Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"

[Jonathan McCrohan]

On 15/06/12 22:10, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> So for stable, just the license information would need to get
> updated, AIUI.

Attached is a debdiff with backported versions of fonts/8859-* from
figlet 2.2.5. I proposed something similar on #-release last week too.
While I got replies from the release team, I don't think I got any
response from a SRM.

> If a sponsor is needed for the stable update, please give me a ping.

Thanks, I'll get back to you about that.

Jon
diff -u figlet-2.2.2/debian/control figlet-2.2.2/debian/control
--- figlet-2.2.2/debian/control
+++ figlet-2.2.2/debian/control
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 Source: figlet
 Maintainer: Carlos Laviola 
+Uploaders: Jonathan McCrohan 
 Section: non-free/text
 Priority: optional
 Standards-Version: 3.6.1.1
diff -u figlet-2.2.2/debian/changelog figlet-2.2.2/debian/changelog
--- figlet-2.2.2/debian/changelog
+++ figlet-2.2.2/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+figlet (2.2.2-1+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
+
+  * Replace fonts/8859-* with redistributable alternative versions. 
+  * Add myself as co-maintainer
+
+ -- Jonathan McCrohan   Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:23:49 +0100
+
 figlet (2.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * New upstream release.  (Closes: #388101)
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- figlet-2.2.2.orig/fonts/8859-8.flc
+++ figlet-2.2.2/fonts/8859-8.flc
@@ -1,42 +1,84 @@
 #
-#  Name: ISO 8859-8 (1988) to Unicode
-#  Unicode version:  1.1
-#  Table version:0.1
+#  Name: ISO/IEC 8859-8:1999 to Unicode
+#  Unicode version:  3.0
+#  Table version:1.1
 #  Table format: Format A
-#  Date: 16 January 1995
-#  Authors:  Tim Greenwood 
-# John H. Jenkins 
+#  Date: 2000-Jan-03
+#  Authors:  Ken Whistler 
 #
-#  Copyright (c) 1991-1995 Unicode, Inc.  All Rights reserved.
+#  Copyright (c) 1991-1999 Unicode, Inc.  All Rights reserved.
 #
 #  This file is provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. (The Unicode Consortium).
 #  No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose.  No
 #  warranties of any kind are expressed or implied.  The recipient
 #  agrees to determine applicability of information provided.  If this
-#  file has been provided on magnetic media by Unicode, Inc., the sole
+#  file has been provided on optical media by Unicode, Inc., the sole
 #  remedy for any claim will be exchange of defective media within 90
 #  days of receipt.
 #
-#  Recipient is granted the right to make copies in any form for
-#  internal distribution and to freely use the information supplied
-#  in the creation of products supporting Unicode.  Unicode, Inc.
-#  specifically excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly
-#  to third parties or other organizations whether for profit or not.
+#  Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information
+#  supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the
+#  Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form for
+#  internal or external distribution as long as this notice remains
+#  attached.
 #
 #  General notes:
 #
 #  This table contains the data the Unicode Consortium has on how
-#   ISO 8859-8 (1988) characters map into Unicode.
+#   ISO/IEC 8859-8:1999 characters map into Unicode.
 #
 #  Format:  Three tab-separated columns
-#   Column #1 is the ISO 8859-8 code (in hex as 0xXX)
+#   Column #1 is the ISO/IEC 8859-8 code (in hex as 0xXX)
 #   Column #2 is the Unicode (in hex as 0x)
 #   Column #3 the Unicode name (follows a comment sign, '#')
 #
-#  The entries are in ISO 8859-8 order
+#  The entries are in ISO/IEC 8859-8 order.
 #
-#  Any comments or problems, contact 
+#  Version history
+#  1.0 version updates 0.1 version by adding mappings for all
+#  control characters.
+#   1.1 version updates to the published 8859-8:1999, correcting
+#  the mapping of 0xAF and adding mappings for LRM and RLM.
 #
+#  Updated versions of this file may be found in:
+#  
+#
+#  Any comments or problems, contact 
+#  Please note that  is an archival address;
+#  notices will be checked, but do not expect an immediate response.
+#
+0x00   0x  #   NULL
+0x01   0x0001  #   START OF HEADING
+0x02   0x0002  #   START OF TEXT
+0x03   0x0003  #   END OF TEXT
+0x04   0x0004  #   END OF TRANSMISSION
+0x05   0x0005  #   ENQUIRY
+0x06   0x0006  #   ACKNOWLEDGE
+0x07   0x0007  #   BELL
+0x08   0x0008  #   BACKSPACE
+0x09   0x0009  #   HORIZONTAL TABULATION
+0x0A   0x000A  #   LINE FEED
+0x0B   0x000B  #   VERTICAL TABULATION
+0x0C   0x000C  #   FORM FEED
+0x0D   0x000D  #   CARRIAGE RETURN
+0x0E   0x000E  #   SHIFT OUT
+0x0F   0x000F  #   SHIFT IN
+0x10   0x001

Re: Confirmed

[Touko Korpela]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:36:42PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you for the fix Milan. I verified that 0.9.6 fixes the problem
> on my testing install. However, this report shouldn't have been
> downgraded.
> 
> Thank you also for applying the fix David, although it would be nice
> to watch credits in the future.
> It would also have been nice to upload a new version focusing on
> this bug (and perhaps other important bugs) at high urgency. This
> needs to migrate to testing before dailies and weeklies get usable
> again. I asked the release team to consider urging migration anyway.

Release team, maybe you should let apt 0.9.6 migrate testing faster so
CD images work again.

(Filipus is maybe still blocked from posting to some lists so this didn't
reach you first)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120616001800.GA24973@lisko

Bug#675167: Bug#674844: Bug#674850: Bug#675167: Bug#674850: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Alexander Reichle-Schmehl  [2012-06-04 21:30:28 CEST]:
> Hi!
> 
> On 04.06.2012 19:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> >>> There seems to be just about 0 creative content in that file.  What
> >>> exactly is the problem with it?
> >> Figlet 2.2.5 has just been released with the following changelog [1].
> > That doesn't seem to answer the above question.
> 
> The problem is that someone claims that he has copyrights on some of
> these files.

 So far, correct.

> It doesn't actually matter, what I or anyone else thinks about that,
> unless it's a judge ruling that said files are not copyrightable.

 The suggested replacement file though is from the same copyright
holder, contains the same text.  This all suggests that the copyright
holder relicensed the information stored in the file under a free
license.

 So for stable, just the license information would need to get updated,
AIUI.  If a sponsor is needed for the stable update, please give me a
ping.

 Thanks,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120615211011.ga26...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Processed: Re: transition: KDE's 4.8 release of platform, applications and workspace

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 664681 by 677628
Bug #664681 [release.debian.org] transition: KDE's 4.8 release of platform, 
applications and workspace
664681 was blocked by: 653903
664681 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 664681: 677628
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
664681: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=664681
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133977087432040.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Bug#664681: transition: KDE's 4.8 release of platform, applications and workspace

[Marcos Marado]

block 664681 by 677628
thanks

FYI,

There's now a bug report for the kshutdown issue[1], including a patch fixing 
it. 

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677628

Best regards,
-- 
Marcos Marado



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206151534.20701.mindboosterno...@gmail.com

Processed: Re: Bug#667906: transition: libffi

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> tags 667906 - sid wheezy
Bug #667906 [release.debian.org] transition: libffi
Removed tag(s) sid and wheezy.
> tags 667906 + wheezy-ignore
Bug #667906 [release.debian.org] transition: libffi
Added tag(s) wheezy-ignore.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
667906: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667906
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133976642610083.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Bug#667906: transition: libffi

[Mehdi Dogguy]

tags 667906 - sid wheezy
tags 667906 + wheezy-ignore
thanks

On 13/06/2012 00:36, Matthias Klose wrote:

On 11.06.2012 00:29, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 22:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

Are there likely to be any issues if the transition migrated in
stages - i.e. if the new libffi including libffi6 and the old
libffi5 binary (kept around by britney) co-exist in testing -
and rebuilt binaries migrate as and when they're ready, rather
than needing to have the entire set ready at once?


To partly answer my own question, it looks like neither library
includes versioned symbols, so it could be an issue if both end up
being loaded by the same application.


no, this should be safe. there are no ABI changes for existing
functions. the new version adds functions for variadic support, and
removes some debug functions. from my point of view, these should be
able to coexist.



Even though this should be safe, it is really late now to start it and
we apologize we couldn't start it earlier (part of the reason was the
haskell transition itself). It doesn't look like we will be able to do
this transition in time for Wheezy (given the number of involved
packages). I've tagged this bug accordingly. But if you feel that there
is an important (very important) fix that we should have in wheezy,
please let us know.

Regards,

--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fdb3662.7070...@dogguy.org

Bug#677620: transition: GNOME 3.4: evolution 3.4

[Touko Korpela]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:13:25PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> We want evolution 3.4 for wheezy. This means updating gtkhtml4.0,
> evolution-data-server, evolution and the reverse dependencies of those
> packages.

I think this is too late and big transition in this stage of release.
It wouldn't be fair to other transitions that are already skipped.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120615124642.GA6577@tiikeri.vuoristo.local

Bug#677620: transition: GNOME 3.4: evolution 3.4

[Michael Biebl]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

We want evolution 3.4 for wheezy. This means updating gtkhtml4.0,
evolution-data-server, evolution and the reverse dependencies of those
packages.

I'm not quite sure if we should setup separate trackers for gtkhtml4.0,
evolution and evolution-data-server or if they should be merged, since
we should do all three in one go.

For simplicities sake I've uses separate ben files (hopefully I got them
right).

gtkhtml4.0 (4.2.2 → 4.4.2)
==

No soname bump involved, but generates a tight dependency via shlibs,
i.e. >= 4.2 and << 4.3 atm.

So all reverse dependencies need to be recompiled against 4.4:

- evolution
- evolution-ews
- evolution-exchange
- evolution-mapi
- evolution-rss
- mail-notification
- tracker-miner-evolution
- xiphos (*)

BUT: all the above packages besides xiphos need a binNMU or a sourceful
anyway for evolution / evolution-data-server 3.4, so only xiphos needs
to be binNMUed for gtkhtml4.0 4.2.2.

We upload gtkhtml4.0 as first step.

is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libgtkhtml(-editor)-4.0-dev/ | .build-depends ~ 
/evolution-dev/;
is_good = .depends ~ /libgtkhtml(-editor)-4.0-0 \(>= 4.4\)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /libgtkhtml(-editor)-4.0-0 \(<< 4.3\)/;

evolution-data-server (3.2.2 → 3.4.2) and evolution (3.2.2 → 3.4.2)
===

evolution-data-server
~

Involves several soname bumps:

- libebook-1.2-12 → libebook-1.2-16
- libecal-1.2-10 → libecal-1.2-13
- libedata-book-1.2-11 → libedata-book-1.2-13
- libedataserver-1.2-15 → libedataserver-1.2-16
- libcamel-1.2-29 → libcamel-1.2-33
- libedata-cal-1.2-13 → libedata-cal-1.2-15
- libebackend-1.2-1 → libebackend-1.2-2

is_affected = .build-depends 
~/lib(|ecal1.2|edataserver1.2|edataserverui-3.0|ebook1.2|edata-book1.2|edata-cal1.2|ebackend1.2)-dev/
 | .build-depends ~ /evolution-data-server-dev/;
is_good = .depends ~ 
/lib(|ebook-1.2-16|ecal-1.2-13|edata-book-1.2-13|edataserver-1.2-16|camel-1.2-33|edata-cal-1.2-15|ebackend-1.2-2)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ 
/lib(ebook-1.2-12|ecal-1.2-10|edata-book-1.2-11|edataserver-1.2-15|camel-1.2-29|edata-cal-1.2-13|ebackend-1.2-1)/;

* binNMUs (build tested)

- almanah
- barry
- contacts
- dates
- ekiga
- empathy
- eweouz
- folks
- giggle
- gbirthday
- glabels
- gnome-contacts
- gnome-panel
- gnome-phone-manager
- gnome-python-desktop
- hdate-applet
- jana
- nautilus-sendto
- obexd
- ruby-revolution
- sflphone
- syncevolution
- tasks
- libreoffice

evolution
~

Doesn't involve a soname bump but libevolution generates a tight
dependency via shlibs, i.e >= 3.2 << 3.3 atm.

is_affected = .build-depends ~ /evolution-dev/;
is_good = .depends ~ /libevolution \(>= 3.4\)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /libevolution \(<< 3.3\)/;

The list of rdepends of evolution-data-server and evolution intersect.
To avoid duplicate compilation, upload evolution-data-server 3.4 first,
then evolution 3.4, then schedule the binNMUs resp. do a sourceful
update of the remaining rdeps.

* binNMUs (build tested)

- mail-notification (once
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677455 is fixed)
- tracker
- evolution-webcal

* sourceful uploads

- gnome-shell (debian/patches/21_revert_evolution_gsettings.patch
  needs to be dropped)
- evolution-ews (3.2 → 3.4, in experimental)
- evolution-exchange (3.2 → 3.4, in experimental)
- evolution-mapi (3.2 → 3.4, in experimental)
- evolution-rss (0.2.90 → 0.3.91, in experimental)



Cheers,
Michael
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (200, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120615121325.8238.53766.report...@pluto.milchstrasse.xx

Bug#677502: marked as done (unblock: lv2file/0.83-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:51:01 +0100
with message-id <4fdb21a5.30...@pyro.eu.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#677502: unblock: lv2file/0.83-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #677502,
regarding unblock: lv2file/0.83-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
677502: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677502
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package lv2file, it does no longer build on non-Linux due
to the lack of support for those architectures in lilv.

unblock lv2file/0.83-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 15/06/12 08:44, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> Applied, thank you very much!

And now lv2file is built too.  It should be able to migrate tonight.
Therefore I'm closing this 'unblock' request which isn't needed now.

Thanks!
Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org

--- End Message ---

Re: Futur status of RoarAudio packages

[Neil McGovern]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:41:42PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> I want to ask if the release team decided anything in this direction.
> Does the release team want a useful version of the package in wheezy?
> 
> I'm not interested in any discussion but a plain offical statement from
> the Release Team.
> 

It's quite hard to get the "Release Team" to make an official statement in the
timescales you're probably after, especially as you're not looking for any
discussion.

However, as Release Manager (and I have discussed this with the other RM), my
official statement is: 

  I have no preference either way, as long as the package complies with release
  policy, then it may be included in the release.

I would suggest that solving this issue in unstable, one way or the
other may be a better area to concentrate your efforts.

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#675207: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig

[Johannes Ring]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Julien Cristau
 wrote:
> If dolfin only works with the version of swig it was built against, that
> needs to be reflected in the package dependencies.

Okay, but I'm unsure how to do that. Currently I have "Build-Depends:
swig2.0" in the source package and "Depends: swig2.0" in the binary
package python-dolfin. What should I put there instead? Are you
suggesting that I should add something like "{Build-}Depends: swig2.0
(>= 2.0.7), swig2.0 (<< 2.0.8)"? Wouldn't that require me to do a new
upload when swig 2.0.8 is added in the future? If so, is that any
better than doing binNMU's?

Johannes


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALjQY_FCOtcUcMOz1=P_wiK5YidAKiSUFZvkzwDZ3ZR=xng...@mail.gmail.com