Bug#689167: ITP missing for package sweethome3d-furnitures-nonfree with RFS 689167 with ITP in title
Hi, According to [0], sweethome3d-furnitures-nonfree has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite #689167 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#689941: RFS: fvwm/1:2.6.5.ds-1 [ITA]
Hi, According to [0], fvwm has not its corresponding ITA bug, despite #689441 title. Please, could you file this ITA bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#686513: ITP missing for package jampal with RFS 686513
Hi, According to [0], jampal has not its corresponding ITP bug. This bug is needed because jampal has been removed from Debian. If you want to reintroduce the package, please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#679402: ITP missing for package mysql-tzdata with RFS 679402
Hi, According to [0], mysql-tzdata has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#691270: missing ITP
According to [0], szg has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite #691270 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#694072: ITP missing for package filebot with RFS 694072
Hi, According to [0], there is not the corresponding ITP bug for this package. You should file it and close it in your debian/changelog file. Thanks! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/76db344e0e61ce666a6eefca0d4b7...@probeta.net
Bug#702072: #702072: tilda is not orphaned
According to [0], tilda has not its corresponding ITA bug, despite #702072 title. #583248 and #695574 show that this package is not being maintained, but I think you should get in contact with MIA Team to ask them to orphan tilda. Then, you could adopt it with the correspondign ITA bug. Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130303115312.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#704789: #704789: package freeplane is not orphaned
Hi, According to [0], freeplane has not its corresponding ITA bug, despite 704789 title. In fact, freeplane package is not orphaned: http://packages.qa.debian.org/freeplane You may get in touch with freeplane maintainer and ask him if he wants to orphan this package or co-maintain it with you. Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130406123335.ga31...@debian.org
Bug#705257: ITP missing for package bittwist with RFS 705257
According to [0], bittwist has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130413120018.ga15...@debian.org
Bug#712805: ITP missing for package ctesf-console with RFS 712805 with ITP in title
According to [0], ctesf-console has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 712805 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130620091026.ga30...@debian.org
Bug#712806: ITP missing for package orientdb with RFS 712806 with ITP in title
According to [0], orientdb has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 712806 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130620091142.ga30...@debian.org
Bug#712787: ITP missing for package distkeys with RFS 712787
According to [0], distkeys has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130620091311.ga30...@debian.org
Bug#712799: ITP missing for package ctesf with RFS 712799 with ITP in title
According to [0], ctesf has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 712799 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130620091455.ga30...@debian.org
Bug#713810: ITP missing for package simplenat with RFS 713810
According to [0], simplenat has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130624190730.ga25...@debian.org
Bug#714734: bug 714734 has subject RFS: marisa/0.2.4-1 [ITP] - Tools and libs for a static and space-efficient trie data structure
# bug 714734 has subject RFS: marisa/0.2.4-1 [ITP] - Tools and libs for a static and space-efficient trie data structure # ITP 714453 is merged with bug 714734 but type of bug 714734 is unknown, ignoring unmerge 714734 noowner 714734 reassign 714734 sponsorship-requests thanks Hi, Sponsorship requests should not be assigned to wnpp package. I'm undoing last actions sent to control server. Cheers, Mònica -- 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/20130702182551.ga5...@debian.org
Bug#714688: ITP missing for package rekonq with RFS 714688
According to [0], rekonq has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130702183006.ga6...@debian.org
Bug#714734: bug 714734 has subject RFS: marisa/0.2.4-1 [ITP] - Tools and libs for a static and space-efficient trie data structure
Hi! On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 11:14 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:25:51 +0200 > Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote: > > Sponsorship requests should not be assigned to wnpp package. > > I'm undoing last actions sent to control server. > > How do we handle this sponsorship-requests pseudo package? > Please let me know. Here you have the workflow: https://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS You may be interested in the "Uploading packages" part: "After you uploaded a package, please close the bug report by sending a mail to nnn-d...@bugs.debian.org. Do not close RFS bugs in debian/changelog. It is the sponsor who solves the issue, not the supplier of the package or anyhow related to the package itself." I hope it helps :) Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#714734: bug 714734 has subject RFS: marisa/0.2.4-1 [ITP] - Tools and libs for a static and space-efficient trie data structure
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 21:55 +0900, Mitsuya Shibata wrote: > Hi, > > 2013/7/3 Mònica Ramírez : > >> > Sponsorship requests should not be assigned to wnpp package. > >> > I'm undoing last actions sent to control server. > >> > >> How do we handle this sponsorship-requests pseudo package? > >> Please let me know. > > > > "After you uploaded a package, please close the bug report by sending a > > mail to nnn-d...@bugs.debian.org. Do not close RFS bugs in > > debian/changelog. It is the sponsor who solves the issue, not the > > supplier of the package or anyhow related to the package itself." > > Thank you for your advice! > But I got a little confused ... > > What I would like to do: > - Send ITP > - Get reviewere and sponsor for my package via mentors.debian.net > > I referred following sites: > - > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_add_a_new_package_to_the_archive.3F > - http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > > What I did: > 1. Sent ITP mail (#714453) to wnpp package. > 2. Created package, and wrote "Close: #714453" in its changelog. > 3. Uploaded my package to mentors.debian.net. > 4. Enabled "Needs sponsorship". > 5. Wrote RFS mail using examples from RFS template on mentros.debian.net. > 6. Sent RFS mail (#714734) to sponsorship-requests package. > > 7. Merged RFS (#714734 on sponsorship-requests) to ITP (#714453 on wnpp) to >close both tickets automatically if my package is uploaded by sponsor. > > My fault step is not in 1-6? 1-6 are the right steps. > Should I have asked sponsor to close RFS by hand instead of did 7? Yes :-) ITP is closed automatically because of step 2, but the RFS bug must be closed by your sponsor. Cheers! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#716905: ITP missing for package goodbye with RFS 716905 with ITP in title
According to [0], goodbye has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 716905 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130715081659.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#717262: ITP missing for package curseofwar with RFS 717262 with ITP in title
According to [0], curseofwar has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 717262 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130718173133.ga16...@debian.org
Bug#717262: ITP missing for package curseofwar with RFS 717262 with ITP in title
El dv 19 de 07 de 2013 a les 09:16 +0400, en/na Anton Balashov va escriure: > Thank you for your pay attention on that. > I made a new letter: > From: Anton Balashov > To: sub...@bugs.debian.org > Subject: ITP: curseofwar/1.1.4-1 > With the same text. > Is that right? No, you should open an ITP bug in wnpp package. Please, close this last bug sending a mail to 717304-cl...@bugs.debian.org and open another one in wnpp package following the steps wou'll find here: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ (section "Using WNPP") Once you've opened this bug, you should close it in your debian/changelog file. Thanks for your work! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#717931: ITP missing for package sosreport with RFS 717931 with ITP in title
According to [0], sosreport has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 717931 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130727080100.ga7...@debian.org
Bug#717733: ITP missing for package feincms-elephantblog with RFS 717733 with ITP in title
According to [0], feincms-elephantblog has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 717733 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130727080222.ga7...@debian.org
Bug#682680: ITP missing for package clean-compiler with RFS 682680 with ITP in title
Hi, Are you still interested in packaging clean-compiler? If you are not, please close this bug. Otherwise, could you retitle #682680 to ITP? Thanks. -- 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/20130828144926.ga7...@debian.org
Bug#683120: ITP missing for package yadifa with RFS 683120 with ITP in title
Hi, Are you still interested in packaging yadifa? If you are not, please close this bug. Otherwise, could you retitle #682716 to ITP? Thanks. -- 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/20130828145217.ga7...@debian.org
Bug#683120: ITP missing for package yadifa with RFS 683120 with ITP in title
retitle 682716 ITP: yadifa -- name server owner 682716 martijn cielen thanks On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 14:03 +0200, martijn cielen wrote: > Hi, > > > I would still like to see yadifa packaged, but I don't have any spare > time at the moment. Could you rename the bug for me? Done! -- 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/1377848174.26180.3.camel@celpetit
Bug#723582: ITP missing for package metar with RFS 723582 with ITP in title
According to [0], metar has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 723582 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20130918160549.ga24...@debian.org
Bug#724896: ITP missing for package wiktionarytodict with RFS 724896 with ITP in title
According to [0], wiktionarytodict has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 724896 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20131005171159.ga8...@debian.org
Bug#728292: ITA missing for package sane-backends with RFS 728292 with ITA in title
According to [0], sane-backends has not its corresponding ITA bug, despite 728292 title. Please, could you retitle #728292 to mark it as an ITA bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20131102151632.ga7...@debian.org
Bug#728292: ITA missing for package sane-backends with RFS 728292 with ITA in title
El dg 03 de 11 de 2013 a les 08:23 -0500, en/na Mark Buda va escriure: > I am confused. 728292 is an RFS, 688531 is the ITA. And neither is mentioned > in that link. > > What am I not understanding? This link is generated twice a day. It may be a temporary mistake or maybe setting you as the owner of the ITA fixed the issue. In any case, don't worry about that, the issue is fixed now :) Cheers! > > On Nov 2, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Mònica Ramírez Arceda > > wrote: > > > > According to [0], sane-backends has not its corresponding ITA bug, despite > > 728292 title. > > Please, could you retitle #728292 to mark it as an ITA bug? > > > > Thanks for your work! > > > > [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt > > > > > > > > -- > > 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/20131102151632.ga7...@debian.org > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#734125: ITP missing for package deal.ii with RFS 734125 with ITP in title
According to [0], deal.ii has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 734125 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140121103812.ga9...@debian.org
Bug#733022: ITP missing for package arnu with RFS 733022 with ITP in title
According to [0], arnu has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 733022 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140121103959.ga9...@debian.org
Bug#733022: ITP missing for package arnu with RFS 733022 with ITP in title
Roberto Luiz Debarba writes: > I'm working yet. An ITP (Intent to Package) bug should be done before you start working, to try to avoid that anyone else starts to work on the same package. So, if you're working on this package, an ITP bug should exist. Cheers. -- 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/87vbxc1m0k@debian.org
Bug#736281: ITP missing for package python-nameparser with RFS 736281 with ITP in title
According to [0], python-nameparser has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 736281 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140407135727.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#742309: ITP missing for package libvarnam with RFS 742309 with ITP in title
According to [0], libvarnam has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 742309 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140407135947.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#733022: ITP missing for package arnu with RFS 733022 with ITP in title
According to [0], arnu has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 733022 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140407140258.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#736672: ITP missing for package hh with RFS 736672 with ITP in title
According to [0], hh has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 736672 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140407140403.ga14...@debian.org
Bug#740626: ITP missing for package libde265 with RFS 740626 with ITP in title
According to [0], libde265 has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 740626 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20140407140155.ga14...@debian.org
Re: RFS: clipit
Hi, El dj 11 de 11 de 2010 a les 10:45 +0200, en/na Cristian Henzel va escriure: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clipit". > > * Package name: clipit > Version : 1.2.1-1 > Upstream Author : Cristian Henzel > * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gtkclipit/ > * License : GPLv3 > Section : misc > > It builds these binary packages: > clipit - lightweight GTK+ clipboard manager > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 603131 [...] I'm not a DD, but here's my review for your package: * Lintian: I: clipit source: debian-watch-file-is-missing You should add debian/watch file * Lintian: W: clipit source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 (current is 3.9.1) You should change this version in debian/control file * debian/control: - If you want to use Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser fields, you should uncomment the lines. If not, delete them. * debian/menu: - You should add a debian/menu file * debian/patches - You have an automatic patch in debian/patches/debian-changes-1.2.1-1 that indicates a difference between your upstream code and Debian package code. If this patch is necessary it should have a better description. If you want you can use quilt to manage your patches. * source: It seems you link some libraries that are nou used, maybe you can check this [1] I hope my advises help you :-) If any other person from the list sees a mistake in my review, "reviews of my review" are welcomed! Cheers. -- Mònica [1] dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libfontconfig.so.1 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libatk-1.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libm.so.6 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on librt.so.1 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpthread.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libgio-2.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libcairo.so.2 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpango-1.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libgmodule-2.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libgthread-2.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libfreetype.so.6 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 could be avoided if "debian/clipit/usr/bin/clipit" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). -- 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/1289476087.2532.28.ca...@celperdut
Re: RFS: clipit
Ooops! El dj 11 de 11 de 2010 a les 11:02 +0100, en/na Benoît Knecht va escriure: > Hi Cristian, > > Cristian Henzel wrote: > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clipit". > > > > * Package name: clipit > > Version : 1.2.1-1 > > Upstream Author : Cristian Henzel > > * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gtkclipit/ > > * License : GPLv3 > > Section : misc > > > > It builds these binary packages: > > clipit - lightweight GTK+ clipboard manager > > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > > > The upload would fix these bugs: 603131 > > I just did a quick review of your package: Sorry, I have sent a review that Benoît just done... Cristian: I think you can merge both reviews ;-) Cheers, Mònica -- 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/1289476597.2532.35.ca...@celperdut
Re: RFS: clipit
El dj 11 de 11 de 2010 a les 12:52 +0100, en/na Alexander Reichle-Schmehl va escriure: > HI! > > Am 11.11.2010 12:48, schrieb Mònica Ramírez Arceda: > > > * Lintian: W: clipit source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.4 > > (current is 3.9.1) > > You should change this version in debian/control file > > I think you mean the right thing, but for the sake of clarity: One > should not only bump the version in debian/control but also check > /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz (package debian > policy; please always use the latest version) and to the proper changes > before doing so! Of course! :-) Cheers. Mònica -- 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/1289479438.2532.37.ca...@celperdut
Re: RFS: tartarus
Hi Stefan, 22/11/2010 11:52 +0100, Stefan Tomanek wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tartarus". > > * Package name: tartarus > Version : 0.9.4-2 > Upstream Author : Stefan Tomanek > * URL : http://wertarbyte.de/tartarus.shtml > * License : GPLv3 > Section : utils > > It builds these binary packages: > tartarus - script based backup system > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 604447 > > My motivation for maintaining this package is: > > I've written tartarus as a simple backup solution for my dedicated server. It > uses parts of the unix toolshed that should be available even in the most > basic > rescue system, making recovery easy in case things go wrong. By using Bash and > Perl, the program is easily extendable and offers various hooks that can be > used to modify its behaviour, while including features like LVM snapshots, > on-the-fly-uploading and compression/encryption out of the box. I created the > package to simplify the installation on now roughly > 1100 systems using this > program (http://wertarbyte.de/stats/tartarus-use.png) on a regular basis and I > would really like to this this included into Debian. > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tartarus > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tartarus/tartarus_0.9.4-2.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I'm not a DD, but here's my (quick) review for your package. I hope it's useful for you: * Lintian checking (it's not Lintian clean): - I: tartarus source: debian-watch-file-is-missing It's a good practice to add a watch file. - W: tartarus source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.8.0 (current is 3.9.1) You should check [1] and upgrade to Standards-Version to 3.9.1 - I: tartarus: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man1/tartarus.1.gz managable manageable You can find this spelling error in $ grep -nR managable * bin/tartarus:26:# configuration from easily managable configuration files. It can store If you are the upstreamer, you can easily correct it in upstream source before packaging. - P: tartarus: no-upstream-changelog It could be nice if upstream have an upstream changelog and it could be accessible from Debian package. * Debian files checking: - debian/changelog: I think you should not add previous changes before entering the package to Debian. So this package version should be 0.9.4-1, altough you had it before in a personal repo. - debian/rules: You can delete commented lines that tell us you are using a template. - debian/menu: Consider to create it. - debian/patches: You have a debian/patches automatic file (debian-changes-0.9.4-2): If this patch is necessary for Debian package, you should comment why in the patch file. If it's fine to have this change in upstream and you're the upstreamer, you can change it in upstream code before packaging. * Ustream source checking: - Upstream source should be licensed. I haven't checked how program works. If any other person from the list sees a mistake in my review, "reviews of my review" are welcomed! Cheers, Mònica [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: piwik
Hi, El dv 21 de 01 de 2011 a les 18:30 +0100, en/na Fabrizio Regalli va escriure: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "piwik". > > * Package name: piwik > Version : 1.1.1-1 > Upstream Author : Fabrizio Regalli > * URL : http://www.piwik.org > * License : GPL v3 > Section : web > > It builds these binary packages: > piwik - Open source web analytics I am not a DD, so I can't upload your package, but I've taken a quick look to it. > The package appears to be lintian clean. * There're some lintian messages that maybe you can solve: I: piwik source: debian-watch-file-is-missing I: piwik: extended-description-is-probably-too-short P: piwik: no-upstream-changelog W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/WP7.gif W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/W61.gif W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/W65.gif W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/MAE.gif O: piwik: embedded-php-library usr/share/piwik/libs/Smarty/Smarty.class.php O: piwik: embedded-php-library usr/share/piwik/libs/Smarty/Smarty_Compiler.class.php I: piwik: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/piwik/libs/Zend/Feed/Pubsubhubbub/Http/ I: piwik: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/piwik/tmp/ * lintian overrides: Your comment says # The smarty lib is also modified. We will use the one provided by the package I think it's not a good idea to have duplicated libraries because of security issues. But if you need to change the library source code, maybe there is a better way to do it. Someone else knows what to do in these cases? * debian/install: some lines have absolute path and others relative path. Absolute paths are wrong: you should convert absolute paths to relative. * you get the patch debian/patches/debian-changes-1.1.1-1 because you've included two files in config/ of upstream. You also have these files in debian/conf. I don't understand this duplication. If the patch is necessary, you should comment the header of this patch, and maybe rename it with a suitable name. * debian/rules: you sholudn't indent your comments if you don't want to be verbose during building. * postinst/postrm: indent left first level "if"'s. * debian/LICENSE: where do you use this file? * README and debian/README.Debian are the same file. You can remove debian/README.Debian because it says nothing relevant to Debian. I haven't tested the application and I think a deeper review is needed by a developer with more experience than me (and a review of my review is also appreciated!). I hope my advices are helpful. Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: piwik
El ds 22 de 01 de 2011 a les 21:33 +0100, en/na Jakub Wilk va escriure: > * Mònica Ramírez Arceda , 2011-01-22, 18:28: > >* debian/install: some lines have absolute path and others relative > >path. Absolute paths are wrong: you should convert absolute paths to > >relative. > > Why are they wrong? As far as I can tell dh_install does the right thing > here. You're right in the sense that it works. Saying it's wrong is not appropiate. But in any case, why writing some relative paths and some absolute? Is there any difference that I don't know? Thanks for your help, Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: piwik
El dg 23 de 01 de 2011 a les 13:34 +0100, en/na Fabrizio Regalli va escriure: > Hi, > > > Il giorno sab, 22/01/2011 alle 18.28 +0100, Mònica Ramírez Arceda ha > scritto: > > Hi, > > > > El dv 21 de 01 de 2011 a les 18:30 +0100, en/na Fabrizio Regalli va > > escriure: > > > Dear mentors, > > > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "piwik". > > > > > > * Package name: piwik > > > Version : 1.1.1-1 > > > Upstream Author : Fabrizio Regalli > > > * URL : http://www.piwik.org > > > * License : GPL v3 > > > Section : web > > > > > > It builds these binary packages: > > > piwik - Open source web analytics > > > > I am not a DD, so I can't upload your package, but I've taken a quick > > look to it. > > > > Thank you. > > > > The package appears to be lintian clean. > > > > * There're some lintian messages that maybe you can solve: > > > > I: piwik source: debian-watch-file-is-missing > > I: piwik: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > > P: piwik: no-upstream-changelog > > W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script > > ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/WP7.gif > > W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script > > ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/W61.gif > > W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script > > ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/W65.gif > > W: piwik: executable-not-elf-or-script > > ./usr/share/piwik/plugins/UserSettings/images/os/MAE.gif > > O: piwik: embedded-php-library usr/share/piwik/libs/Smarty/Smarty.class.php > > O: piwik: embedded-php-library > > usr/share/piwik/libs/Smarty/Smarty_Compiler.class.php > > I: piwik: package-contains-empty-directory > > usr/share/piwik/libs/Zend/Feed/Pubsubhubbub/Http/ > > I: piwik: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/piwik/tmp/ > > Locally, on my workstation, I see only the two "O:" for overraiding I use these lintian options: -i -I --show-overrides --pedantic I think you only need to clean lintian errors (E) in order that your package is accepted in Debian, but it's always better to try to clean as much as possible :-) > > > > * debian/LICENSE: where do you use this file? > > This file is a part of the origial package. Why it is in debian dir? > > * README and debian/README.Debian are the same file. You can remove > > debian/README.Debian because it says nothing relevant to Debian. > > Not exactly: are quite similar but not the same. In README.Debian there > is a configuration part related to mysql. Oh, yes, it's true! :-) I think you don't need to duplicate information. I mean that I think you should only write the differences for Debian in README.Debian. Moreover I just find out that you install all your docs through debian/install file. It'd be better using debian/docs file. > Thank you very much for your review! It's a pleasure, I love helping! Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#755200: ITP missing for package libopenshot with RFS 755200
According to [0], libopenshot has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20141004092547.ga4...@celpetit.probeta.net
Bug#755201: ITP missing for package libopenshot-audio with RFS 755201
According to [0], libopenshot-audio has not its corresponding ITP bug. Please, could you file it? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20141004093728.ga4...@celpetit.probeta.net
Bug#757180: ITP missing for package pw3270 with RFS 757180 with ITP in title
According to [0], pw3270 has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 757180 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20141004094119.ga5...@celpetit.probeta.net
Bug#768251: ITP missing for package ip2location with RFS 768251 with ITP in title
According to [0], ip2location has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 768251 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20141216100114.ga24...@celpetit.probeta.net
Bug#774573: ITP missing for package rc with RFS 774573 with ITP in title
According to [0], rc has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 774573 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20150113152133.GA10338@celfred
Bug#775946: ITP missing for package objeck-lang-i386 with RFS 775946 with ITP in title
According to [0], objeck-lang-i386 has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite #775946 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt -- 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/20150124160007.GA18284@celfred
Bug#799268: ITP missing for package python-ck with RFS 799268 with ITP in title
According to [0], python-ck has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite #799268 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt
Bug#802703: ITP missing for package cvars with RFS 802703 with ITP in title
According to [0], cvars has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 802703 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt
Bug#802797: ITP missing for package ultraeasy with RFS 802797 with ITP in title
According to [0], ultraeasy has not its corresponding ITP bug, despite 802797 title. Please, could you file this ITP bug? Thanks for your work! [0] http://qa.debian.org/~bartm/wnpp-rfs-mentors/wnpp-inconsistencies.txt
bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries
Hi, I am working on packaging a Java application called BT747 [0]. For now, I have some doubts (I think I'll have more in the future ;-)): * Licenses: this package has quite a lot of licenses, one of the licenses is GPL (without the version). Is it a problem? The exact header is: /** * Copyright by Christof Dallermassl. * * This program is free software and licensed under GPL. * * Modifications for BT747 by Mario De Weerd * */ * Embedded libraries: I get some of them out because they are already in Debian but some of them are not in Debian. I supose I must get these libraries from its original source and pack them as different packages... am I right? The libraries that are not in Debian are: - jchart2d: oh! I just see there is an ITP for this :-) [1] - sanselan [2]. * Embedded modified libraries: this is the BIG doubt. This package uses a library called swingx-ws, but BT747 uses a modified version (which is redistributed). I think I have 2 options: 1.- Pack it separately like an external and independent library. 2.- Make that my source package provides two binary packages: one with the program and another one with this modified library. But maybe there is another option that I don't know. What is the usual way to do in this cases? By the way, as you can see in my ITP, I made a "home-made" repo with this package (if you want to take a look, feel free to do it). I must advertise that right now there are embedded libraries. Thanks at advance for your help :-) Mònica [0] http://bugs.debian.org/533589 [1] http://bugs.debian.org/626243 [2] http://commons.apache.org/sanselan/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries
El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 19:08 +0800, en/na Paul Wise va escriure: > Yep, package any embedded code copies separately. > > For modified code copies, try to get the changes into their proper > upstream or the Debian package if it exists. Ok, I'll try it, altough this library doesn't exist in Debian, for now. But I don't understand what I have to do when I have these changes :-( Thanks a lot for your help, Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries
El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 13:10 +0200, en/na Arno Töll va escriure: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Mònica > > * Licenses: this package has quite a lot of licenses, one of the > > licenses is GPL (without the version). Is it a problem? The exact header > > is: > > This is no problem. GPL states (verbatim quote from GPL-2, still present > in GPL-3): > > "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you > may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Perfect! So, thinking in DEP5: If I choose GPL-3.0+, what should I write in the description of the license? (Suppose I have the GPL-3.0+ already detailed): Files: * Copyright: 2007, Mario De Weerd License: GPL-3.0+ Files: src_j2se/net/sf/bt747/j2se/app/osm/OsmGpxUpload.java Copyright: Christof Dallermassl Mario De Weerd License: GPL License: GPL ??? License GPL3-3.0+ This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by ... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: bt747: doubts on licenses and embedded libraries
Hi again, El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 15:49 +0300, en/na George Danchev va escriure: > On Sunday 15 May 2011 14:48:07 Eric Lavarde wrote: > > Hello Monica, > > Hi, > > > interesting that you're now working on bt747: I'm also using this > > program to download my GPS tracks and flag my photos, wanted as well to > > package it, and basically silently gave up as I looked into it :-P > > I'd actually favor your decision, instead :-) > > > Anyway I'm happy that someone has more courage and/or time to do it! I doubt I have more courage or time than you, I'm only trying to do it :-) But as you saw, it's not an easy package. Any help is welcome! (In fact, you're already helping answering all my quesions! Further below you have more...) > > On 15/05/11 13:22, Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote: > > > El dg 15 de 05 de 2011 a les 19:08 +0800, en/na Paul Wise va escriure: > > >> Yep, package any embedded code copies separately. > > >> > > >> For modified code copies, try to get the changes into their proper > > >> upstream or the Debian package if it exists. > > > > > > Ok, I'll try it, altough this library doesn't exist in Debian, for now. > > > > > > But I don't understand what I have to do when I have these changes :-( > > > > To be honest, I had the same problem as you with Freeplane and JOrtho, > > and I decided to keep JOrtho as part of the freeplane package, under the > > binary name libjortho-freeplane-java. > > The reasons were: > > - JOrtho was not in Debian either > > - JOrtho seemed not very active (dead?). > > - the changes done by the Freeplane developer on JOrtho were already > > raised to the JOrtho team but still not included though compatible. > > - by having a separate binary package, I can change the dependencies if > > required at some point in time, so it doesn't close any future option. > > Well, in my opinion, these are no good reasons to fold even more nearly > unmaintained pieces of code (I admit, I haven't looked at JOrtho) inside > source packages targeted to the Debian archive. This would open the door for > more burden possibly to be placed on Release Team, Security Team, QA team, > possible NMUers, etc shoulders. I believe packages should enter Debian > archive > whenever 'they are ready' to meet a certain threshold, at least (working with > upstream upfront until the issues are resolved is the way to go), instead of > getting rot inside the unstable or testing suites or maintained via nmus > because the project as a whole approaches a release. Cleaning up or reducing > the amount of embedding copies is a daunting task. Ok. So I understand the best way to do it would be packaging this modified library in a separated package. This library is based on swingx-ws (and as far as I see it is an active project). Altough swingx-ws is not in Debian, I suppose I should package the modified libray with a name like libbt747-swingx-ws-java. Is it right? If you think I should throw in the towel, you can tell me sincerely ;-) but I would like to give this package a chance (I contacted with upstream and he is very responsive). Thanks for all your answers!!! Mònica signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
