Bug#1037690: hfst-ospell: ftbfs with GCC-13
forwarded 1037690 https://github.com/hfst/hfst-ospell/issues/57 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1037663: foma: ftbfs with GCC-13
forwarded 1037663 https://github.com/mhulden/foma/pull/148 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1028061: apertium-hbs-eng: Errors shown against many translated words
Agreed, direction eng-hbs doesn't look good. Direction hbs-eng looks much better. It is clear from https://github.com/apertium/apertium-hbs-eng/tree/master/texts that this pair was developed with hbs-eng in mind, and eng-hbs probably shouldn't have been published. And https://github.com/apertium/apertium-hbs-eng/blob/master/modes.xml corroborates this with the comment that eng-hbs was only installed for debugging. If you wish to work on the eng-hbs performance, Apertium is always looking for new contributors (OFTC #apertium). As for this bug, I think best I can do in the short term is remove the eng-hbs direction. (The PR (now merged) was just comments, so it couldn't affect quality.) -- Tino Didriksen On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 at 13:57, Peter Blackman wrote: > Package: apertium-hbs-eng > Version: 0.5.1-2.1 > Severity: normal > Tags: upstream > X-Debbugs-Cc: pe...@pblackman.plus.com > > Dear Maintainer, > > Translating a short test file using the language pair eng-hbs; > > Mary had a little lamb. > It's fleece was white as snow. > > > gave the result > > #Marica #ima @a little @lamb. > #Free #biti *fleece #biti @white @as #snijeg#. > > > Problems shown on every word except 'little' was is not translated anyway! > > > Translating with eng-spa & eng-cat works well. > > > The command 'apertium -l' shows many Eastern European language pairs with > Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Macedonian. > But the only way into this group from English, is via eng-hbs, > hence my interest. > > > Regards, > Peter > > P.S. > Upstream there is an outstanding three year old pull request. > https://github.com/apertium/apertium-hbs-eng/pulls > > I tried patching this in, but it did not fix the problem. > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1016327: Forwarding bitrotted Apertium pairs
forwarded 1016338 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/32 forwarded 1016327 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/32 thanks -- Tino Didriksen OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1008348: Forwarding bitrotted Apertium pairs
forwarded 1008348 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/23 forwarded 1016319 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/23 forwarded 1016320 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/23 forwarded 1016336 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/23 forwarded 1013638 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/32 forwarded 1013648 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/32 forwarded 1013646 https://github.com/apertium/organisation/issues/32 thanks -- Tino Didriksen OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1005670: apertium-kaz-tat: FTBFS: ERROR: Transducer contains epsilon transition to a final state. Aborting.
forwarded 1005670 https://github.com/apertium/apertium-kaz-tat/issues/4 thanks -- Tino Didriksen OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1012894: apertium: ftbfs with GCC-12
forwarded 1012894 https://github.com/apertium/apertium/issues/166 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1011176: apertium-recursive: fails to detect EOF condition on unsigned char archs
Fix applied upstream https://github.com/apertium/apertium-recursive and new release pushed to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-recursive awaiting upload. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1008329: apertium-spa-arg: FTBFS: configure: error: Package requirements (apertium-lex-tools >= 0.2.7) were not met
This was an expected failure due to new incompatible tool packages, and same goes for all the other Apertium-related FTBFS. How can one prevent such a slew of superfluous automatic bugs from being filed? Is there a way to mark packages as "will be updated, just waiting for deps in NEW queue"? -- Tino Didriksen On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 22:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: apertium-spa-arg > Version: 0.5.0-1 > Severity: serious > Justification: FTBFS > Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs > User: lu...@debian.org > Usertags: ftbfs-20220326 ftbfs-bookworm > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64. > > > Relevant part (hopefully): > > checking for gawk... (cached) gawk > > checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config > > checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes > > checking for apertium >= 3.7.1... yes > > checking for apertium-lex-tools >= 0.2.7... no > > configure: error: Package requirements (apertium-lex-tools >= 0.2.7) > were not met > > > > No package 'apertium-lex-tools' found > > > > Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you > > installed software in a non-standard prefix. > > > > Alternatively, you may set the environment variables > APERTIUM_LEX_TOOLS_CFLAGS > > and APERTIUM_LEX_TOOLS_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. > > See the pkg-config man page for more details. > > make[1]: *** [debian/rules:20: override_dh_auto_configure] Error 1 > > make[1]: Leaving directory '/<>' > > > The full build log is available from: > http://qa-logs.debian.net/2022/03/26/apertium-spa-arg_0.5.0-1_unstable.log > > A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at > http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! > > If you reassign this bug to another package, please marking it as > 'affects'-ing > this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects > > If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with > mine > so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime. > > -- > debian-science-maintainers mailing list > debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#1007985: apertium-lex-tools: fatal error: lttoolbox/ltstr.h: No such file or directory
We are in the process of updating all the packages that use lttoolbox, so this is fully expected. -- Tino Didriksen On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 23:03, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Source: apertium-lex-tools > Version: 0.2.7-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: ftbfs sid bookworm > X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org > > g++ -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"apertium-lex-tools\" > -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"apertium-lex-tools\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.2.7\" > -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"apertium-lex-tools\ 0.2.7\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\" > apertium-st...@lists.sourceforge.net\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" > -DPACKAGE=\"apertium-lex-tools\" -DVERSION=\"0.2.7\" -DHAVE_IRSTLM=0 > -DHAVE_STDIO_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 > -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 > -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_YASMET=0 > -DHAVE_LIBXML2=1 -DHAVE_SETLOCALE=1 -DHAVE_STRDUP=1 > -DHAVE_DECL_FREAD_UNLOCKED=1 -DHAVE_DECL_FWRITE_UNLOCKED=1 > -DHAVE_DECL_FGETC_UNLOCKED=1 -DHAVE_DECL_FPUTC_UNLOCKED=1 > -DHAVE_DECL_FPUTS_UNLOCKED=1 -DHAVE_DECL_FGETWC_UNLOCKED=0 > -DHAVE_DECL_FPUTWC_UNLOCKED=0 -DHAVE_DECL_FGETWS_UNLOCKED=0 > -DHAVE_DECL_FPUTWS_UNLOCKED=0 -I. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wall > -Wextra -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. > -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security > -I/usr/include/lttoolbox-3.6 -I/usr/include/apertium-3.8 > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/apertium-3.8/include -I/usr/include/libxml2 > -Wall -Wextra -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. > -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -std=c++20 -c -o > lrx_proc.o lrx_proc.cc > In file included from lrx_proc.cc:17: > ./lrx_processor.h:37:10: fatal error: lttoolbox/ltstr.h: No such file or > directory >37 | #include > | ^~~ > compilation terminated. > make[2]: *** [Makefile:426: lrx_proc.o] Error 1 > > > See > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=apertium-lex-tools=amd64=0.2.7-1%2Bb1=1647711879=0 > > Cheers > -- > Sebastian Ramacher > -- > debian-science-maintainers mailing list > debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Re: hfst_3.15.4-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
G'day, This was resolved a year ago: https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/2021-February/090093.html Did an incorrect tarball get analyzed/uploaded or something? 'cause https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/hfst has the correctly licensed code, and has had that since 2021-02-13. -- Tino Didriksen On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 11:00, Thorsten Alteholz < ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > our hardworking trainees added a note to your package: > > - back-ends/foma/cpp-version/apply.cc mentions GNU General Public License > version 2 > but d/c mentions License: Apache-2.0 > > same for coaccessible.cc and many other. See Comment in the matching d/c > stanza. I went to that page and found nothing. > > The back-ends/foma/COPYING is GPL-2.0+. The README file confirms this. > > So I guess the change to Apache-2.0 is for one future version. For this > version, d/c is erroneous. > > - back-ends/foma/cpp-version/regex.cc is Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, > 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc., but d/c does not mention it. > > same for back-ends/foma/regex.[ch] > > - files in back-ends/sfst/* have no copyright notice nor license notice and > there is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the directory. > > - libhfst/src/parsers/ contains files that are either GPL3 or LGPL3+ and > the > COPYING file says LGPL3 (not +) > > - scripts/windows/inttypes.h is not listed in d/c > > > > > Thorsten > > > > === > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our > concerns. > > > -- > debian-science-maintainers mailing list > debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#991241: lrx-proc: command not found
Fixed in https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-swe-dan - was missing a dependency on apertium-lex-tools -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#988129: hfst-ospell: FTBFS on sparc64 due to test failures
forwarded 988129 https://github.com/hfst/hfst-ospell/issues/43 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#984785: apertium-arg-cat: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
d/control wrongly mentions python - it does not need python to build. Should just be removed. -- Tino Didriksen On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 12:39, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: src:apertium-arg-cat > Version: 0.2.0-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bullseye > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: py2removal > > Python2 becomes end-of-live upstream, and Debian aims to remove > Python2 from the distribution, as discussed in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html > > Your package either build-depends, depends on Python2, or uses Python2 > in the autopkg tests. Please stop using Python2, and fix this issue > by one of the following actions. > > - Convert your Package to Python3. This is the preferred option. In > case you are providing a Python module foo, please consider dropping > the python-foo package, and only build a python3-foo package. Please > don't drop Python2 modules, which still have reverse dependencies, > just document them. > > > At this point, this is the only option. > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#984786: apertium-separable: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
Whoops. That's an oversight in d/control - it should say python3 instead of python. This was fixed upstream last year ( https://github.com/apertium/apertium-separable/issues/28), so I was certain this must be a bogus bug report - but no, I plain forgot to adjust d/control. -- Tino Didriksen On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 12:39, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: src:apertium-separable > Version: 0.3.6-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bullseye > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: py2removal > > Python2 becomes end-of-live upstream, and Debian aims to remove > Python2 from the distribution, as discussed in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html > > Your package either build-depends, depends on Python2, or uses Python2 > in the autopkg tests. Please stop using Python2, and fix this issue > by one of the following actions. > > - Convert your Package to Python3. This is the preferred option. In > case you are providing a Python module foo, please consider dropping > the python-foo package, and only build a python3-foo package. Please > don't drop Python2 modules, which still have reverse dependencies, > just document them. > > > At this point, this is the only option. > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Re: hfst_3.15.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
G'day FTPMaster and Kartik... I've pushed HFST 3.15.4 to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/hfst which should resolve all this. The upstream tracking issue was https://github.com/hfst/hfst/issues/494 and there's also been some emails to the HFST authors, with Kartik on CC, to clear everything up. Specifically: - Upgraded the bundled Foma version to one that is explicitly Apache-2.0. - Removed the Bison/Flex generated Foma files from the sources uploaded to Debian, letting them be regenerated during build. - Added explicit COPYING to the bundled SFST sources, and put a comment in d/copyright to list exactly which upstream is bundled. - Sorted out the mess of libhfst/* being a mix of licenses by asking original authors and copyright holders to clarify intent, and settled on that it was always meant to be LGPLv3+ so changed the files to say so... - ...but with a final quirk: The files libhfst/src/parsers/[Ss]fst* are derived from SFST, but distributed as part of libhfst under LGPL-3+ license with written permission from Helmut Schmid. - m4/ files listed in d/c. - scripts/windows/* removed from sources uploaded to Debian. There is no rush to review changes or upload. We missed the freeze window, and that's ok. -- Tino Didriksen On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 22:00, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Hi Maintainer, > > sorry, rejected this time around. > > The review notes from one trainee are below: > > Comments > > > [ d/c : debian/copyright ] > > / * serious error */ > > - back-ends/foma/cpp-version/apply.cc mentions GNU General Public License > version 2 > but d/c mentions License: Apache-2.0 > > same for coaccessible.cc and many other. See Comment in the matching d/c > stanza. I went to that page and found nothing. > > The back-ends/foma/COPYING is GPL-2.0+. The README file confirms this. > > So I guess the change to Apache-2.0 is for one future version. For this > version, d/c is erroneous. > > - back-ends/foma/cpp-version/regex.cc is Copyright (C) 1984, 1989-1990, > 2000-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc., but d/c does not mention it. > > same for back-ends/foma/regex.[ch] > > - files in back-ends/sfst/* have no copyright notice nor license notice and > there is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the directory. > > - libhfst/src/parsers/ contains files that are either GPL3 or LGPL3+ and > the > COPYING file says LGPL3 (not +) [what a mess]. > > - m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 is not mentioned in d/c. > same for m4/ax_check_icu.m4 > > - scripts/windows/inttypes.h is not listed in d/c > > -- > bye Joerg > > > > === > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our > concerns. -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978364: apertium-ukr: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: the left side of an entry is empty)
I did CC Kartik in the original mail. I assume it was lost in the crowd. https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-rus-ukr is up-to-date and bundled and is the only thing that wanted apertium-ukr, so after apertium-rus-ukr is uploaded, apertium-ukr will be superfluous and should be removed. -- Tino Didriksen On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 18:33, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi Tino, > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:13:56 +0100 Tino Didriksen > wrote: > > apertium-ukr should be removed from Debian. The pair that needed it has > > been upgraded to bundle the required version instead: > > If you agree, can I retitle and reassign to file in a removal bug for > apertium-ukr, then? > Also, I do not see apertium-rus-ukr at either the archive or the tracker - > did this not get uploaded, yet? > > Nilesh -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978364: apertium-ukr: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: the left side of an entry is empty)
apertium-ukr should be removed from Debian. The pair that needed it has been upgraded to bundle the required version instead: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-rus-ukr -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978377: apertium-eo-fr: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: entry on the right beginning with whitespace)
Fixed in Salsa https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-eo-fr -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978359: apertium-br-fr: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: entry on the right beginning with whitespace)
Fixed in Salsa https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-br-fr -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978369: apertium-eo-ca: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: entry on the right beginning with whitespace)
Fixed in Salsa https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-eo-ca -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#979134: apertium-anaphora: please make the build reproducible
Fixed upstream and in Salsa https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-anaphora -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#979134: apertium-anaphora: please make the build reproducible
How does it vary? $BASH is set by AC_PATH_PROG(BASH, bash, no) at https://github.com/apertium/apertium-anaphora/blob/master/configure.ac#L39 which should never find /bin/sh I agree it always needs Bash, but I don't see how it can find anything but /bin/bash or /usr/bin/bash or whatever bash is in $PATH. The idea, as horrible as it is, is to respect and bake-in any Bash found from a user's home folder install. What I did for apertium is to change it to /usr/bin/env bash (which a helper script turns into /bin/bash for Debian packaging), which I can also do for apertium-anaphora and other Apertium tools. -- Tino Didriksen On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 at 11:48, Chris Lamb wrote: > Source: apertium-anaphora > Version: 1.0.1-1 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > User: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org > Usertags: environment > X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-b...@lists.alioth.debian.org > > Hi, > > Whilst working on the Reproducible Builds effort [0] we noticed that > apertium-anaphora could not be built reproducibly. > > This is because it uses a BASH variable, which appears to vary > depending on whether /bin/sh points to /bin/bash or not. > > Patch attached that forces /bin/bash — this script needs Bash (it uses > '[[', for example). > > [0] https://reproducible-builds.org/ > > > Regards, > > -- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk >`--- > debian-science-maintainers mailing list > debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978662: apertium-cy-en: autopkgtest failure
This is a chicken-and-egg problem that should solve itself. New apertium 3.7.1 can't migrate until apertium-cy-en is fixed, but fixed apertium-cy-en won't build correctly with existing apertium 3.6.1. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978369: apertium-eo-ca: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: entry on the right beginning with whitespace)
forwarded 978369 https://github.com/apertium/apertium-eo-ca/issues/2 thanks Fixed in upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#978359: apertium-br-fr: FTBFS: Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: entry on the right beginning with whitespace)
forwarded 978359 https://github.com/apertium/apertium-br-fr/issues/4 thanks Fixed in upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#977753: apertium: FTBFS on s390x: test failures
Fixed in v3.7.1, both upstream and https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#977753: apertium: FTBFS on s390x: test failures
forwarded 977753 https://github.com/apertium/apertium/issues/112 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#916192: closed by Ghislain Antony Vaillant (Bug#916192: fixed in foma 1:0.9.18+r243-6)
How utterly bizarre. The original report said this also happened for i386 and amd64 for Ubuntu, and for other packaging I build foma in parallel for all supported Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, OpenSUSE, and macOS - and this parallel build fail has never happened. So I figured it was safe. But build log doesn't lie...I'll re-add the flag. -- Tino Didriksen On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:16, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Control: found -1 1:0.9.18+r243-7 > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 07:51:04PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > >... > > foma (1:0.9.18+r243-6) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > >* Team upload. > >* Drop parallel builds. > > Thanks to Adrian Bunk (Closes: #916192) > >... > > This bug has been re-introduced in 1:0.9.18+r243-7: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=foma=arm64=1%3A0.9.18%2Br243-7=1594134761=0 > > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/foma/-/commit/31c27c71cd127668faacfa3ed90856c506b1176b > > cu > Adrian > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#963324: apertium-apy: FTBFS: AttributeError: module 'tornado.web' has no attribute 'asynchronous'
forwarded 963324 https://github.com/apertium/apertium-apy/issues/148 thanks Fixed in upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#958291: foma: memory leak on repeated define
Not sure that's even a bug, but please ask/report that upstream: https://github.com/mhulden/foma -- Tino Didriksen On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 09:48, Kevin Ryde wrote: > Package: foma > Version: 1:0.9.18+r243-6+b1 > Severity: normal > > Repeated redefines with the "define" command seems to leak memory. > For example > > yes 'define foo a*;' | foma >/dev/null > > runs up to about 200mb memory for me and then segfaults. > > I struck this in a long script doing successive defines. Changing to > nets on the stack seems ok. Perhaps the stack is more the intended use. > > > -- System Information: > Debian Release: bullseye/sid > Architecture: i386 (i686) > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash > Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init) > > Versions of packages foma depends on: > ii libc6 2.29-3 > ii libfoma0 1:0.9.18+r243-6+b1 > ii libreadline8 8.0-3 > ii libtinfo6 6.1+20191019-1 > ii zlib1g1:1.2.11.dfsg-1+b1 -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#957216: foma: ftbfs with GCC-10
forwarded 957216 https://github.com/mhulden/foma/issues/88 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#957334: hfst-ospell: ftbfs with GCC-10
forwarded 957334 https://github.com/hfst/hfst-ospell/issues/49 thanks Fixed in upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#957001: apertium-lex-tools: ftbfs with GCC-10
forwarded 957001 https://github.com/apertium/apertium-lex-tools/issues/42 thanks Fixed in upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#957002: apertium: ftbfs with GCC-10
forwarded 957002 https://github.com/apertium/apertium/issues/72 thanks Fixed upstream. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Re: apertium-cat-ita_0.2.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
I can answer that... The official stance of the Apertium project is that when one of our repositories don't clarify the license beyond putting the GPL COPYING file in the repo, then it should be interpreted as the "or any later" version of it to maximize reusability. The data is often mixed with GPLv3 data at compile time, often by the same authors, but where the GPLv2 stuff just predates wider GPLv3 adoption. E.g., see email https://www.mail-archive.com/apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06931.html by Francis Tyers for reference. Both Francis Tyers and myself are on the Apertium Project Management Committee ( http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/PMC ). -- Tino Didriksen On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:00, Thorsten Alteholz < ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Kartik, > > COPYING says that the license is GPL-2 only. > Please add a note in your debian/copyright why it should be GPL-2+. > > Thanks! > Thorsten > > > > > === > > Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why > your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our > concerns. -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#942911: apertium-cat: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
Haven't forgotten this bug, nor #942950. This and all the other Apertium
single language packages (regex apertium-[a-z]{3} except apertium-apy)
should be removed, but only after their reverse dependencies have been
updated to not need them. The work is ongoing.
-- Tino Didriksen
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 04:36, wrote:
> Source: apertium-cat
> Version: 2.6.0-1
> Severity: normal
> Tags: sid bullseye
> User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: py2removal
>
>
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#945643: giella-core: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
forwarded 945643 http://giellatekno.uit.no/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2607 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#942944: apertium-spa-cat: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
An update that also happens to fix this issue has been pushed to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/apertium-spa-cat -- Tino Didriksen On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 04:38, wrote: > Source: apertium-spa-cat > Version: 2.1.0~r79717-2 > Severity: normal > Tags: sid bullseye > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: py2removal > > -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#936970: lttoolbox: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
I've pushed an update that also fixes #936970 to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/lttoolbox -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#936698: hfst: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
I've pushed an update that also fixes #936698 to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/hfst -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Re: Comments regarding apertium-pol_0.1.1-1_amd64.changes
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 22:28, Thorsten Alteholz < ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > Hi Kartik, > > I always fail to find a place where GPL-3+ is mentioned as license of > apertium. All I find on github is GPL-3. So do you have a link at hand? > > Thanks! > Thorsten The position of the Apertium project is that the COPYING file's recommended application counts for all files in the repo that don't have more precise licensing attached. So if COPYING is the GPLv3 license, that license recommends applying itself as "either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", so that's what we consider all files in that repo licensed as. This is also how I make the packages. Apertium's mailing list for informal reference: https://www.mail-archive.com/apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06931.html I'm part of the Apertium Project Management Committee ( http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/PMC ). But we don't have any official ruling or guideline about this. As the one who prepares the Debian packages, I've tried many times to get the situation formally clarified across the board, but the best we have is a bunch of declarations of intent and even more open dual-licensing in the mailing list. Nobody has time to go through everything, but everyone is in agreement about what should be done. -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
Bug#911226: lttoolbox: FTBFS on several architectures: test failures
forwarded 911226 https://github.com/apertium/lttoolbox/issues/33 thanks -- Tino Didriksen -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
