RFS: libmsn
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libmsn", which is needed by Kopete in KDE 4.2 and newer for MSN Messenger support with off-line message support (MSN protocol version 15). * Package name: libmsn Version : 4.0~beta1-1 Upstream Author : Mark Rowe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Tiago Salem Herrmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * URL : http://libmsn.sourceforge.net * License : GPLv2 or later Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 505795 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libmsn - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libmsn/libmsn_4.0~beta1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
2008/11/15 Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It builds these binary packages: > libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] > libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] > libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] Some quick comments: You shouldn't call your runtime library just libmsn, see [1]. You definitely shouldn't get rid of that lintian's message with an override. The package is GPL without any special clauses and links against OpenSSL. OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPL AFAIK [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
2008/11/16 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/15 Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> It builds these binary packages: >> libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] >> libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] >> libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] > > Some quick comments: > > You shouldn't call your runtime library just libmsn, see [1]. You > definitely shouldn't get rid of that lintian's message with an > override. > > The package is GPL without any special clauses and links against > OpenSSL. OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPL AFAIK > > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Sorry, I meant [1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html BTW, it's not a big issue, but I find it cleaner when I have to repackage a bzip2 tarball to gzip to do: bunzip2 program.tar.bz2 gzip program.tar instead of unpackaging it complely and repackaging it again. Thus at least the MD5 of the tar is maintained. It is not really important anyway, but I like it more, easier to compare :) Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:18:12AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: >BTW, it's not a big issue, For me it's a nuisance because it's more work for the reviewer. >but I find it cleaner when I have to repackage a bzip2 tarball to gzip >to do: > >bunzip2 program.tar.bz2 >gzip program.tar I prefer: bunzip2 -c program-1.2.tar.bz2 | gzip -9 - > program_1.2.orig.tar.gz I run the following commands for pacemaker 0.6.0: bunzip2 -c Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 | gzip -9 - > pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz touch -r Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz ls -l Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 anibal anibal 897202 2008-01-19 18:01 Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 anibal anibal 1173839 2008-01-19 18:01 pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz bzcat Pacemaker-0.6.0.tar.bz2 | md5sum; zcat pacemaker_0.6.0.orig.tar.gz | md5sum 571b3c39653b106f06b4fa8735344fa3 - 571b3c39653b106f06b4fa8735344fa3 - >instead of unpackaging it complely and repackaging it again. Thus at >least the MD5 of the tar is maintained. True. >It is not really important anyway, but I like it more, easier to >compare :) It's important for me. :) >Greetings, > Miry Cheers! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libmsn
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:56:37 Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:18:12AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > >BTW, it's not a big issue, > > For me it's a nuisance because it's more work for the reviewer. > > >but I find it cleaner when I have to repackage a bzip2 tarball to gzip > >to do: > > > >bunzip2 program.tar.bz2 > >gzip program.tar > > I prefer: > > bunzip2 -c program-1.2.tar.bz2 | gzip -9 - > program_1.2.orig.tar.gz If you want to have different md5sums for you tar.gz everytime you run the program - fine. I would prefere bunzip2 -c program-1.2.tar.bz2 | gzip -n -9 - > program_1.2.orig.tar.gz -- Robert Wohlrab -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/11/15 Pau Garcia i Quiles : > >> It builds these binary packages: >> libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] >> libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] >> libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] > > Some quick comments: > > You shouldn't call your runtime library just libmsn, see [1]. You > definitely shouldn't get rid of that lintian's message with an > override. I have renamed the package to 'libmsn0.1'. Upstream is planning some changes that might affect the API and might require soversion changes. I used just 'libmsn' not to flood the archive with 'libmsn0.1', 'libmsn0.2', etc packages in the near future. > The package is GPL without any special clauses and links against > OpenSSL. OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPL AFAIK Upstream just added following text to their license: In addition to the license terms of the GNU General Public License, as copied below, the developers of libmsn give you permission to link the code of this release of libmsn with the OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. So I'm packaging libmsn 4.0 beta 1 + svn rev. 69 Thanks your for reviewing the package. A new version will be available soon in mentors. > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ > > Greetings, > Miry > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFJIvrv/DzYv9iGJzsRAvcSAKCvNJQFcR4eO/VQNbaQWhETMZCNewCeOMTJ ea3yF7KPFA4iiGuCZxAfjLY= =70Cs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
* Pau Garcia i Quiles [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:27:09 +0100]: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > 2008/11/15 Pau Garcia i Quiles : > >> It builds these binary packages: > >> libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] > >> libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] > >> libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] > > Some quick comments: > > You shouldn't call your runtime library just libmsn, see [1]. You > > definitely shouldn't get rid of that lintian's message with an > > override. > I have renamed the package to 'libmsn0.1'. > Upstream is planning some changes that might affect the API and might > require soversion changes. I used just 'libmsn' not to flood the > archive with 'libmsn0.1', 'libmsn0.2', etc packages in the near > future. In that case, maybe you should only package the static library until the ABI stabilizes. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Any life, no matter how long and complex it may be, is made up of a single moment: the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is. -- Jorge Luis Borges -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/11/16 Miriam Ruiz : >> 2008/11/15 Pau Garcia i Quiles : >> >>> It builds these binary packages: >>> libmsn - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [runtime] >>> libmsn-dbg - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [debug] >>> libmsn-dev - high-level C++ library for MSN Messenger [devel] >> >> Some quick comments: >> >> You shouldn't call your runtime library just libmsn, see [1]. You >> definitely shouldn't get rid of that lintian's message with an >> override. >> >> The package is GPL without any special clauses and links against >> OpenSSL. OpenSSL license is not compatible with GPL AFAIK >> >> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ > > Sorry, I meant [1] > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html > > BTW, it's not a big issue, but I find it cleaner when I have to > repackage a bzip2 tarball to gzip to do: > > bunzip2 program.tar.bz2 > gzip program.tar > > instead of unpackaging it complely and repackaging it again. Thus at > least the MD5 of the tar is maintained. It is not really important > anyway, but I like it more, easier to compare :) Please note I did not just unpackage and repackage it again but I also renamed the directory from 4.0-beta1 to 4.0~beta1 because: $ dpkg --compare-versions 4.0-beta1 gt 4.0; echo $? 0 $ dpkg --compare-versions 4.0~beta1 gt 4.0; echo $? 1 Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? - -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFJIv3j/DzYv9iGJzsRAj1iAJ934iAhCqIhs2+E58MmBpE0ZKfURACfcS9k +tad8qlRDybCmmIIExRc7HQ= =pKYa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > Please note I did not just unpackage and repackage it again but I also > renamed the directory from 4.0-beta1 to 4.0~beta1 because: > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 4.0-beta1 gt 4.0; echo $? > 0 > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 4.0~beta1 gt 4.0; echo $? > 1 > > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? Don't rename. dpkg-source takes care of that. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libmsn
* Pau Garcia i Quiles [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:39:45 +0100]: > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Will you just stand still? -- Luke Danes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:30 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make
> > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the
> > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier?
> You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough.
True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in
6.7.8.2:
A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
[..]
4. should use -.orig as the name
of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible
to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones.
Is this recommendation moot?
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`-NP: Kurt Ostbahn & Die Kombo: (No a) Defekt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * gregor herrmann [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:15:07 +0100]: > >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:30 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > >> > > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make >> > > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the >> > > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? >> > You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough. > >> True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in >> 6.7.8.2: > >> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz >> [..] >> 4. should use -.orig as the name >> of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible >> to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones. > >> Is this recommendation moot? > > No, not really. Note that in this case we were not talking about a > repackaged tarball, but just one with the "bunzip & gzip" dance. > Incidentally, the version in Debian was to be 4.0~beta1 instead of the > upstream 4.0-beta1, and Pau wondered if *this* needed a repacking, which > it did not. > > Hope that was clear enough. :-) To further clarify: What Adeodato says would be accurate in case the packagename matches the directory name, which is not the case here. To actually match the package name, I would need to repackage because the original tarball uncompresses to "libmsn-4.0-beta" but it should uncompress to "libmsn0.1-4.0~beta1". If I am to abide by rule 6.7.8.2, renaming "libmsn" -> "libmsn0.1" should be done, and therefore this package is no longer just a bunzip & gzip case. - -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFJI0uz/DzYv9iGJzsRAmEwAKDRdFrHlF7LPVkhGEtdyGHDyG7SFQCfa8yq 5MOA2N7sWvvdeOe2XL/pepk= =zgGc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
* gregor herrmann [Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:15:07 +0100]: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:30 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > Should I rename the directory in the .orig.tar and make > > > tamper-checking more difficult, or not rename the directory in the > > > .orig.tar and make tamper-checking easier? > > You should not, dpkg-source copes well enough. > True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in > 6.7.8.2: > A repackaged .orig.tar.gz > [..] > 4. should use -.orig as the name > of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible > to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones. > Is this recommendation moot? No, not really. Note that in this case we were not talking about a repackaged tarball, but just one with the "bunzip & gzip" dance. Incidentally, the version in Debian was to be 4.0~beta1 instead of the upstream 4.0-beta1, and Pau wondered if *this* needed a repacking, which it did not. Hope that was clear enough. :-) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Dar Williams - In Love But Not At Peace -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: repackaged .orig.tar.gz (was: RFS: libmsn)
* Pau Garcia i Quiles [Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:11:44 +0100]: > >> True, on the other hand the Developer's Reference suggests in > >> 6.7.8.2: > >> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz > >> [..] > >> 4. should use -.orig as the name > >> of the top-level directory in its tarball. This makes it possible > >> to distinguish pristine tarballs from repackaged ones. > >> Is this recommendation moot? > > No, not really. Note that in this case we were not talking about a > > repackaged tarball, but just one with the "bunzip & gzip" dance. > > Incidentally, the version in Debian was to be 4.0~beta1 instead of the > > upstream 4.0-beta1, and Pau wondered if *this* needed a repacking, which > > it did not. > > Hope that was clear enough. :-) > To further clarify: > What Adeodato says would be accurate in case the packagename matches > the directory name, which is not the case here. > To actually match the package name, I would need to repackage because > the original tarball uncompresses to "libmsn-4.0-beta" but it should > uncompress to "libmsn0.1-4.0~beta1". If I am to abide by rule 6.7.8.2, > renaming "libmsn" -> "libmsn0.1" should be done, and therefore this > package is no longer just a bunzip & gzip case. No, that is not correct. You should not repackage just to rename the top level directory, period. No matter if what doesn't match is the version part, the name part, or both. Said that, your source package name should still be "libmsn" even if the binary package is named "libmsn0.1", bacause when you bump the binary package to "libmsn0.2", we want the source package name to remain constant. Please fix that. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Dar Williams - After All -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
