoting Paul Elliott (2016-08-05 21:28:25) > OK this time I deleted the recommended files as before, but I noted there > were no other chroots in use. So I purged both sbuild and schroot with > apt-get and reinstalled. note that purging sbuild and schroot will not remove the chroots. But it will get you a clean initual configuration. > I then recreated th chroot using steps 1-6 of "Create the chroot" from the > wiki page. Which sbuild version are you using? Since fixing of bug #801798 (so since sbuild version 0.67.0) steps 2 and 3 from that wiki page are not useful anymore, unless you want to build packages for Debian squeeze. Also, step 4 has only to be done once after you installed sbuild and not every time you create a new chroot. > I get the same error! > > Setup apt archive > - > > Merged Build-Depends: build-essential, fakeroot > Filtered Build-Depends: build-essential, fakeroot > dpkg-deb: building package 'sbuild-build-depends-core-dummy' in > '/<>/resolver-aIr7Ri/apt_archive/sbuild-build-depends-core-dummy.deb'. > dpkg-deb: error: failed to make temporary file (control member): No such > file or directory > Dummy package creation failed > E: Setting up apt archive failed > +--+ > | Cleanup > > > Some how some bad data is being stored in some unknown place. > > Is there any way to figure out what directory does not exist? (control > member) Please file a bug report against sbuild. Even if the problem is on your side, the above error message is very cryptic and not helpful at all. In your bug report, please include the following: - which sbuild version are you using? - which Debian release are you using? - list precisely which commands you are executing Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#834262: RFS: pdfrw/0.2-3 [QA] -- PDF file manipulation library
Hi Sean, Quoting Sean Whitton (2016-08-13 23:30:54) > Changes since the last upload: > > * QA upload. > * Drop "Conflicts:/Provides:/Replaces: pdfrw" lines (Closes: #814289). > The pdfrw binary package is long gone and was never part of a release. > This fixes co-installing python-pdfrw and python3-pdfrw, and other > package combinations. > Thanks to Aaron M. Ucko and Yuri D'Elia for useful information. > * d/copyright improvements: > - Add proper DEP-5 header > - Correct licence name MIT -> Expat > - Factor out Expat license text into its own paragraph > - Update copyright years for Patrick Maupin > - Add missing copyrights of Attila Tajti, Narijus Mika & Mathieu Fenniak > See LICENSE.txt in upstream source. > * Fix Vcs-* URIs. > They were previously pointing at the dgit repo for src:botch. whoops! I have *no idea* who could've made this mistake! :D > * Declare compliance with Policy 3.9.8 (no changes required). > * Drop duplicate build-dependency on python-setuptools. > * Run wrap-and-sort -abst Thanks, I did not know of wrap-and-sort. It looks useful! > Since this package already has history on the dgit git server, I would > like to request that the package be sponsored using dgit (non-DDs cannot > push the history there). To do that: > > dgit clone pdfrw > cd pdfrw > git remote add -f spwhitton https://git.spwhitton.name/pdfrw > git merge --ff-only spwhitton/master This failed. Instead, I rebased your branch on top of dgit/sid (which worked without conflicts) and then rebased dgit/sid on top of your branch. > git log -1 > # ^ confirm that commit hash is d715f1ef184907956865d94be4f14648bb279342 The latest commit hash in dgit/sid is now obviously different due to the rebase but I confirmed it to be the right hash in your branch. > # now perform all your pre-upload tests, builds etc., and then: > dgit build-source > dgit push The last command is missing a -k. Otherwise it will fail because gpg cannot find your private key on my system. ;) Thanks a lot for your work! Your changes all look good and thus I built, tested and uploaded the package unstable. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?
Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-17 16:00:28) > i am preparing the Debian package for a new upstream release of libisofs > and see on its tracker page > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs > a new "action needed": > > "Multiarch hinter reports 1 issue(s)" > > The link points to > https://wiki.debian.org/MultiArch/Hints > > But where to see the actual complaint ? I was confused by this as well when I first saw the hints appear in the tracker. You have to click at the small downward arrow at the left of the "Multiarch hinter" text. Then you can see: There are issues with the multiarch metadata for this package. libisofs-doc could be marked Multi-Arch: foreign > Google "multiarch hinter" brings me to > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833623 > where i find in the patch a URL: > https://dedup.debian.net/static/multiarch-hints.yaml > which says: > - binary: libisofs-doc > description: 'libisofs-doc could be marked Multi-Arch: foreign' > link: https://wiki.debian.org/MultiArch/Hints#ma-foreign > severity: low > source: libisofs > The MultiArch/Hints wiki page says > "marking it Multi-Arch: foreign usually is safe." > but does not clearly state what it means by "usually". The package libisofs-doc is Architecture: all, does not contain any maintainer scripts and does not have any dependencies on architecture-dependent packages. Thus, marking it as Multi-Arch:foreign should be correct. It says "usually" because this analysis is wrong if any of the metadata the analysis is based on is wrong. > There is no mentioning of "Multi-arch" in > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html Multiarch is not in policy yet but it has been in Debian since Wheezy. The four year old policy bug can be found here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687900 > nor is there an explanation of "foreign" in > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture "foreign" is no architecture but one of the possible values of the Multi-arch field. > More Google brings me to > https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO > with the statement: > "If a package is marked 'Multi-Arch: foreign', then it can satisfy >dependencies of a package of a different architecture." > > Duh ! > I am about as confused as a year ago: A better (and the probably still most complete) explanation is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec > "Multi-arch and debian/control" > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2015/09/msg00403.html > All packages got "Multi-arch: same" then, except libisofs-doc which > got no Multi-arch header at all. I cannot find or remember the reason > for that. Some packages are just neither Multi-arch same, foreign nor allowed. In the case of libisofs-doc, it is very likely that it can be correctly marked as "foreign". > Could somebody please look into > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/libi/libisofs/control-1.4.4-1 and > tell me what to do ? You could just mark libisofs-doc as Multi-Arch:foreign. > (And was i really expected to google for a link to the 1.9 MB yaml file ?) Nope and I agree that the current way to find the actual problem in the tracker is suboptimal. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?
Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-17 17:51:16) > I saw the mouseover text "Toggle details", but the click only brought me to > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs# > because i have Javascript disabled. that should be reported as a bug against the tracker. Without Javascript, the default should be to see the expanded view or otherwise the data will be invisible for users without Javascript. It should be simple to make it such that users with javascript see the collapsed view by default and have to click to expand it. Though since I also didn't see the drop-down "button" myself at first maybe this UI element of the tracker needs some rethinking anyways. > Is there a diagram or table which relates Architecture: and Multi-arch: ? I don't see how this should be done. The fields are not related except that they both have the character sequence "arch" in them. The Architecture field tells you whether the binary package is architecture specific or not and if it is architecture specific to which architecture it belongs. Architecture:all means that the data inside the package doesn't differ between different architectures. Hence, Architecture:all packages are only built once by buildds and can then be used on any other architecture where their dependencies are satisfied, even before there was multiarch. For all other values of the Architecture field, the binary package is architecture specific and before there was multiarch you only were able to install a package that was of Architecture:foo on a system with native architecture foo. You can find out your system's native architecture via $(dpkg --print-architecture). With multiarch it is now also potentially possible to install a package of architecture bar on a system with native architecture foo. A short summary: If a package is Multi-Arch:same then it is potentially possible to install a package with same name and version but different architecture at the same time. If a package is Multi-Arch:foreign, then a package of architecture foo is potentially able to satisfy a dependency of a package with architecture bar. > Coming back to the diagram question: Doesn't "Architecture: all" imply > "Multi-arch: foreign" ? No. Multi-arch:foreign means that a package of architecture foo is able to satisfy the dependencies of a package with architecture bar. This means that the functionality and interface that your Architecture:all package provides must be independent of the native architecture (Architecture:all packages are currently treated as if they were of the native architecture). While this is certainly the case for many Architecture:all packages, there also exist many for which it is not the case. Here an example: Imagine your Architecture:all package was just a shell script which provided the functionality of printing "hello world" on standard output: #!/bin/sh echo "hello world" The package that just contains this script could probably be marked as Multi-Arch:foreign as the functionality it provides is architecture independent. No matter the architecture of the package depending on it, they would get the requested functionality: the string "hello world". But now imagine an Architecture:all package doing this: #!/bin/sh gcc "$@" Certainly, what this architecture independent shell script does is architecture dependent and thus the package containing it cannot be marked as Multi-Arch:foreign. I hope this helps. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?
Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-18 09:09:09) > Johannes Schauer wrote: > > [the need for Javascript] should be reported as a bug against the tracker. > > Submitted as > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838178 > and subscribed to it. thanks! > > imagine an Architecture:all package doing this: > > #!/bin/sh > > gcc "$@" > > Certainly, what this architecture independent shell script does is > > architecture dependent and thus the package containing it cannot be > > marked as Multi-Arch:foreign. > > How can this script be "Architecture:all" if it does not work as expected > on some architectures ? > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture > says: > "all, which indicates an architecture-independent package." > > So is there a difference between "being architecture independent" and > "acting architecture independent" ? > (Hopefully i will never have to decide which of both is in effect.) When we say "an Architecture:all package is architecture independent" then we actually mean to say "an Architecture:all package contains content (files) which are the same across all architectures". In fact, we could easily live without Architecture:all packages. It would just mean that mirrors would then carry many identical binary packages for different architectures. So in the debian/control of src:libisofs you could mark libisofs-doc as Architecture:any and then you would get a libisofs-doc package on each architecture which would be completely identical (because src:libisofs seems to build reproducibly [1]). This would totally work as far as dependency relationships are concerned. It would just "waste" a little bit of mirror space because now you have to store X identical copies of a binary package, where X is the number of architectures in Debian. So the only thing that marking a package as Architecture:all tells you is, that its *content* is equal across all architectures and that it is thus not necessary to build and ship an individual copy of that binary package for each architecture. Thanks! cheers, josch [1] https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/libisofs.html signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#837798: RFS: libcgicc/3.2.16-0.1 NMU --
Hi, Quoting Thomas Pircher (2016-09-14 20:21:14) > Changes since the last upload: > >* Non-maintainer upload. >* New upstream release (closes: #833081, #811988, #798624, #645616). I once made a similar mistake in one of my packages and just listed all the closed bugs without writing down how the new release closes them. You can see for yourself which version you like better in this commit where I fixed the problem for my package: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/buildd-tools/sbuild.git/commit/?h=debian/unstable&id=5b06c85f93862f004053f1d85c1d69c9d7716955 Indeed it is not strictly *necessary* to list exactly how each bug was closed, but it is nice for the submitter of the bug to read how it got handled in the email they receive when your upload closes the bug. With just a list, as a bug submitter you don't know how your problem was taken care of without manually diffing the two versions. Here is a nice write-up about why to be more elaborate in d/changelog: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.en.html#bpp-debian-changelog Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Best GPG practices before sending computer to maintenance.
Hi, Quoting Charles Plessy (2016-11-12 06:06:13) > the laptop that I use mainly for Debian development will go to hardware > maintainance tomorrow. I will of course remove my .gnupg folder, but out of > curiosity I wonder if there are better practices. The mass storage is a SSD > that I am not going to remove it before sending the laptop. - remove that SSD - use full disk encryption - mirror the SSD content to another media (using dd or some such) and then wipe the whole disk with zeros If you are just worried about GPG, then removing .gnupg should be all you need to do. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Debian privacy policy
Hi, Quoting Ole Streicher (2016-11-17 10:11:42) > Paul Wise writes: > > AFAICT we don't have an official statement about this, but: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2008/02/msg00060.html [...] > > Is there a reason why it is not there? I guess because nobody wrote a patch for policy yet? > > Debian packages must respect sysadmin and user privacy and encourage > > sysadmins and users to respect the privacy of everyone. So, disabled by > > default, informed consent and don't manipulate people into destroying their > > privacy with click-through stuff. Some discussion of click-through culture > > is in the recent episode of FaiF: > > > > http://faif.us/cast/2016/nov/01/0x5E/ > > I observe that the common opinion in Debian is strictly pro privacy -- > but why it is not in the policy? It is quite hard to discuss those > topics with upstream if there is no reference to a settled opinion, but > rather a number of lengthy discussions. I suggest you submit a patch to #726998 and we continue discussion there. The wording should reflect the difference between programs where it should be obvious for the user that information sent to remote parties (firefox, wget, curl, youtube-dl) and programs which do so as a convenience feature but without having their functionality depend on it (auto updaters, reporting usage statistics). The user should explicitly asked for their consent in the latter case. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Writing outside of build dir
Hi! Quoting Christian Seiler (2016-11-26 01:30:59) > On 11/26/2016 01:59 AM, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > Could you point me to this policy? I'd like to learn more, but haven't > > been able to find it. > I just checked and it really isn't in there. Oh. This is odd. I just reported #845715 to rectify this situation. > My guess is that it probably never got added to policy because autobuilders > fail with similar errors as pbuilder does, so packages that violate this > FTBFS, which is an automatic RC bug, regardless of policy. More specifically, autobuilders use sbuild which also sets $HOME to /sbuild-nonexistent for package builds. If the source package tries to create that path it will fail because it lacks permissions to do so. This practice of course doesn't catch source packages which will not write into $HOME if it does not exist but will do so if it does. It would be interesting to do an archive rebuild with $HOME set to a writable location and to record which source packages still violate this rule. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#766833: RFS: fuzzylite/5.0+dfsg-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fuzzylite" * Package name: fuzzylite Version : 5.0+dfsg-1 Upstream Author : Juan Rada-Vilela * URL : http://www.fuzzylite.com/cpp/ * License : LGPL3 Section : misc It builds those binary packages: fuzzylite - fuzzy logic control binary libfuzzylite-dev - fuzzy logic control development headers libfuzzylite5.0 - fuzzy logic control shared library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/fuzzylite Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fuzzylite/fuzzylite_5.0+dfsg-1.dsc I'm CC-ing the Debian Games list because fuzzylite is required for packaging vcmi, a free reimplementation of Heroes of Might and Magic 3. See ITP #742077. Vcmi includes an ancient copy of fuzzylite with custom patches. To make vcmi fit for Debian, the embedded copy of fuzzylite has to be removed. Unfortunately, the fuzzylite API changed considerably between 2012 and now. Thus, porting vcmi to current fuzzylite 5.0 is a non-trivial effort. Luckily, Juan Rada-Vilela, the author of fuzzylite volunteered to do this porting task because he is interested in getting fuzzylite into Debian and he wishes to see more users of his library. I now forwarded his work to vcmi upstream and they say they will try to get fuzzylite 5.0 support into their next release. With this development I'm now looking for sponsors for fuzzylite 5.0. Having it in Debian is an important step to convince vcmi upstream to remove their embedded copy. To quote "Not much point in doing this until at least some of somewhat popular distros will have their own copy of fuzzylite" (http://bugs.vcmi.eu/view.php?id=1886) It would be great to find a sponsor for my package and get that and vcmi into Debian because Heroes of Might and Magic is a fantastic game and vcmi not only makes its engine free as in freedom but also adds tons of additional features such as modding capabilities to the engine. Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20141026080155.6292.34932.reportbug@hoothoot
Bug#742077: vcmi will start using fuzzylite 5.0
Control: block -1 by #761075 Everybody rejoice \o/ Juan Rada-Vilela, the author of fuzzylite agreed to port the parts of vcmi that used the old fuzzylite to fuzzylite 5.0. He now finished his work and I submitted his patch to vcmi upstream: https://github.com/vcmi/vcmi/pull/45 According to one of the upstream developers, they'll try to get his patch working for the next vcmi release! Once this is done, vcmi will no longer need the embedded copy of fuzzylite and can instead build with the system version of fuzzylite 5.0. Since fuzzylite 5.0 is LGPL3 there are also no licensing issues anymore. Now we only need to get fuzzylite into Debian. I filed RFS bug #766833 about that. Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20141026080332.5388.28542@hoothoot
Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.97+dfsg-1
Hi, I just packed a new upstream release and am still looking for a sponsor :) Vcmi is a GPL2+ reimplementation of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine. It works with the (proprietary) assets from the original game CDs as well as with the GOG.com version. This is the third vcmi release I am packaging and uploading to mentors since I started packaging it eight months ago: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/v/vcmi/vcmi_0.97+dfsg-1.dsc The great thing about this release is, that upstream added support for fuzzylite 5.0 after fuzzylite upstream in turn wrote a patch for vcmi. This means that the embedded copy of fuzzylite is removed from this Debian package of vcmi which also solves the licensing issue. On the other hand, this means that before vcmi can go into Debian, I also need a sponsor of fuzzylite ITP #761075 and RFS #766833 In addition to solving the fuzzylite problem, this release also brings: - removal of the embedded copy of minizip - improved man pages - HTML documentation Lots of praise goes to jwilk for helping me fix some annoying boost/locale errors :) Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20141103074321.23676.1872@hoothoot
Bug#766833: RFS: fuzzylite/5.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]
Hi Stephen, Quoting Stephen Kitt (2014-11-04 00:41:57) > I've taken a look at the package and it seems fine, apart from the two points > remaining from your exchanges with Jakub: > > * the hard-coded paths in src/Console.cpp > * the spelling/grammar errors > > Regarding the latter, I prefer "... method `static bar` was made `virtual > foo::bar`, which allows it to be overridden". Oh sorry, I already submitted a patch to upstream which says: Its method `static tsukamoto()` was moved to `virtual WeightedDefuzzifier::tsukamoto()`, which allows overriding it And upstream already applied it. https://github.com/fuzzylite/fuzzylite/pull/11 Is the grammar still wrong and should I prepare another pull request? (plus, of course fix this in the packaging until the next upstream release) > Do you have any idea what should be done about the former? The result of the former is, that two possible but undocumented commandline arguments of the fuzzylite binary do not work and instead produce an error that they cannot find some files. Upstream's opinion is, that this functionality is not something that is intended to be used by anybody but them: https://github.com/fuzzylite/fuzzylite/issues/10 I see two ways to go forward: 1) We accept that the two commandline arguments that are not working are neither found in the --help output of the binary nor in the man page I wrote, so it's unlikely the user will ever run them except if they read the source code. The solution would thus be ignoring the issue. 2) Make a quick patch which removes those two option from the commandline interface I'm inclined to do the former, because I see little difference between the program failing because "there is no such commandline argument" and the program failing because "you are not upstream" because the chances that the user will ever have this problem go towards zero as neither of those two non-working options are documented anywhere but the source code itself. What do you think? Thanks! cheers, josch -- 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/20141104060705.13657.8041@hoothoot
Re: Big data is needed for unit test
Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-12-01 17:03:39) > > Should I simply remove this test, or can I include the data file in the > > package ? > > Can you include more details about this data file? > > What data format is the file in? depending on the answer to this question it might be very simple to compress the file to 5-10% of its original size (usually possible for XML based formats). cheers, josch -- 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/20141201162850.6173.1592@hoothoot
Re: Re: Big data is needed for unit test
Hi, Quoting Corentin Desfarges (2014-12-02 17:29:12) > > Can you link to the file we are talking about? > With the authorization of the responsibles of the project, I published the > file here [2] > [2] http://goo.gl/53sAzM this looks a bit weird. I guess this google thing allows you to inspect the content of zip files? The 178 MiB file in question named md_1.jsonz is not a gzipped json file as the name suggests but a zip archive which contains a 1.4 MiB json file with metadata and 470 MiB of what seems to be binary data. If you want to add more complexity to compress this further and save space, you could add the md_1.jsonz file to a Debian source package in its *unzipped* version. The xz compressor will then be able to compress the data down to 120 MiB (with both, -9 and -9e). During build time you would then zip the content again (with --compression-method=store for speed because size doesn't matter now) because I guess your software expects the data in this zipped format and cannot handle it in unpacked form. This method would allow you to safe another 58 MiB in comparison to just adding the original file. I guess it is up to you whether you want to do it like that to reduce file size or not because as pabs already pointed out, there are already source packages in Debian that are larger than 200 MiB. So this is just an idea :) cheers, josch -- 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/20141202182705.6173.3052@hoothoot
Re: not installed and installed , where they store?
Hi, Quoting Mohsen Pahlevanzadeh (2015-05-10 05:53:17) >When i use : grep ^Status: /var/lib/dpkg/status , >Unfortunately , i only get "Status: install ok installed" how sure are you of that? Did you just look at the first few hundred or did you really find all unique values? Try: grep ^Status: /var/lib/dpkg/status | sort | uniq -c cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: why dpkg-buildpackage doesn't care my build targets in debian/rule
Hi, Quoting lumin (2015-05-22 06:31:34) > override_dh_auto_clean: > cp ./debian/my/Makefile.config.cpuonly ./Makefile.config > dh_auto_clean > # without following line the the source tree > # would be not clean. Hence dpkg-buildpackage > # refuse to build. > rm Makefile.config instead of calling rm explicitly in your d/rules, you can also add Makefile.config to debian/clean instead which might be considered a bit more clean :) cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Sbuild doesn't pick experimental over unstable
Hi, Quoting Daniel Stender (2015-07-10 09:32:19) > The problem is, I can add experimental as extra repository > (--extra-repository), > but the dependency solver won't pick over the package in Sid and always pulls > 1.9.0 [1]. > > Is this the way it's mend to work? Is there a way to cheat this? the problem is, that the experimental repository has a Release file with "NotAutomatic: yes" which means that apt will assign a pin priority of 1 to it. The apt resolver will only consider the packages with the highest pin priority for the solution (unless you instruct it to do otherwise) so it will by default not consider packages coming from experimental. As jwilk already noted, one solution is to choose aptitude as a resolver. Since this seems to be a common problem, I wrote an entry in the sbuild Debian wiki about this. Please extend or correct where necessary: https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild#enabling_experimental For example it currently misses that you might also be able to use --extra-repository to temporarily enable experimental. If this indeed works, please add this as a solution. Another way to solve this would be to use apt with an external resolver like this: apt-get install --simulate --solver aspcud \ -o APT::Solver::Strict-Pinning=false \ -o APT::Solver::aspcud::Preferences="-new,-removed,-changed,+sum(solution,apt-pin)" \ pkg-a This would also consider packages from experimental when installing pkg-a while at the same time find the solution with the most packages with a high pin value (ie. least packages from experimental). But this would of course require a change in sbuild and would probably not be desirable because an external resolver like aspcud would have to become part of the base chroot. See apt bug #786609 for some discussion about apt's behaviour with experimental. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
RE:Sbuild doesn't pick experimental over unstable
Hi, Quoting PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel (2015-07-10 10:54:20) > Is it possible to configure this per chroot in order to avoir passing this > command line each time ? No. But if bug #790354 (with patch) gets resolved, then you will able to pass a custom configuration file which you can then use to set custom options and also select which chroot you want to use for building. So instead of choosing the chroot you want to build with, you would then choose the sbuildrc you want to use. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home
Hi, Quoting Daniel Stender (2015-07-19 17:52:16) > I'm looking for a convenient way to test build source packages against resp. > on hurd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 instead of setting up simple "end user" Qemu > boxes and build within them. Sbuild and qemu-debootstrap somehow? there seems to be this: https://wiki.debian.org/qemubuilder but I never tried that and don't know if these instructions still work. sbuild itself only supports two chroot methods right now (schroot and sudo, settable via $chroot_mode, look into sbuild.conf(5)) so it currently is not able to make use of qemu. I've eyed the adt-virt-* from the autopkgtest package for a while. It would be cool to add support for them to sbuild because then sbuild would immediately support building in a chroot, in lxc, qemu or a machine connected via ssh. Since adt-run does package builds itself, these tools probably are powerful enough for that purpose. I just have no time to implement this :) cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home
Hi, Quoting gregor herrmann (2015-07-20 10:14:12) > cowbuilder and qemu-debootstrap work for me (with armhf and armel, > haven't tried with other architectures): > http://info.comodo.priv.at/blog/cowbuilder_crossbuilds_for_raspbian.html > > The linked article > http://blog.waja.info/2013/11/25/crossbuilding-debian-packages-with-sbuild-for-raspbian/ > explains a setup with sbuild and qemu; also for Raspbian and armhf > but it's probably worth a try for hurd or kfreebsd as well. crossbuilding is not equal to native building. I think Daniel was looking for a way to test if their packages build natively on hurd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64. But crossbuilding from linux (which I'll just assume Daniel runs on their host) to hurd or kfreebsd will lead to different results than natively building on these kernels in (probably) most cases. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home
Hi, Quoting gustavo panizzo (gfa) (2015-07-21 08:05:47) > On 2015-07-20 16:34, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > crossbuilding is not equal to native building. I think Daniel was looking > > for a > > way to test if their packages build natively on hurd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64. > > But crossbuilding from linux (which I'll just assume Daniel runs on their > > host) > > to hurd or kfreebsd will lead to different results than natively building on > > these kernels in (probably) most cases. > would that make the test useless? I build test using qemu-static- > before upload to debian to avoid FTBFS when the package reach the buildd > network are you using qemu-static- to build on linux for hurd or kfreebsd? The *only* 100% sure way to know if your package builds on the buildds is... to upload and build your packages on the buildds. The second best way is to build either on real hardware (your own or a porterbox) or in a virtual machine which emulates a whole machine, including a kernel. The third best way is to only emulate the architecture but not the kernel. This is what qemu-user does. This will probably let you run into kernel specific problems. For example, lets create a chroot for hurd-i386 on my amd64 box. Since my amd64 machine is perfectly able to execute i386 code, we don't even need qemu here: sudo debootstrap --arch=hurd-i386 sid debian-sid-hurd-i386 Trying to execute anything inside there yields a segmentation fault which I do not find surprising. For example, the above debootstrap command, since hurd-i386 a foreign architecture to my amd64 machine, will only execute the first stage (unpacking) of debootstrap. For the second stage to work I'd have to mount /proc but I'd not know how a hurd-i386 system would work with my linux /proc (probably not at all). But even if you are usign qemu-static only with linux-any arches on linux, there are packages for which you'll run into problems. For example lets try the following: $ sudo debootstrap --arch=armhf sid debian-sid-armhf $ sudo apt-get install qemu-user-static binfmt-support $ sudo cp /usr/bin/qemu-arm-static debian-sid-armhf/usr/bin $ sudo chroot debian-sid-armhf uname -a Linux hoothoot 4.0.0-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.0.5-1 (2015-06-16) armv7l GNU/Linux whoops! So the "emulated" system is able to find out that my kernel actually has an amd64 release number! It becomes worse if, for your build you have to bind mount things from your host into the chroot because then even more will spill from your amd64 host into your armhf system. There are more ways for a program being emulated by qemu-static to find out that it's not running on real hardware. And these differences might break some packages. If it doesn't break yours: cool! But qemu-user will fail for *some* packages, so it is not a general cure. And sure, if your package does noting fancy but just calls cp a couple of times to put everything in the right location, then nothing will go wrong with the qemu-user method. But if your package is that simple, then you probably also don't need to test it. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
don't use sbuild --dist/-d and other sbuild stuff (was: Re: Questions before my first upload attempt)
Hi, Quoting Danny Edel (2015-08-21 13:43:41) > On 21/08/15 13:21, Danny Edel wrote: > > Once sbuild is setup > > Just to clarify. In this use case (using sbuild as close to buildd as > possible), the steps labeled "for personal use" in > https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild#Configuration > are *not* what we want. > > The Source package will be created by debuild -S on the host machine, > and sbuild will *only* build the binary. for the pure purpose of building a source package, having devscripts installed for debuild is not needed. You can instead use dpkg-buildpackage directly. Though, if you really just want to build the source package, then even better than `dpkg-buildpackage -S` is to run `dpkg-source -b .`. The advantage is, that you do not have to have any packages installed which are necessary to run the clean target. You probably don't want to install any extra packages like that on your host if you are using sbuild later anyways. Furthermore, instead of creating the source package manually before invoking sbuild on the dsc, you can also execute sbuild directly without any arguments inside the unpacked source. It will detect this and build the source package automatically for you. > logout-relogin or use "newgrp sbuild" in your current shell. Good suggestion, I added it to the wiki page. > Now to create the chroots: > > [...] > > Thats it. Note that you can also use "wheezy" or "jessie" if you plan on > testing backporting to those. > > From now on, "sbuild --dist sid --arch amd64 path/to/my.dsc" works. It must be mentioned that a common problem with sbuild is, that the .changes file it generates will have a *different* distribution from the one you set in debian/changelog if you use the --dist or -d option! If sbuild changed the value of the distribution field in the .changes file, it will do so in *red* but it is still easy to miss this. The *right* thing to do is to choose the chroot with the -c or --chroot option. The -d or --dist option will do the same job, but the side effect that it changes the distribution field in the .changes file it creates can be a very dangerous one. So please don't further advertise the -d or --dist option anymore if you actually want to use the -c or --chroot option instead! The -d or --dist option is used for when you want sbuild to even acquire the source package for you, in which case it otherwise does not know from which distribution to `apt-get source` it from. I raised the issue in this thread on buildd-tools-devel@l.a.d.o: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/2015-July/009671.html Please comment over there if you have a good idea to solve this common mistake. > I would recommend setting up a local (partial) debian mirror to speed up the > package fetching step, but I've gotten weird "500 invalid header" errors when > I use apt-cacher-ng, so I'm not recommending this for now. I am using apt-cacher-ng as well but I don't think I've encountered HTTP 500 errors so far. Maybe you can investigate the issue and file a bug? > The only sbuild configuration line I *strongly* suggest is > > $environment_filter = [ ]; > > This will ensure that no CXXFLAGS= or similar from your working environment > contaminate the clean chroot. If you think the default should be changed, could you please file a bug against sbuild about that? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: don't use sbuild --dist/-d and other sbuild stuff (was: Re: Questions before my first upload attempt)
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-08-31 16:02:38) > * Johannes Schauer , 2015-08-31, 15:53: > >>From now on, "sbuild --dist sid --arch amd64 path/to/my.dsc" works. > > > >It must be mentioned that a common problem with sbuild is, that the > >.changes file it generates will have a *different* distribution from > >the one you set in debian/changelog if you use the --dist or -d option! > >If sbuild changed the value of the distribution field in the .changes > >file, it will do so in *red* but it is still easy to miss this. > > > >The *right* thing to do is to choose the chroot with the -c or --chroot > >option. The -d or --dist option will do the same job, but the side > >effect that it changes the distribution field in the .changes file it > >creates can be a very dangerous one. > > > >So please don't further advertise the -d or --dist option anymore if > >you actually want to use the -c or --chroot option instead! > > Um, except that -d/--dist is obligatory. Without it you get: > > No distribution defined indeed I must've made an error when testing this. This just makes the whole problem even worse... So now the advise becomes: never let the argument to -d/--dist be different from what you want to have in the distribution field in your changes file. This then also puts some constraints on the naming of schroots - unless of course the -c option is specified *in addition*. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: +dfsg extension with Files-Excluded: in d/copyright
Hi, Quoting Sebastiaan Couwenberg (2015-09-01 12:13:07) > Add the repacksuffix option, e.g.: > > version=3 > opts=\ > dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg//,\ > uversionmangle=s/$/+dfsg/,\ > repacksuffix=+dfsg \ > http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/FTP/software/lheasoft/fv/ \ > fv(.+\..+)_src\.tar\.gz > is the uversionmangle option still needed with repacksuffix? I maintain several packages (fuzzylite, ldraw-parts, libfixbuf, pdf2htmlex and vcmi) which all repack the upstream tarball with Files-Excluded but which are all happy with just repacksuffix and dversionmangle. In fact, when I try to uversionmangle a suffix like +dfsg, +ds or +debian, I get this lintian problem: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle.html cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: +dfsg extension with Files-Excluded: in d/copyright
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-09-01 12:22:22) > See #748465. Some people abuse debian/copyright for excluding files for > reasons unrelated to DFSG... so am I for my packages. The simple reason: just running "uscan" to check, download and repack upstream sources is just too simple and convenient if compared with putting a custom repack script into my package. So far I did not see another declarative way to specify paths to be excluded from my upstream tarball automatically upon download. > My recommendation is to never use Files-Excluded. What is your recommendation then? > It's a broken design. I would argue: so is the whole format of debian/watch. It would've been a much better idea to have this file in deb822 format so that it would be easily extensible. In that case we could now just add the Files-Excluded field to debian/watch and be done with it. Surely, in theory you could also make another "opts" argument for uscan but putting path wildcards in the current debian/watch format will surely not be pretty... cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: "not-binnmuable-all-depends-any" problem exists for Multi-Arch: foreign, too?
Hi, Quoting Christoph Biedl (2015-09-30 08:25:50) > Personally, I'm not happy about adding extra magic to version numbers > to identify binNMUs and would rather introduce a way to define a range > of version numbers a package satifies, like in > > | Version: 5.25-3+b1# upper bound > | Also-Satifies: 5.25-3 # lower bound > > or by allowing two version numbers in the Version: header. But that's > certainly not my cup of tea, and might bring in a huge amount of new > problems I cannot even imagine yet. in fact, this can already be done: Package: foo Architecture: any Version: 5.25-3+b1 Provides: foo (= 5.25-3) This is possible since fixing of bug #7330 in dpkg 1.17.11 and bug #758153 in apt 1.0.7. So this should work in Jessie. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: "not-binnmuable-all-depends-any" problem exists for Multi-Arch: foreign, too?
Hi, Quoting gregor herrmann (2015-09-30 18:24:22) > The last thing I heard about versioned Provides is that not all pieces of the > infrastructure support it yet. (wanna-build or something was missing). > > I'd be more than happy to hear if this is all fixed by now. dose3 (which is used to check for build dependency satisfaction before giving source packages to the buildds) does not yet support versioned provides. Fixing this is in the works in the dose3 upstream git but the latest commits are not fully compatible with the dpkg interpretation of versioned provides so it needs more work. Here is the Debian bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786671 And here the upstream bug: https://gforge.inria.fr/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=17903&group_id=4395&atid=13808 cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: conditionally require dependency
Hi Nico, Quoting Nico Schlömer (2015-10-24 20:04:19) > In [MOAB](https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/), we (optionally) depend on > a rather new version of the [Metis](https://packages.debian.org/sid/metis) > package, and that's what's enforced in our debian/control, too. I cannot see any (build-)dependency on metis in your debian/control: https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/src/HEAD/debian/control?at=master > Now, we would like to provide MOAB for older versions of Debian/Ubuntu as > well, and for those older distros would drop the optional Metis dependency. Runtime dependency or build dependency? > How is this situation best handled? The best way to do this is to get your package into Debian. In that case the content of debian/control will be different in testing/unstable as well as in a backport that you can do for the current stable or oldstable. Your problem arises because you want a one-size-fits-all of your upstream debian/control. Such a one-size-fits-all often doesn't exist but having a one-size-fits all is also usually not required because the packaging data including debian/control between different Debian releases can be (and mostly is) different. If you do not want to get your package into Debian (and through there into Ubuntu) but instead provide Debian/Ubuntu packages yourself as the upstream project, I see these options: - have one git branch for every Debian/Ubuntu release you want to support and let them have different debian/control content depending on what is required - if you were talking about a *runtime* dependency earlier then you could just make it a Recommends - if you were talking about a *runtime* dependency but need a *strict* dependency then you can generate this dependency during package build time using a substvar (see man deb-substvars) in your Depends line - if you were talking about a *build* dependency, then you can generate these before building by having a debian/control.in and turning that into the right debian/control depending on what you want to build - alternatively, if you were talking about a *build* dependency you could use build profiles to selectively enable or disable build dependencies Note, that all of these suggestions are *not* the right way to do things in case your package is in Debian or Ubuntu itself. In this case your problem doesn't arise in the first plae. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: conditionally require dependency
Hi Nico, Quoting Nico Schlömer (2015-10-26 00:47:54) > particularly those which have been released a while ago and are closed > to adding now packages now. packages can be added via backports. > > - if you were talking about a *build* dependency, then you can generate > these > > before building by having a debian/control.in and turning that into the > > right debian/control depending on what you want to build > > Good idea. I'll look into it. remember that the other way I mentioned, having different git branches for different target distributions would also apply for your use case. > > - alternatively, if you were talking about a *build* dependency you > could use > >build profiles to selectively enable or disable build dependencies > > Never heard of it. I'll check it out as well. This would work technically but there is no accepted way to do this in practice yet in Debian or Ubuntu. Build profiles allow you to select or unselect build dependencies depending on conditions you specify in the Build-Depends line. So technically it would be possible to say that a build dependency should only be used if the profiles "debian" and "unstable" are active and then when you build your source package you would have to take care to have the right profiles active per build with the DEB_BUILD_PROFILES environment variable or with the -P option to dpkg-buildpackage. There is more info on https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec But remember that at this point this would just be another hack! While build profiles can be used this way to support multiple distributions and releases with a single debian/control file, there is not yet any decision (or even the attempt to have it) of how the build profiles should be named for this use case. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]
Hi Jordan, Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2017-02-17 11:11:35) > >I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into > >collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore. > > > lets review: > a) PAPT seems more appropriate > b) "alot (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=medium" > this never went in unstable, please merge the two changelog entries together > with the correct > author attributions > c) #846314 <-- please fix it > d) please close #792108 in the correct "new upstream release" changelog > e) #701806 wontfix? > f) the runtime dependencies needs to match the versions on setup.py > and if oldstable/stable already have higher versions, you can just drop them > and let > python:Depends fill them correctly > g) please consider using pybuild for building it > h) please consider bumping compat level to 10 You may also want to close bug #792108 with that release. You may also want to add yourself to debian/copyright if your changes are substantial (like switching to pybuild and compat level 10 might be). Feel free to contact me for sponsorship as I'm an alot user and also fixed/filed a couple of bugs together with upstream. I'm thus very interested in keeping this package in Debian. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: What option should I now use to do source only builds
Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2017-03-18 07:58:56) > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 07:25:32AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > James Clarke wrote in https://bugs.debian.org/853886#10: > > > > > > "For source-only builds, I don't understand why you would want to > > > perform the build in a chroot. > > > > Since Build-Depends are requested on my local machine anyway > -nc is usually enough. And are you saying it was possible to build a source > package in a chroot without already having a source package? I am also highly confused by this thread. Maybe I'm misunderstanding pbuilder (I'm just the sbuild maintainer) but isn't the source package the *input* to pbuilder just as it is for sbuild? What sbuild does when you execute it on an unpacked source directory, is to first build the source package which it then hands to the chroot. I think pbuilder does the same, judging from this line: http://sources.debian.net/src/pbuilder/0.228.6/pdebuild/?hl=91#L91 And I don't think what this has to do with build dependencies. You don't need the build dependencies installed to build a source package. In your local unpacked source tree, just run: dpkg-source -b . So just as with sbuild I don't see why anybody would want to *only* build the source package inside a chroot. Since the source package is the *input* to the whole operation, you would just get back what you already put in. If you want to make a source-only upload, you should build everything in a chroot and instruct pbuilder or sbuild to create a .changes file that only includes the relevant source package bits and not the binary packages. This is what you do with the --source-only-changes option for both sbuild and pbuilder. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: What option should I now use to do source only builds
Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2017-03-18 08:53:21) > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 08:22:36AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > So just as with sbuild I don't see why anybody would want to *only* build > > the > > source package inside a chroot. Since the source package is the *input* to > > the > > whole operation, you would just get back what you already put in. > The only gain would be in a situation where you can't run the clean target > outside of the chroot, due to missing dependencies, so `dpkg-source -b .` > will produce an "unclean" source. After moving it inside a throw-away chroot > with the build-deps installed you can call the clean rules, and produce the > source again, which will be "cleaner" than the one produced outside. > Personally I'd call this case quite borderline and unusual, especially in > this world of git where the working directory is easily cleaned by a `git > clean -fdx` et al. how would the unpacked source directory become unclean if I'm using pbuilder or sbuild to build my packages? If I'm not mistaken that would only happen if I ever call some targets from debian/rules outside the chroot and that again requires the build dependencies to be installed at which point you can also run the clean target. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]
Hi Ben, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-04-21 14:44:52) > How is this going? thanks a lot for the ping! > Jordan, have you made more changes that should be released? > > Johannes, are you waiting on any changes before you approve and upload > this package? Jordan and I were writing each other privately in February. Currently progress is stalled on the question of how to maintain the package. The options are: 1. maintaining it under the umbrella of the Python Applications Packaging Team but they use svn which Jordan wants to avoid in favour of git. There is the question of whether it would be acceptable to use PAPT+git: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-apps-team/2017-February/013126.html But as the last message indicates, there seems to be no consensus yet whether to use git-dpm or switch to gbp-pq when moving python-apps from svn to git... 2. using collab-maint with whatever git packaging workflow but it seems that Jordan isn't sure yet which one to pick for maintenance of alot Jordan, are you still on board? Otherwise I just pick the option I like and start committing your work. :) Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]
Hi Jordan & Simon, Quoting Jordan Justen (2017-04-24 10:00:32) > On 2017-04-21 10:04:39, Jordan Justen wrote: > > On 2017-04-21 06:12:21, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > Quoting Ben Finney (2017-04-21 14:44:52) > > > > Jordan, have you made more changes that should be released? > > > > > > > > Johannes, are you waiting on any changes before you approve and upload > > > > this package? > > > > > > Jordan and I were writing each other privately in February. Currently > > > progress > > > is stalled on the question of how to maintain the package. The options > > > are: > > > > > > 1. maintaining it under the umbrella of the Python Applications > > > Packaging Team > > > but they use svn which Jordan wants to avoid in favour of git. There > > > is the > > > question of whether it would be acceptable to use PAPT+git: > > > > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-apps-team/2017-February/013126.html > > > But as the last message indicates, there seems to be no consensus yet > > > whether to use git-dpm or switch to gbp-pq when moving python-apps > > > from svn > > > to git... > > > > I was trying to see if I could work with Stefano (Cc'd) to help with > > the PAPT svn=>git transition, but that didn't end up going anywhere. :\ > > > > > 2. using collab-maint with whatever git packaging workflow but it seems > > > that > > > Jordan isn't sure yet which one to pick for maintenance of alot > > > > > > Jordan, are you still on board? Otherwise I just pick the option I like > > > and > > > start committing your work. :) > > > > Yes, I am still interested. I'd convinced myself that I just needed to > > give up on using git for now, so I planning to commit the patches to > > svn under the current PAPT packaging area. I'll do that and then work > > with you (Johannes) to upload the new package. > > Jordan, thanks a lot for your recent contributions to the alot package! I think your changes are fine and I just uploaded your package to experimental. If there are any additional problems, we can make iterative changes and upload them later. Simon, you added yourself to the Uploaders of alot. Are you still interested in maintaining the package? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Sbuild & lxc problems
Hi Ross, sbuild maintainer here. :) Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-06-23 21:18:13) > I mainly use pbuilder/cowbuilder to build my packages, but I would > really like to try using the tool from pkg-ruby-extras, because I am > told it is very good for test building reverse dependencies and also > runs debci to test any autopkgtest testsuites. It uses sbuild. pkg-ruby-extras? The alioth group? What is "the tool" you are referring to? If this part of your question is ruby specific, then maybe the debian-ruby list is a better fit? > However, sbuild does not seem to agree with me, and I have had several > attempts over the years to get it going but I gave up each time. Please help by filing bugs with the problems you faced! I am aware that many things are not well documented that but to make the software better I need to know which things need more explanation. > One time I thing I ran out of room on the root partition halfway through > setting it up (my fault). Once I had fixed the space problem, I had all sorts > of problems working out how to clear out the failed sbuild schroot (and I > can't remember how I did it now). That's probably a schroot problem and I share your pain - it also took me quite a while until I understood schroot and its relationship to sbuild. ^^ > Then the next time I think it failed with some gpg archive key problem. I got > around this by upgrading to sbuild from jessie-backports. The problem was, that apt in unstable stopped depending on gpg but sbuild in jessie still required gpg inside the chroot. As you figured out yourself already, the problem got fixed by an upload to jessie-backports. > But then it failed for some reason I can't remember. It is difficult to > search for help when everything seems to be a wrapper for something else, and > you can't workout where in the chain the problem is. I have been around in > circles several times :-) Yes, the wrapper count is indeed high in this one: sbuild -> schroot -> dpkg-buildpackage -> debian/rules The man pages should be enough but there is also this potentially useful wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild > Anyway, that is the background. I am hoping that with some help from mentors, > I will get up and running this time. Here goes: > > - > > ross@DebianJessieLaptop:~/debian/pkg-ruby-extras$ git remote -v > origin > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-ruby-extras/pkg-ruby-extras.git (fetch) > origin > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-ruby-extras/pkg-ruby-extras.git (push) > > ross@DebianJessieLaptop:~/debian/pkg-ruby-extras$ setup > + sudo apt-get install -qy autopkgtest build-essential gem2deb git > git-buildpackage myrepos quilt sbuild lxc debci > > + sudo mkdir -p /root/.gnupg > + sudo sbuild-update --keygen > Generating archive key. > > Not enough random bytes available. Please do some other work to give > the OS a chance to collect more entropy! (Need 188 more bytes) > .+ > .+ > gpg: /root/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trustdb created > gpg: key 5F4C78AD marked as ultimately trusted This is not needed anymore since sbuild 0.67.0 > + sudo sbuild-adduser ross > The user `ross' is already a member of `sbuild'. This only needs to be done once and not multiple times. > > # Setup tasks for sudo users: > > # BUILD > # HOME directory in chroot, user:sbuild, 0770 perms, from > # passwd/group copying to chroot, filtered > # Maybe source 50sbuild, or move into common location. > > Next, copy the example sbuildrc file to the home directory of each user and > set the variables for your system: > > cp /usr/share/doc/sbuild/examples/example.sbuildrc /home/ross/.sbuildrc > > Now try a build: > > cd /path/to/source > sbuild-update -ud > (or "sbuild-apt apt-get -f install" >first if the chroot is broken) > sbuild -d _ > + dpkg --print-architecture > + chrootname=unstable-amd64-sbuild > + chroot=/srv/chroots/unstable-amd64-sbuild > + grep unstable-amd64-sbuild > + schroot --list --all-source-chroots > + sudo sbuild-createchroot unstable /srv/chroots/unstable-amd64-sbuild > http://httpredir.debian.org/debian > I: SUITE: unstable > I: TARGET: /srv/chroots/unstable-amd64-sbuild > I: MIRROR: http://httpredir.debian.org/debian > I: Running debootstrap --arch=amd64 --variant=buildd --verbose > --include=fakeroot,build-essential --components=main --resolve-deps > unstable /srv/chroots/unstable-amd64-sbuild > http://httpredir.debian.org/debian > I: Retrieving Release > I: Retrieving Release.gpg > I: Checking Release signature > I: Valid Release signature (key id 126C0D24BD8A2942CC7DF8AC7638D0442B90D010) > I: Retrieving Packages > I: Validating Packages > > > I: Base system installed successfully. > I: Configured /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d: >+ >|#!/bin/sh >|echo "All runlevel operations denied by policy" >&2 >|exit 101 >+---
Re: SBuild: Post-build fails to fetch some packages
Hi Ben, sbuild maintainer here. In these cases you can always file a bug but lets see if we can solve this here. Quoting Ben Finney (2017-07-01 13:08:17) > Andreas Moog writes: > > > Your sbuild-environment has outdated mirror information. For example > > the current libreadline version in unstable is 7.0-3. Does the build > > work after running sbuild-update? > > The ‘sbuild’ process updates from the mirrors when it begins: > > > +--+ > | Update chroot > | > +--+ > > Get:1 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable InRelease [255 kB] > Get:2 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main > Sources.diff/Index [27.9 kB] > Get:3 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main amd64 > Packages.diff/Index [27.9 kB] > Ign:2 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main > Sources.diff/Index > Ign:3 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main amd64 > Packages.diff/Index > Get:4 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main Sources [7488 > kB] > Get:5 http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages > [7559 kB] > Fetched 15.4 MB in 29s (523 kB/s) > […] > = > > yet fails to download packages as before. That's to be expected because the updating that sbuild does happens in its own schroot session (assuming you use the default schroot backend) and whatever is done in that session gets discarded after sbuild closes the session that was used for building. Autopkgtest then opens its own schroot session in which nothing that sbuild did with it exists anymore. I see that your sbuild is running autopkgtest even though you didn't tell it to do so on the command line. In this case it would also be helpful to see all your non-default modifications from your ~/.sbuildrc > To be sure, I ran ‘sudo sbuild-update --upgrade --dist unstable’ before > another ‘sbuild’ and got the same result. Did you read the sbuild-update man page? There are a couple of problems with the command as you are running it. Firstly, there is no --dist option. The chroot is supplied as a positional argument. Secondly, just using --upgrade will do nothing unless you also --update the chroot. If you only "apt-get upgrade" without "apt-get update" then apt did not yet learn that mirrors have newer versions of your packages and nothing will be upgraded. As it says at the bottom of the man page, you can easily do an update, (dist-)upgrade, clean, autoclean and autoremove in one go by doing: % sbuild-update -udcar unstable Does that fix your problem? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: SBuild: Post-build fails to fetch some packages
Hola, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-07-02 02:57:25) > > Secondly, just using --upgrade will do nothing unless you also --update the > > chroot. > That seems like a bug; why would ‘--upgrade’ silently do nothing? I > would think it should either complain that it's useless, or implicitly > turn on ‘--update’ as well (I certainly assume that ‘sbuild-update > --upgrade’ means “do update, then also do upgrade”.) > > Should I file a bug report for that? I'm unsure. The "sbuild-update" script is thought of as a "apt-get" wrapper in the sense that it runs the apt-get command you want inside the chroot. And if you run "apt-get upgrade" on your host system without running "apt-get update" first then also nothing happens. Also, specifying "--upgrade" alone can make sense if you run it after running "--update" like this: $ sbuild-update --update unstable $ sbuild-update --upgrade unstable But what I have no doubt about is, that the documentation can be better. If you would like to file a bug that it could be better documented how this part of sbuild works, then please file a bug about it. Thank you! > > As it says at the bottom of the man page, you can easily do an update, > > (dist-)upgrade, clean, autoclean and autoremove in one go by doing: > > > > % sbuild-update -udcar unstable > > > > Does that fix your problem? > > Is that equivalent to: > > $ sudo sbuild-update --update --dist-upgrade --clean --autoclean > --autoremove unstable > > (I prefer, when recording commands in a script, to use the explicit > options; it makes it easier to understand when coming back months > later.) Yes, that is the same command using long options. > Yes, after running that command the ‘adt-run’ command now is able to download > the right versions of packages. > > Now I need to convert that to an ‘autopkgtest’ command instead :-) Cool! Have fun! :) cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Request for sponsor for Runescape
Hi Carlos, Quoting Carlos Donizete Froes (2017-07-23 09:44:10) > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runescape" version 0.2 > > To access further information about this package: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/runescape the debdiff between versions 0.1-4 and 0.2-1 is 41318 lines long - what happened? According to debian/copyright, the upstream authors changed. Is this a different software package? The Homepage field in debian/control should not point to https://www.runescape.com/ because you are not packaging anything from there. Instead it should point to the website of the software you *are* packaging. As far as I can see, that's the github page. Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Cross-compiling a package that build-depends on Python
Quoting Łukasz Walewski (2018-02-05 21:19:27) > On 03.02.2018 14:23, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > All Build-Depends are treated as host architecture by default. In this > > case, it seems very likely that python is a build tool so you > > (implicitly) requested python for the wrong architecture. Switching a > > dependency from host architecture to build architecture happens by > > annotating it with ":native" (<- only works in Build-Depends, not > > Depends). > This is exactly what I was looking for! I anticipated that there must a > way to enforce the native build architecture, but I could not find it > anywhere. Could you please point me to the respective documentation? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchCross Unfortunately, documenting multiarch properly is hard. :( https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687900 signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1031284: RFS: wl-mirror/0.12.2-1 [ITP] -- output-mirroring tool for wlroots-based Wayland desktops
Hi Ferdinand, in #1012684 Antoine Beaupré said they'd be happy to sponsor you. Did They already contact you about that? Quoting Ferdinand Bachmann (2023-02-14 16:41:49) > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > >dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wl-mirror/wl-mirror_0.12.2-1.dsc > > Additionally, my current development tree for the Debian source package, > including scripts/Dockerfiles (since I am developing this on a > non-Debian system) is the following URL: > >https://github.com/Ferdi265/wl-mirror-debian I tried out your package and it works great on my ARM Cortex A57 platform. How does it manage to not consume any CPU even when recursively mirroring itself? Thanks! cheers, josch
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi Aidan, On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:52:26 +0100 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > I see you added this tool to the list of similar tools on the wiki so you > at least know about that list. So how is your tool better than other tools > on that list, or at least than the ones packaged in Debian? > Please also note that if you followed the procedure outlined at > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ and filed an ITP bug before > doing the packaging this discussion would happen there, not on the RFS bug. I'm the current maintainer of sbuild. You found the wiki page and you saw that there already exist 10 different implementations of utilities that build Debian packages inside a docker container. You still decided to add an eleventh implementation so I guess my plea here will not amount to much but anyways here goes my sales pitch: If you want your code to be in Debian, please consider reviewing the patch attached to this bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867176 I'm not a docker user, so I cannot verify whether this is indeed doing the right thing but you are, so it should be easy for you to take it, test it and finalize it. I'm afraid contributing to an existing tool is not as sexy as supplying one that is 100% written by you but I can guarantee you that if you can clean up that patch, I will apply it to sbuild and your code will be in Debian proper. Maybe, hopefully we can make sbuilder and/or pbuilder work with docker instead of having eleven competing implementations doing the same thing? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature