Bug#491626: RFS : Mina
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mina". * Package name: mina Version : 1.1.7.dfsg-2 Upstream Author : Apache Software Foundation * URL : http://mina.apache.org * License : Apache Licence 2.0 Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libmina-java - Apache Mina - Java network application framework libmina-java-doc - Apache Mina - Java network application framework The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina/mina_1.1.7.dfsg-2.dsc I've stripped some elements for orig.tar.gz (so that the "dfsg" in version) : prebuild JAR packages and apidocs. The DFSG orig.tar.gz is now 450Kb compared to 2+Mb of orig.tar.gz from upstream. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Regards, -- Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491626: RFS : Mina
On Tue Jul 29 19:29, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > Hi Damian, I've had a look over your package and may be able to sponsor it. I have a few comments first though, and I agree with the comments on short descriptions. - changelog: since it's not been uploaded to Debian yet, can you combine the changelog entries into just one. Pretty much changelog entries should correspond to uploads (and obviously the debian revision will be 1) - Licence for the packaging: you say it is licenced under the 'GPL'. You should give the version of the GPL and note that the Apache licence is not compatible with the GPLv2[0]. In general it is recommended for packaging to be the same licence as the package, or a permissive one such as BSD or X11/expat. - .vsd files: There seem to be a number of files under core/src/doc which file(1) claims are Microsoft office documents. Are these used for anything? Given you are stripping the tarball anyway you could probably remove them? - Other licence files: I assume these apply to the jars you stripped out? It's not required, but it might be nice to strip them too to avoid confusion as to why they aren't in debian/copyright I've also had a look at sqlline: - if (as README.Debian suggests) it is only useful with a jdbc driver it should probably depend (or at the very least recommend) a jdbc driver. I'd Depend on all of them as alternatives (those that are packaged). - debian/copyright claims BSD licence, but the LICENSE in the tarball says GPLv2, which is it? Both packages build and are lintian/pbuilder clean though, which is good. Matt 0. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#491626: RFS : Mina
Le Saturday 02 August 2008 00:40:41 Matthew Johnson, vous avez écrit : > On Tue Jul 29 19:29, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > > Hi Damian, > > I've had a look over your package and may be able to sponsor it. I have > a few comments first though, and I agree with the comments on short > descriptions. Hi, Thank for taking care of this :) > - changelog: since it's not been uploaded to Debian yet, can you > combine the changelog entries into just one. Pretty much changelog > entries should correspond to uploads (and obviously the debian revision > will be 1) It has been uploaded to my personnal debian repository and maybe (and _had been_, regarding Apache and FTP logs) installed by some debian users. Using -1 for first Debian upload don't seems enforced by debian-policy and I prefer keeping history of want has been uploaded to mentors and to my personnal repository. Did you agree with that ? > - Licence for the packaging: you say it is licenced under the 'GPL'. > You should give the version of the GPL and note that the Apache licence > is not compatible with the GPLv2[0]. In general it is recommended for > packaging to be the same licence as the package, or a permissive one > such as BSD or X11/expat. I've updated debian/copyright to licence Debian packaging under BSD licence which is more lenient witch Apache Mina licence. > - .vsd files: There seem to be a number of files under core/src/doc which > file(1) claims are Microsoft office documents. Are these used for > anything? Given you are stripping the tarball anyway you could probably > remove them? You're right, I've stripped them from orig.tar.gz tarballs (via debian/rules get-orig-source) > - Other licence files: I assume these apply to the jars you stripped > out? It's not required, but it might be nice to strip them too to avoid > confusion as to why they aren't in debian/copyright Idem, I've stripped this licences files. > Both packages build and are lintian/pbuilder clean though, which is > good. I've upload a new version on m.d.o : http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina/ Cheers, -- Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#491626: RFS : Mina
On Sat Aug 02 01:30, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > > - changelog: since it's not been uploaded to Debian yet, can you > > combine the changelog entries into just one. Pretty much changelog > > entries should correspond to uploads (and obviously the debian revision > > will be 1) > > It has been uploaded to my personnal debian repository and maybe (and _had > been_, regarding Apache and FTP logs) installed by some debian users. > > Using -1 for first Debian upload don't seems enforced by debian-policy and I > prefer keeping history of want has been uploaded to mentors and to my > personnal repository. Did you agree with that ? Sure, in that case it's fine, but the -3 is the one which closes the ITP bug (-: > I've upload a new version on m.d.o : > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina/ > Everything else is fine, I'll upload it once you move the Closes: up to the most recent entry Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#491626: RFS : Mina
Hi, Le Saturday 02 August 2008 14:09:03 Matthew Johnson, vous avez écrit : > On Sat Aug 02 01:30, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > > > - changelog: since it's not been uploaded to Debian yet, can you > > > combine the changelog entries into just one. Pretty much changelog > > > entries should correspond to uploads (and obviously the debian > > > revision will be 1) > > > > It has been uploaded to my personnal debian repository and maybe (and > > _had been_, regarding Apache and FTP logs) installed by some debian > > users. > > > > Using -1 for first Debian upload don't seems enforced by debian-policy > > and I prefer keeping history of want has been uploaded to mentors and to > > my personnal repository. Did you agree with that ? > > Sure, in that case it's fine, but the -3 is the one which closes the ITP > bug (-: > > > > I've upload a new version on m.d.o : > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina/ > > Everything else is fine, I'll upload it once you move the Closes: up to > the most recent entry I've uploaded a new version of -3 (with Closes on the last revision) to mentors.debian.net : http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mina/mina_1.1.7.dfsg-3.dsc Thanks for your help, -- Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
