On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 12:28 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-08-13 at 11:51 +0000, John Scott wrote:
>
> > Because carl9170 is largely under the GPL and we're obligated to distribute complete sources for our binaries, I've set Static-Built- Using on both gcc (because of libgcc
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo
Dear all,
I have uploaded a new version of carl9170fw to mentors.debian.net that
represents my very best work. Please review it carefully. Building it requires
the just-uploaded libnewlib-sh-elf-dev version 3.3.0+8. I tend to ramble and
I've already written at great
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Control: block 1026335 by -1
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version : 7
* License : various
*
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
I've discovered an issue with how the Built-Using fields are generated.
Specifically, because gcc-sh-elf does not set a Built-Using field for Newlib,
and because of the way the libnewlib-sh-elf-dev binary package is currently
versioned, there is no way to precisely
Control: retitle -1 RFS: carl9170fw [ITP] -- firmware for AR9170 USB wireless
adapters
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "carl9170fw":
* Package name : carl9170fw
Version : 1.9.9-450-gad1c721-1
Upstream contact : linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org
* URL
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version : 6
* License : many, but primarily GPL 3+ for GCC and permissive
licenses for Newlib
* Vcs :
Hi,
So, my package got auto-rejected. I talked to the FTP Masters, and
they'd much rather that a workaround be incorporated into my package
than them having to manually make it pass through. I've uploaded the
one-line change to mentors.debian.net; if you could upload it once more,
there shouldn't
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
debian-sup...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "binutils-sh-elf":
* Package name : binutils-sh-elf
Version : 2 (this is a native
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Control: block 994625 by -1
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ker...@lists.debian.org b...@debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "carl9170fw":
* Package name : carl9170fw
Version : 1.9.9-427-gecb68a7-1
Upstream
On Sun, 2022-12-18 at 08:49 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I assume you're missing libreadline-dev from BuildDepends.
You are, of course, absolutely right. I forgot to build in a clean
environment. This has been fixed in a new upload to mentors.debian.net
and a build in a clean
Control: owner -1 glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
On Sun, 2022-12-18 at 08:09 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I can sponsor this upload.
Thanks so much! Please go ahead whenever you're ready.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
debian-sup...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors and fellow Electronics Team members,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version
Thanks for taking a look, Bastian. I believe the changes are
satisfactory now, except that after close inspection I found that those
files specified as being covered by the BSD-3-Clause license are still
covered by it. Please me know if I'm misunderstanding something.
signature.asc
Description:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ker...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "open-ath9k-htc-firmware":
* Package name : open-ath9k-htc-firmware
Version : 1.4.0-106-gc583009+dfsg1-2
Upstream Author :
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version : 4
* License : various
* Vcs :
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-sup...@lists.debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Dear mentors and other interested parties,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your very detailed review of carl9170fw. I'm still making my
changes to the package and will give you a poke and remove the moreinfo
tag once I have an upload ready for re-review.
> I don't think udebs are needed for firmware packages, none of the
On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 16:54 +0100, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that using Apache-2.0 libraries in
> GPL
> software is not allowed).
It depends on the version of the GPL at play. If it's GPL 3.0 (or
later), then Apache 2.0 is usually regarded as fully
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ker...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors and Kernel Team,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "carl9170fw":
* Package name : carl9170fw
Version : 1.9.9-399-gcd480b9-1
Upstream Author :
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Dear mentors and Electronics Team,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Version : 2 (this is a native package)
* License
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 12:24 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, do you want me to upload newlib or do you want Tobias to do it?
I think it would be more appropriate if you would. Just be sure to do
it to a delayed queue for a minimum of two weeks, and send a mail to
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 12:07 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> What about the Salsa repository? Is it going to be updated?
I've sent a merge request, and in fact did so a long time ago before my
first NMU, but since the maintainers have been unresponsive it hasn't
gotten merged. The Git
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 11:56 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Are you planning to adopt the package?
Yes, I'm intending to salvage it and become the maintainer (the ITS is
#996432). I think I'll keep it under the umbrella of the Electronics
Team.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net,
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
Control: affects -1 src:newlib
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "newlib":
* Package name : newlib
Version : 3.3.0-1.2
Hi,
My question is more to do with the practical ramifications of an upload
than the legal ones, so I'm directing my query here rather than debian-
legal.
I'm packaging carl9170fw (which is already present in Debian main, but
not built from source yet), and this includes a header file called
> I have no idea how we're going to address this. I think I'll file a bug
> and see if they're willing to revert as soon as I can identify all of
> the affected packages.
I've filed a bug and marked it as a blocker of this issue, but in the
admittedly short time since I filed it Wednesday I
Hi Vincent,
I'm very glad to see that you've been working on this. From an initial
skim of your package, things look very good, and I'm more pleased to
see that you've based your work off of binutils-sh-elf and the
PackagingLessCommonBinutilsTargets guide.
About the build failure Adam had, I'm
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net, nico...@debian.org
Control: block -1 by 985563
Control: block 986778 by -1
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-sh-elf":
* Package name : gcc-sh-elf
Control: retitle -1 RFS: open-ath9k-htc-firmware/1.4.0-106-gc583009+dfsg1-2
[RC] -- firmware for AR7010 and AR9271 USB wireless adapters
Thanks to the Reproducible Builds folks for notifying me, the current
package is FTBFS due to the Binutils 2.37 upload to unstable.
Fortunately my package
Hello,
It seems that the upload of binutils-source 2.37 has broken my to-be-
uploaded package binutils-sh-elf; it worked fine with binutils-source
2.36. My package is available at
https://mentors.debian.net/package/binutils-sh-elf/
I'm looking for anyone that knows Autoconf wizardry to help sort
On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 17:07 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > * Friendly takeover back into the WebExt team.
>
> I can't find any documentation about that have been ACKed by the
> current maintainer. (CCing Jonas so that he can response/confirm, to
> put it on record that this is not an hijack…)
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 07:07 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> The Files-Excluded section is used by tools like uscan to strip files from the
> orig.tar. The formatted text just says that the field can extend over
> multiple
> lines, it does not mean its free text without meaning.
> TL;DR: I'm pretty
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo
On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 21:38:56 + John Scott
wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 07:52 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > I haven't encountered the maintainer previously, but believe in
> > > good faith that these changes would be welcome and that the
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 07:52 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > I haven't encountered the maintainer previously, but believe in
> > good faith that these changes would be welcome and that the
> > LowThresholdNmu criterion are met by addressing a bug with
> > important severity. My interest in this bug,
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 20:25 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> I've took a look at your package:
Awesome, thanks.
> - d/copyright:
> - The word "Comment:" went missing after the Files-Exlucded section
Hello,
I'm working on packaging gcc-sh-elf (ITP #986778) which provides not
just a cross C compiler, but also provides Newlib (the ISO C standard
library) and a simulator, which is a Wine-like wrapper that makes
running the binaries possible on a Debian machine. This seems like a
very good
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for Newlib:
* Package name : newlib
Version : 3.3.0-1.1
Upstream Author : Red Hat and others
* URL : https://sourceware.org/newlib/
* License : various
* Vcs
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:30:45 -0400 John Scott wrote:
> The package should be built against experimental.
I've come to realize that on the buildd's, packages from experimental
aren't pulled in unless required to satisfy the build dependencies.
Disregard this; it's not a big deal, exc
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-electronics-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
Control: block 980889 by -1
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "binutils-sh-elf":
* Package name : binutils-sh-elf
Version : 1 (it's a native package)
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "open-ath9k-htc-firmware":
* Package name : open-ath9k-htc-firmware
Version : 1.4.0-106-gc583009+dfsg1-2
Upstream Author : Qualcomm Atheros and contributors
* URL
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "privacybadger":
* Package name: privacybadger
Version : 2021.2.2-1
Upstream Author : Electronic Frontier
Hello,
I'm working on packaging binutils-sh-elf, which is a native package which only
has a debian/ directory. At build time, it extracts the tarball from binutils-
source—whatever version it happens to be—and builds it into binary packages
with the appropriate options.
For informative
On Friday, December 25, 2020 3:27:25 PM EST Tobias Winchen wrote:
> Did you try drag and drop the images e.g. to libreoffice impress? Via drag
> and
> drop I get the correct effects, but not via save. I reported this behavior
> upstream:
I had not tried that, but bizarrely it seems to not work
I can't sponsor KLatexFormula but use it and may have spotted issues.
I see this version introduces user scripts, but most of them start with
#!/usr/bin/env python
and the problem is that this doesn't explicitly refer to Python 2 or Python 3.
At this time, such a script is considered a
On Thursday, September 3, 2020 4:09:59 AM EDT Ansgar wrote:
> If it is a command-line utility the choice of language for its
> implementation doesn't matter to users and probably shouldn't be part
> of a package's name
It's both a command-line utility and a library, albeit a library applications
On Monday, July 20, 2020 11:07:05 AM EDT François Mazen wrote:
> Is there special syntax in debian/changelog file to reopen such bugs?
> I would expect something similar to the (Closes: #123456):
> (Reopens: #123456)?
No, you can't do it in the changelog. Instead, you can send an email to
On Monday, July 13, 2020 10:50:00 AM EDT Ryan Pavlik wrote:
> Unfortunately licensecheck doesn't currently recognize
> SPDX-License-Identifier (I haven't check to see if there's a request
> filed for that).
Fortunately there are issues filed (#904518) and an author assures that support
will be
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Håvard Flaget Aasen wrote:
> The beginning of the error message is:
> CMake Error at
> /usr/share/cmake-3.16/Modules/CMakeCompilerIdDetection.cmake:26 (list):
> list sub-command REMOVE_ITEM requires two or more arguments.
That part of the module says
> > If there really is a problem with those files I would appreciate your
> > letting me know what I missed. Otherwise I hope you can avoid the
> > repacking trouble in the future.
> Probably not, but the repacking is not trouble.
Without a good reason, you really shouldn't repack [1]. I do not
On January 5, 2020 12:34:53 PM EST, Wookey wrote:
>On 2020-01-05 10:01 -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
>> Now, before I redo the upload (and get it stuck again), let me try to
>> understand the situation --
>>
>> The reason it was stuck might be because my key was *considered*
>> expired. The problem is,
The package is in great shape. The only challenge to getting the package in
the archive seems to be the copyright file. Coreboot's README says
> Some files are licensed under the "GPL (version 2, or any later version)",
> and some files are licensed under the "GPL, version 2". For some parts,
>
I'm not a DD and can't sponsor packages, but I hope my feedback can be helpful
for you.
I see Lutris bundles python-distro. This is available in Debian, so the
package should use it rather than installing a bundled copy. Debian's
Winetricks should be used also.
Since Winetricks is in contrib,
, or would I be better off starting a
new application?
Thanks,
John Scott
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
wxMaxima FTBFS's for me with
$ pdf-engine /usr/bin/xelatex not known
I see that the 19.10.0 Debian package builds now by skipping the PDF manual
when it can't be built. I think I've found the root of the problem with
Pandoc.
It turns out this is a regression that's been there for ages and
It doesn't build for me on Buster, it seems this version of Pandoc doesn't
understand giving the full path to the TeX engine.
make[4]: Entering directory
'/home/john/wxmaxima/wxmaxima-19.09.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu'
cd /home/john/wxmaxima/wxmaxima-19.09.1/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/info &&
I tried to fetch the source package with dget, but it doesn't seem to like the
new key it's signed with.
$ dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wxmaxima/wxmaxima_19.09.1-1.dsc
dscverify: wxmaxima_19.09.1-1.dsc failed signature check:
gpg: WARNING: no command supplied. Trying
56 matches
Mail list logo
