Bug#1056690: RFS: dhcpcd/1:10.0.5-4 -- DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 dual-stack client
El 26/11/23 a las 10:53, Tobias Frost escribió: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > As Daniel said, this should be done on a VM, or if the hardware is > important, on a porter box. > > See https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ > and then go to https://nm.debian.org/wizard to request an account. Just to give a +1 to this. Having access to exodar.debian.net should be quite easy. And thanks a lot for your work. Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Upload to bookworm-backports
Hi, El 21/06/23 a las 14:28, Alec Leamas escribió: > Dear mentors, > > I'm trying to upload openpcn to bookworm-backports. Since I'm just a DM, I > need a sponsor to upload the first package heading into the NEW queue. > > However, bookworm-backports is yet not accepted by the mentors > infrastructure. Is there any other way I could get some help with this > upload? > Please read this first: https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2023/06/msg00017.html Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Uploading patch to unstable
El 20/03/23 a las 11:08, Aaron Boxer escribió: > Hi Folks, > > I have successfully created a patched version of libgrokj2k to fix a serious > encoder bug. > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgrokj2k/ Without looking at the bug itself, I'd file an RC bug to keep a record about why you are targeting this change to testing. (And include that in debian/changelog) Since your package doesn't have any autopkgtest, in this stage of the freeze, it requires an unblock from the release team, AFAIU: https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html#hard So, before uploading, you need to get the ACK from them. Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1031146: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.69-1 [NMU] -- light, fast, functional web server
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo El 14/02/23 a las 15:15, Glenn Strauss escribió: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 05:50:12PM +0100, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > Hello Glenn, > > > > El 12/02/23 a las 08:54, Glenn Strauss escribió: [...] > > 2. d/lighttpd.NEWS: > > > > As lintian complains, this entry relates a release not known by debian: > > > > lighttpd (1.4.67-2) experimental; urgency=medium > > > > Do you think NEWS could be updated? > > Updated to 1.4.69-1, as this will be the release that contains the > change. Great, thanks! However, just a is a minor typo: +++ lighttpd-1.4.69/debian/lighttpd.NEWS2023-02-11 04:34:51.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,18 @@ +lighttpd (1.4.69-1) experimental; urgency=medium + You are uploading to unstable, not experimental. And lintian still complains about that. Once you have fixed that, could you please push a signed git tag, and remove the moreinfo tag of this bug? Thank you! -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1031146: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.69-1 [NMU] -- light, fast, functional web server
Hello Glenn, El 12/02/23 a las 08:54, Glenn Strauss escribió: > > Since you are listed in Uploaders:, this shouldn't be a NMU. I don't > > understand why lintian doesn't complain about this in this job: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/-/jobs/3931309 > > but don't have the time to investigate that right now. > > > > Please, fix the changelog. > > changelog updated. Thanks for your guidance. > Cheers, Glenn > Sorry I was unable to give you more feedback the first time. So I am iterating. ENOTIME… Here you have some comments regarding two files: 1. d/changelog: lighttpd (1.4.69-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Glenn Strauss ] Since you are the only one doing changes in this release, no need to tell that twice. You can remove the line above. * New upstream version 1.4.69 * (changes for 1.4.68; not released in Debian) I am afraid I cannot parse that entry. What are the changes related to 1.4.68? * Remove deprecated lighttpd modules. * Skip installing modules now built into lighttpd. * Add to not-installed mods now built into lighttpd. Is it worth to list those modules? Is there any impact for the uses to they should be warned via e.g. debian/NEWS too? * Declare compliance with policy 4.6.2 - no changes needed. * lighttpd.init reopen-logs only if lighttpd is currently running. * New upstream version 1.4.68 I don't think the line above is needed. You are doing a release for 1.4.69. $ git branch --track upstream origin/upstream $ git branch --track pristine-tar origin/pristine-tar $ release=1.4.68 $ cd .. $ wget https://download.lighttpd.net/lighttpd/releases-1.4.x/lighttpd-$release.tar.xz $ wget https://download.lighttpd.net/lighttpd/releases-1.4.x/lighttpd-$release.tar.xz.asc (Just in case, you can use uscan for that) $ cd - $ git fetch origin $ git checkout pristine-tar $ git pull --rebase $ git checkout master $ gbp import-orig --uscan -u $release # - adds commits to 'pristine-tar' and 'upstream' branches # - tags 'upstream' branch upstream/$release # - merges upstream/$release tag into master branch $ git push origin master pristine-tar upstream/$release Neither I wouldn't place these instructions in d/changelog. -- Glenn Strauss Fri, 10 Feb 2023 22:34:51 -0500 2. d/lighttpd.NEWS: As lintian complains, this entry relates a release not known by debian: lighttpd (1.4.67-2) experimental; urgency=medium Do you think NEWS could be updated? Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1031146: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.69-1 [NMU] -- light, fast, functional web server
Hi! El 12/02/23 a las 08:18, Glenn Strauss escribió: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian@gluelogic.com > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd": > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/ > > I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in > maintaining lighttpd on Debian for a number of years. > > I am listed as an uploader on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd > > I put together a new package for lighttpd 1.4.69 and filed an NMU bug, > but that got routed to lighttpd maintainers, which currently has no DD. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031069 Since you are listed in Uploaders:, this shouldn't be a NMU. I don't understand why lintian doesn't complain about this in this job: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/-/jobs/3931309 but don't have the time to investigate that right now. Please, fix the changelog. > > The previous DD maintainer had to step away and there is currently > no DD part of the Debian lighttpd package maintainers. > > * Package name : lighttpd >Version : 1.4.69-1 >Upstream contact : team+light...@tracker.debian.org > * URL : https://lighttpd.net/ > * License : BSD-3-Clause > * Vcs : https://git.lighttpd.net/lighttpd/lighttpd1.4 > > Please help me to get lighttpd 1.4.69 into Debian Bookworm. > Thank you. Glenn > Thanks for your work! -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1030865: RFS: ncdu/1.18-0.2 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
Control: tags -1 + pending El 09/02/23 a las 20:29, Christian Göttsche escribió: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 15:51, Santiago Ruano Rincón > wrote: > > > > Have you been able to test how it builds on GNU/Hurd, and confirm it > > fixes the FTBFS? > > I have not tested the fixes directly on GNU/Hurd. > But the main difference for the build is the absence of > , and I tested building with HAVE_LINUX_MAGIC_H in > config.h commented out. > Without the two patches the build fails similar to the buildd log, and > with them included the build passes. > Thanks. I've uploaded it with a 5-day delay, to give Eugene some time to react, if needed. Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1030865: RFS: ncdu/1.18-0.2 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
Hi, El 08/02/23 a las 17:26, Christian Göttsche escribió: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-CC: jac...@debian.org > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ncdu": > > * Package name : ncdu >Version : 1.18-0.2 >Upstream contact : Yoran Heling > * URL : https://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/ > * License : Zlib, Expat >Section : admin > > The source builds the following binary packages: > > ncdu - ncurses disk usage viewer > > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/ncdu/ > > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > > dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/ncdu/ncdu_1.18-0.2.dsc > > Changes since the last upload: > > ncdu (1.18-0.2) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Non-maintainer upload. >* d/patches: cherry-pick commits to fix FTBFS on GNU/Hurd [...] Thanks for preparing this new release. Have you been able to test how it builds on GNU/Hurd, and confirm it fixes the FTBFS? Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Separate GPG subkey for package signing
Hi, El 27/06/22 a las 10:40, Dániel Fancsali escribió: > Good morning, > > Thanks for you replies, gents. > > Makes sense. > > One last thing, I am not sure of: do I upload my master key's public part > or the signing key's one to my mentors account? From https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/: " How to upload packages to mentors.debian.net You need to use dput to upload packages. We accept your uploads through HTTPS or FTP. All packages must be signed (using debsign) with the GnuPG key you configured in your control panel. " Cheers, -- S > > Regards, > Daniel > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 20:42, Christian Kastner wrote: > > > On 2022-06-24 18:40, Dániel Fancsali wrote: > > > I thought, I'll create a separate subkey for signing the package (and > > > keep my master key off-line, and the others keys separate from this > > > debian-signing-subkey). Would that be considered good practice? Or is > > > there something I can't see here? > > > > This is done quite commonly, actually. [1] and [2] have more info. > > > > Best, > > Christian > > > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/GnuPG/AirgappedMasterKey > > > > [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Subkeys > > > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1009658: RFS: ncdu/1.16-0.1 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
El 28/04/22 a las 18:17, Christian Göttsche escribió: > Upstream release a new version 1.17. > Prepared a new upload, with d/watch changes and upstream signature added. > > ncdu (1.17-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Non-maintainer upload. >* New upstream version 1.17 (Closes: #996240) >* d/control: > - update build dependencies >+ replace transitional libncurses5-dev and libncursesw5-dev by > libncurses-dev >+ add pkg-config for successful autoreconf >+ drop autotools-dev, default since debhelper compat 10 > - bump to debhelper compat 13 > - bump to std-ver 4.6.0 (no further changes) > - set Rules-Requires-Root no > - use https homepage address >* d/rules: enable hardening and LTO >* d/u/signing-key.asc: add upstream gpg key >* d/watch: > - use https > - bump to format version 4 > - fix to upstream version 1, since version 2 is a reimplementation in >the Zig language > - add pgpsigurlmangle option >* d/u/metadata: add basic metadata > > > > Did not understand > > > >* New upstream version 1.16 > > versus > > > >* d/patches: cherry-pick upstream commits > > These are now included in 1.17 and such dropped from d/patches. > Uploaded to DELAYED/10. Thanks again, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1009658: RFS: ncdu/1.16-0.1 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
Control: tags 1009658 + pending El 27/04/22 a las 14:47, Christian Göttsche escribió: > > I'd prefer to have a more verbose description about what that update on > > Build-Deps means. This is just a personal preference. > > Would you like to give a little more detail please? > > Uploaded a new version with a more detailed changelog: > > ncdu (1.16-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Non-maintainer upload. >* New upstream version 1.16 (Closes: #996240) >* d/control: > - update build dependencies >+ replace transitional libncurses5-dev and libncursesw5-dev by > libncurses-dev >+ add pkg-config for successful autoreconf >+ drop autotools-dev, default since debhelper compat 10 > - bump to debhelper compat 13 > - bump to std-ver 4.6.0 (no further changes) > - set Rules-Requires-Root no > - use https homepage address >* d/patches: cherry-pick upstream commits > - Add dark-bg color scheme + enable colors by default if !NO_COLOR >(Closes: #894380) > - Make options, keys and file flags bold in man page > - dir_scan: fix wrong assumption that errno can only be changed by >readdir() > - dir_scan: call strlen only once >* d/rules: enable hardening and LTO >* d/u/metadata: add basic metadata > Uploaded to DELAYED/10. Thanks for your work! -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1009658: RFS: ncdu/1.16-0.1 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
El 22/04/22 a las 11:09, Christian Göttsche escribió: > > Is it really urgency=medium? low wouldn't fit? > > I never used anything else than the default medium; happy to reduce to > low if wished. I don't think reducing is really needed. I'd upload to a DELAYED queue though, which is a different thing, to give Eugene some time to react. > > Eugene tagged #894380 as wontfix: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894380#10 > > Why do you have another opinion? Is there anything different on upstream's > > side that has changed since Eugene's comment? > > His reasoning from my understanding was to not divert from upstream > and set experimental features as default. > Now with the cherry-picked commit "Add dark-bg color scheme + enable > colors by default if !NO_COLOR"[1] upstream enabled colors by default. > Quote from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894380#10: > > If you persuade upstream to change the defaults earlier before the next > > release, I'm open to cherry-picking that. OK. I'd suggest you to comment this on #894380, to make it easier to find your reasoning. > > > Have you had any feedback/input from Eugene? > > Unfortunately no. ACK. Sorry for not commenting this before. From d/changelogs: +ncdu (1.16-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * New upstream version 1.16 (Closes: #996240) + * d/control: +- update build dependencies I'd prefer to have a more verbose description about what that update on Build-Deps means. This is just a personal preference. Would you like to give a little more detail please? Thanks for your work, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1009658: RFS: ncdu/1.16-0.1 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
El 21/04/22 a las 21:37, Andrey Rahmatullin escribió: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:49:42PM +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > > ncdu (1.16-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium > > > > Is it really urgency=medium? low wouldn't fit? > medium is the default urgency since Nov 2013. It is the default, indeed. But that doesn't mean you cannot change it. Never mind, forget that comment. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1009658: RFS: ncdu/1.16-0.1 [NMU] -- ncurses disk usage viewer
Hi Christian, Thanks for preparing this package. El 13/04/22 a las 20:37, Christian Göttsche escribió: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-CC: jac...@debian.org > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ncdu": > > * Package name: ncdu >Version : 1.16-0.1 >Upstream Author : Yoran Heling > * URL : https://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/ > * License : MIT > * Vcs : none >Section : admin > > The source builds the following binary packages: > > ncdu - ncurses disk usage viewer > > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/ncdu/ > > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > > dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/ncdu/ncdu_1.16-0.1.dsc > > Changes since the last upload: > > ncdu (1.16-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium Is it really urgency=medium? low wouldn't fit? > . >* Non-maintainer upload. >* New upstream version 1.16 (Closes: #996240) >* d/control: > - update build dependencies > - bump to debhelper compat 13 > - bump to std-ver 4.6.0 (no further changes) > - set Rules-Requires-Root no > - use https homepage address >* d/patches: cherry-pick upstream commits > - Add dark-bg color scheme + enable colors by default if !NO_COLOR >(Closes: #894380) ... Eugene tagged #894380 as wontfix: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894380#10 Why do you have another opinion? Is there anything different on upstream's side that has changed since Eugene's comment? Have you had any feedback/input from Eugene? Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#990407: Acknowledgement (RFS: nftfw/0.9.4-1 [ITP] -- nftables firewall builder for Debian)
Hello Peter, El 01/07/21 a las 08:41, Peter Collinson escribió: > I’ve revised the uploaded package because it failed to build on sbuild. > > It needed a dependency on netbase, and a change to a test script which just > happened to work on Python 3.7 but failed on Python3.9. > > > Regards > -- > Peter Collinson Thanks for your work developing nftfw and packaging it for debian! Here you have some comments: * you have a master branch (that includes the debian/ dir). It is a common practice to have the debian packaging branch separated from the upstream code (including the tarball). See the candidate DEP-14. https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ * the watch file stores the downloaded upstream tarball as: nftfw_0.9.4.orig.tar.gz -> '-0.9.4.tar.gz' '-0.9.4.tar.gz' you can try with `uscan --verbose --download --download-current-version` Also, the .orig.tar.gz I can download with your .dsc is different from the .orig.tar.gz I download using uscan. It seems you have removed the debian/ dir. * do you have any reason for not using salsa? (it is not mandatory, I am just curious). Keep in mind that using Salsa would make it easier to make use of common Debian tools, such as Salsa CI: https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/ * building the package modifies debian/postinst (by the make_etc_lists). Could you please explain what is the goal of make_etc_lists? Why do you need it? Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#987724: RFS: opendnssec/1:2.1.7-2 -- OpenDNSSEC suite
El 29/04/21 a las 11:07, Mathieu Mirmont escribió: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:44:39AM +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > > > I'll take a look at and upload it, unless someone is faster than me. > > Someone else did already, but thanks anyway! No problem. I was not able to handle it until late this morning. It's nice that you found another sponsor :-) > > > > opendnssec (1:2.1.7-2) unstable; urgency=medium > > > . > > > * po/pt_BR.po: Add Brazilian translation (Closes: #986890) > > > > Isn't Brazilian Portuguese a more accurate name? > > Hmm yeah indeed that is the actual name. It's already uploaded though :/ Yeah. Without telling you to do that, you could "fix" that changelog entry in a future release. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
