Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: > I would not recommend to try this to others. ;-) Point taken. Gee! That (checking in) was fast for a single dosage of pestering ;) That's why I recommended pestering - because it is normally helpful (in my case). ;-) Thanks for checking in the control files. I have received a mail telling that the ITP bug is now tagged 'pending'. Also a mail on artha_0.8.0-1_i386 which says (new) artha_0.8.0-1.diff.gz optional utils (new) artha_0.8.0-1.dsc optional utils (new) artha_0.8.0-1_i386.deb optional utils and in the end "Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of the override file. It is ok otherwise, so please be patient. New packages are usually added to the override file about once a week. You may have gotten the distribution wrong. You'll get warnings above if files already exist in other distributions." So what does these mean? This means I did not only commited to SVN but also uploaded the package: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/artha_0.8.0-1.html It's just waiting for ftpmaster aproval (as several other packages which enter the Debian pool the first time). What file is it talking about? Also, if I had received one for i386, why didn't I receive one for amd64? The other architectures will be autobuilded later once the package is accepted by ftpmaster. That's perfectly normal. You get the mail only once for the architecture the package was builded. If I would have done it on mips or powerpc or whatever you whould have got this in the notification. I am confused :-| There is no need to be confused. Everything is perfectly normal (as far as I can tell). I wanted to understand the underlying process. If something remains unclear just RTFM. ;-)) Kind regards and thanks for providing this nice WordNet interface Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
> I would not recommend to try this to others. ;-) Point taken. Gee! That (checking in) was fast for a single dosage of pestering ;) Thanks for checking in the control files. I have received a mail telling that the ITP bug is now tagged 'pending'. Also a mail on artha_0.8.0-1_i386 which says (new) artha_0.8.0-1.diff.gz optional utils (new) artha_0.8.0-1.dsc optional utils (new) artha_0.8.0-1_i386.deb optional utils and in the end "Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of the override file. It is ok otherwise, so please be patient. New packages are usually added to the override file about once a week. You may have gotten the distribution wrong. You'll get warnings above if files already exist in other distributions." So what does these mean? What file is it talking about? Also, if I had received one for i386, why didn't I receive one for amd64? I am confused :-| I wanted to understand the underlying process. Thanks Best Regards Sundaram From: Andreas Tille To: Sundaram Cc: Artha DebianBug <514...@bugs.debian.org> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:26:16 AM Subject: Re: Regarding RFS: Artha On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: > Wow! Never knew you would recommend pestering :0 SUre - but I have only the right to advise this for one single person (=me). I would not recommend to try this to others. ;-) > I am perfectly fine by the usage of cdbs, as you told earlier that its > convenient for > you to keep track. > Well I will remind (pester) you again tomorrow night, as a precursor to the > weekend's > :) Before you pester again: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-science/packages/artha/trunk/debian/?rev=0&sc=0 ;-) I also try to do the upload tomorrow ... Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: Wow! Never knew you would recommend pestering :0 SUre - but I have only the right to advise this for one single person (=me). I would not recommend to try this to others. ;-) I am perfectly fine by the usage of cdbs, as you told earlier that its convenient for you to keep track. Well I will remind (pester) you again tomorrow night, as a precursor to the weekend's :) Before you pester again: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-science/packages/artha/trunk/debian/?rev=0&sc=0 ;-) I also try to do the upload tomorrow ... Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
Hi, Wow! Never knew you would recommend pestering :0 I am perfectly fine by the usage of cdbs, as you told earlier that its convenient for you to keep track. Well I will remind (pester) you again tomorrow night, as a precursor to the weekend's :) Thanks! Sundaram From: Andreas Tille To: Sundaram Cc: Artha DebianBug <514...@bugs.debian.org> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:58:20 PM Subject: Re: Regarding RFS: Artha On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: > I was wondering if you have uploaded the package to the Debian repository. I > apologize > if I sound demanding or pestering here :) No pestering me is the right way to go. My plan is to do this either at the weekend or at least next monday. Just try perstering again to remind me in case this task might silently go down on my todo list without notice. > I am just curious, how will I know if the upload of the package is done or if > the > check-in of the control files into the Debian Science SVN is done? My plan is to check in first to enable putting the right Vcs fields into the control file. I assume you are OK with the cdbs usage? Thanks for the remainder - it is perfectly welcome on my side Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: I was wondering if you have uploaded the package to the Debian repository. I apologize if I sound demanding or pestering here :) No pestering me is the right way to go. My plan is to do this either at the weekend or at least next monday. Just try perstering again to remind me in case this task might silently go down on my todo list without notice. I am just curious, how will I know if the upload of the package is done or if the check-in of the control files into the Debian Science SVN is done? My plan is to check in first to enable putting the right Vcs fields into the control file. I assume you are OK with the cdbs usage? Thanks for the remainder - it is perfectly welcome on my side Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#514690: Regarding RFS: Artha
Hi Andreas, I was wondering if you have uploaded the package to the Debian repository. I apologize if I sound demanding or pestering here :) I am just curious, how will I know if the upload of the package is done or if the check-in of the control files into the Debian Science SVN is done? Thanks! Warm Regards, Sundaram From: Sundaram To: Andreas Tille Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:31:34 PM Subject: Re: Regarding RFS: Artha > Did you checked the attachments to my mail? Everything is ready there. Oops! I did see the attachment, but didn't bother to open it, since I thought its what I uploaded in mentors. Forgive my ignorance. Gee! All the changes are already done, thanks! > So if I where you I would ask WordNet authors whether they are > interested to either replace their TclTk code by artha or at least > add it to the upstream source of their next release. IMHO artha is > a nice replacement for wnb. Okay, I will write to them regarding this. Since Tcl/Tk installation alone takes up around 20 MB, while the actual WordNet is only 10 MB, totalling the WordNet package to 30 (apprx.) Artha would be a decent replacement for just 300 kb (since Glib and GTK will be there defualt in 90% of the *nix operating systems). Still, am not sure of this though. The reason is that a very few of the options that WNB has are not in Artha. Coordinate Terms, Satillite adjectives and Example frames is the missing list as far as I know, by-heart. The reason for this discrepancy is that I deliberately designed/developed Artha imaging it as a user-friendly thesaurus, while WNB is an illustrator of all the available options of WordNet, by 'all' I mean, those which might not interest the common user too like Sentence Frames for instance: When no example is present for a word, it gives "Something is ing" as an example frame where the user could fit in, while this might not be what a thesaurus shows for a light user, hence I removed it. Because of these reasons, I am not sure. Let us see, I will write to Princeton some time. Now that all the issues in the source package is removed, kindly upload the same :) Thanks! Best Regards Sundaram Ramaswamy From: Andreas Tille To: Sundaram Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:09:12 PM Subject: Re: Regarding RFS: Artha On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Sundaram wrote: > I haven't used any Python modules or stuff related to Python. I think you are > talking about the > gtk-builder-convert Python tool, that depends on Python interpretor, which in > turn is required to > build Artha's UI files. Well, if you try to build artha in a pbuilder chroot it is just missing python. > I have missed it, I will correct it. Likewise, my full name is missing in > ChangeLog, will fix it. > > I have never used cdbs. Could you point me to some doc. or something so that > I can use it? I just > edited the "rules" file manually from what dh_make gave me. Also if you could > send me the other minor > issues, I can fix them up as well. Did you checked the attachments to my mail? Everything is ready there. > Well, I have no problem in making those changes. Thanks pointing them! I will > upload the fixed package > in a couple of hours to mentors. One of our fellow Debian member (Kartik > Mistry) pointed to me that > mentor only accepts source packages. I never knew this. I was actually > creating 2 binary debs for i386 > and AMD64 and uploading them, I think the server has picked up only the last > though. So now I needn't > bother about i386 or AMD64, right? I just need to upload one source package, > irrespective of the arch. > Please correct me if I am wrong. Yes - a source package has no arch. The binary package can be builded at different arches - but this is of no interest for the sponsor because he will build the package himself. So there is no need for uploading binary packages. > >Would you mind creating a contact between artha and WordNet authors? > > In view of adding Artha to their list of "Related Projects" section in > WordNet's website, I had sent a > mail to Princeton Univ. a couple of days ago. But that was just to list Artha > in their list of > projects that use WordNet. As for your idea of including Artha into WordNet, > I am completely OK with > it. By "creating a contact between artha and WordNet authors" what kind of > rapport do you mean here? I > am ready to do what is needful for this, but I am not clear. A, sorry for my ignorance - you are not only the author of Debian packaging stuf but also the author of artha code - so you actually are one of the involved parties. ;-)) So if I where you I would ask WordNet authors whether they are interested to either replace their TclTk code by artha or at least add it to the upstream source of their next release. IMHO artha is a nice replacement for wnb. > And yes, today I completed Artha's homepage (http://artha.sourceforg
