Re: Merge ubuntu-motu@lists into ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists?
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 05:44:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: I'd therefore like to propose we close this mailing list and forward the address on to ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com, which at least has a larger subscriber base and is more likely to result in users getting help with their questions. Opinions? +1 I´d go further and propose the same for the IRC channel - retire it and redirect people to #ubuntu-devel. Maybe that should be another discussion including the #ubuntu+1-maint (the discussions seem to happen in #ubuntu-release) and #ubuntu-next (-> #ubuntu-devel) channels too. -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: gemmi-dev package third-party files
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 06:20:51PM +0100, Dominik Tichý wrote: Greetings, Hi Dominik, I would like to ask if it would be possible to add a dependency library to the *gemmi-dev* Ubuntu package (https://packages.ubuntu.com/jammy/gemmi-dev ). The library in question is *stb_sprintf.h* which is in the official Gemmi Github repo ( https://github.com/project-gemmi/gemmi/blob/master/include/gemmi/third_party/stb_sprintf.h). This library is required in this header file: https://github.com/project-gemmi/gemmi/blob/3dee76918187f1a0680d654d5805a846d52e4720/include/gemmi/sprintf.hpp#L16-L27 . This file is explicitly removed from the package, as you can see in https://salsa.debian.org/debichem-team/gemmi/-/blob/master/debian/copyright#L5-6 Generally, we avoid embedding third party code in our packages (see https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#embedded-code-copies). The library you are looking for is provided by the libstb package, and the header file is available in libstb-dev. Kind regards, Dominik Tichy -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Suggestion for launchpad
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:13:24AM +0430, A. Shafiei wrote: Hello, As I understood from ubuntu developers, git is the default version control system in launchpad. So it would make it a bit easier if when we click on the "code" menu in USER, we get redirected to : https://code.launchpad.net/~USER/+git instead of : https://code.launchpad.net/~USER/ Thanks in advance. Hey! Thanks for the suggestion :) To be sure your request finds the correct people and get more visibility, you can file a bug at https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad. -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Pysolfc
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:22:32AM -0400, xmetalf...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I am just an average user who why i have used this game package myself, I have seen a number of users across a few distros based on Ubuntu 22.04 have issues with this package. The issue is noted here https://github.com/shlomif/PySolFC/issues/253 and I think the issue people are having https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pysolfc/+bug/1967793 is already fixed upstream but the package in multiple different Ubuntu branches (say for Focal or Jammy) are a number of versions behind. I am just sending a quick email in hope that this package gets updated as I have said I am pretty sure the actual issue people are having has already been fixed and just packaging the newest (or a newer, even if not the latest version released on github) would fix the problem. thank you for your time, Mike Hello Mike, I replied to the bug you linked at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pysolfc/+bug/1967793/comments/8. On the technical side, a fix seems to be quite straightforward. However (do note that I am not a lawer), I have concerns regarding the licensing approach adopted by the upstream project when embedding a deprecated python module in their code base. See my comments in the bug for further reference. We can move this discussion there :) -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: https://packages.ubuntu.com/jammy/softether-vpnserver
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:37:02PM +, Gregor Hamburg wrote: Hello, Hi Gregor, Is it possible, that you can update the softether-vpnserver package? In the version 5.0.1.9674 (Iam on 22.04LTS) there is an issue with the ms-sstp component ;( btw. it is over two year old now, Thank you in advance, would be awesome Regards --- via IPhone --- This package is currently a sync from Debian. The best path to upgrade it would be through updating it in Debian and let it sync in Ubuntu. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/softether-vpn Still, a new version would, in normal circunstances, only be available in 23.04 since we are currently in a feature freeze for 22.10. Note that we usually do not upgrade package versions in stable releases. If you are willing to provide a patch for the ms-sstp issue you are facing, please, file a bug in launchpad against softether-vpn, and feel free to subscribe myself to the bug (athos-ribeiro). I will be happy to help assessing the issue and guide you through the process of possibly landing a fix there. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: backintime: Where are the sources from?
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 05:52:43AM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: Dear Athos, thanks for explaining. Why does Ubuntu use Launchpad in that case? Why this step between? Why not using the sources directly from ubstream? While I am not in a position to give you a final answer to your question, given I was not, and am not involved in launchpad development, distributing software usually involves being able to reproduce builds, or rebuild a component with fixes or with fixed dependencies. It is also important to be able to trace components for security reasons. If you'd just fetch the source code for a given package from an external source and build a binary from it without caching these sources somehow, you would need to fetch the same sources again in case you need to patch or rebuild that software component. At this point, you would be trusting that this external source will always be available, and that it will never change. And one sidequestion: Why does debian build its own package for backintime? It is in Debian? Why not use the Debian package? Isn't Ubuntu "based on Debian"? Please, read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment; https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu/ForDebianDevelopers; and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/ForUbuntuDevelopers -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: backintime: Where are the sources from?
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:28:32PM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: Dear "Little Girl", thank you for your reply. But sorry, my question wasn't clear enough. I wasn't looking for upstream maintainers or the upstream repo. What I want to know is how can I be sure where the ubuntu package got its sources from. I assume it isn't upstream everytime! For example backintime: Upstream is at GitHub. But there are also sources on Launchpad. That is what confuses me. So I want to know on which sources the ubuntu package is based on. launchpad builders will build the package with the sources that were uploaded to (or pulled into) launchpad itself. If you want to fetch the sources used to build a package in the archive, you can use the pull-lp-source tool from ubuntu-dev-tools, which will fetch those sources from launchpad for you. If, instead, you want to know where the source that was pushed to launchpad came from, then you need to verify if this is a package (same package) available in Debian. If it is, e.g., the deb version of the package is > 0, for instance, foobar-2 or foobar-2ubuntu1, then the pristine sources (orig tarballs) should be the same as the ones in Debian. If otherwise, the package is only in Ubuntu, then you should use "Little Girl"s answer. You could also verify the source package for hints, such as debian/watch, debian/control, or debian/*.source, or even check if the package in question is a native one. In your example, backintime is currently sync'd in kinetic (1.3.2-0.1). The sources were pulled into launchpad from Debian. If you want to understand where the Debian maintainer for that package got the sources from, I suggest going through the hints above and Little Girl's reply. regards, -- Athos Ribeiro -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
