RFS: preprocess

2011-04-04 Thread Johannes Ring
Dear mentors, debian-python, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "preprocess". * Package name: preprocess Version : 1.1.0 Upstream Author : Trent Mick * URL : http://preprocess.googlecode.com * License : MIT Section : python It builds these bi

RFS: quakespasm (2nd try)

2011-04-04 Thread David Banks
Dear mentors, Upstream have released a new version, so I have packaged it and am looking for a sponsor again. Changes are listed in debian/changelog. I am now maintaining the package as part of the games team, you can view the git repository here: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-games/quakespasm.git

dpkg-buildpackage -A vs make -f ./debian/rules build-indep

2011-04-04 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Dear all, I am trying to understand why dpkg-buildpackage -A is not simply calling make -f ./debian/rules build-indep. I tried turning DH_VERBOSE=1 but I do not see which rules imply runing the build-arch while I specifically tell dpkg-buildpackage to only run build-indep. Thanks -- Mathieu

Re: dpkg-buildpackage -A vs make -f ./debian/rules build-indep

2011-04-04 Thread Michael Wild
On 04.04.2011, at 11:40, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Dear all, > > I am trying to understand why dpkg-buildpackage -A is not simply > calling make -f ./debian/rules build-indep. I tried turning > DH_VERBOSE=1 but I do not see which rules imply runing the build-arch > while I specifically te

Re: dpkg-buildpackage -A vs make -f ./debian/rules build-indep

2011-04-04 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Dear all, > > I am trying to understand why dpkg-buildpackage -A is not simply > calling make -f ./debian/rules build-indep. I tried turning > DH_VERBOSE=1 but I do not see which rules imply runing the build-arch > while I specifically tell dpkg-b

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Karl Goetz
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:39:34 +0100 Philip Taylor wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Vincent Cheng > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Karl Goetz > > wrote: > >> Not sure if all the CCs are required, so preserving them. > >> > >> [...] > >> Is there code distributed under the ter

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Karl Goetz
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:08:39 +0100 Philip Taylor wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:59:59 -0700 > > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can > > some be dropped? > > > > [...] > > ./binaries/data/tests/collada/sphere.pmd >

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Philip Taylor
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Karl Goetz wrote: > Philip Taylor wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: >> > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can >> > some be dropped? >> > >> > [...] >> > ./binaries/data/tests/collada/sphere.pmd >> >  - its a da

Re: RFS: polygraph

2011-04-04 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 04/03/2011 03:36 PM, Michael Tautschnig wrote: >> /* Web Polygraph http://www.web-polygraph.org/ >> * (C) 2003-2006 The Measurement Factory >> * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 */ > Here you are in fact certainly lacking sufficient information, because (C) is > not gener

what is wrong with dpkg-shlibdeps

2011-04-04 Thread Sim IJskes
what is missing in the package configuration when dpkg-shlibdeps does not visit debian/tmp/usr/lib to find the libraries? Are these considered the private libraries in: To help dpkg-shlibdeps find private libraries, you might need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Gr. Sim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: what is wrong with dpkg-shlibdeps

2011-04-04 Thread Sim IJskes
On 04-04-11 17:46, Sim IJskes wrote: what is missing in the package configuration when dpkg-shlibdeps does not visit debian/tmp/usr/lib to find the libraries? Are these considered the private libraries in: To help dpkg-shlibdeps find private libraries, you might need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Gr

Re: RFS: preprocess

2011-04-04 Thread Jonathan Wiltshire
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:34:07AM +0200, Johannes Ring wrote: > P: no-upstream-changelog: upstream changelog is in README.txt You use debhelper, in a round-about way: see 1. dh_installchangelogs(1) 2. http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html#id2540110 -- Jonathan Wiltshire

RFS: ipt-netflow

2011-04-04 Thread Alexey Osipov
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ipt-netflow". * Package name: ipt-netflow Version : 1.7.1-1 Upstream Author : ABC * URL : http://ipt-netflow.sf.net/ * License : GPL Section : net It builds these binary packages: ipt-netflow

RFS: sahi

2011-04-04 Thread Matthias Schmitz
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "sahi". * Package name: sahi Version : 3.20110213-2 Upstream Author : Narayan Raman & contributors * URL : http://sahi.co.in/w/sahi * License : Apache License, Version 2.0 Section : java It bui

Bizzar error with dpkg-buildpackages

2011-04-04 Thread Michelle Konzack
Hello Mentors, I am not compiling the package the first time, but today I got an error on Squeeze which could be lead to the yesterdays "upgrade": 8<-- dh_builddeb dpkg-deb: Paket »xmem« wird in »../xmem_1.20-29+b1_i386.deb« ge

RFS: denyhosts

2011-04-04 Thread Kyle Willmon
Dear mentors, I have filed an ITA for the Orphaned denyhosts package and am in need of a sponsor. * Package name : denyhosts * URL : http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPLv2 denyhosts is a utility to help sys admins thwart SSH crackers This package has been in debian fo

Re: RFS: ipt-netflow

2011-04-04 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Alexey Osipov wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ipt-netflow". ... > ipt-netflow - netfilter target which sends traffic statistics via NetFlow > ipt-netflow-dkms - netfilter target which sends traffic statistics via > NetFlow (dkms source) This se

Re: Bizzar error with dpkg-buildpackages

2011-04-04 Thread Paul Wise
Please re-post your message with English in the warning/error messages: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas

RFS: herculesstudio

2011-04-04 Thread Liang Guo
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "herculesstudio". * Package name: herculesstudio Version : 1.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Jacob Dekel * URL : http://www.mvsdasd.org/hercstudio/ * License : GPL Section : otherosfs It builds these b

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:10 AM, David Paleino wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:59:59 -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "0ad". > > > > * Package name: 0ad > > [..] > > > > My motivation for maintaining this package is: Even though 0

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:39:34 +0100 > Philip Taylor wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Vincent Cheng > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Karl Goetz > > > wrote: > > >> Not sure if all the CCs are required, so preserving

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:08:39 +0100 > Philip Taylor wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:59:59 -0700 > > > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can > > > some be dropp

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Philip Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Karl Goetz wrote: > > Philip Taylor wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz wrote: > >> > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can > >> > some be dropped? > >> > > >> >

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Philip Taylor wrote: > It can be created and parsed and rendered (but not modified) by the > game engine. It used to be exported by a custom 3ds Max plugin but we > no longer use that (we export to Collada since ~4 years ago). It's not > designed to be a modifiabl

Re: RFS: 0ad

2011-04-04 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Just for clarification: mentors, if there are files in the source package > that are unused during a build of that package (in this case, fonts), and > not installed by the package, do I still need to document them in > debian/copyright? Or c