Re: Naming a new package for Debian

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 02:27:00AM -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote: > > As another example, I did see an X11 image viewer that was just named > feh after it's executable so that might not be a big issue. > If you do call it tiv, make sure that the name is readily understood in package description.

Naming a new package for Debian

Hello, I am working on packaging a new program for Debian. I currently have it successfully Debianized and the binary package installs and works, but I still need to complete some metadata on it and fix the remaining Lintian errors/warnings. However, I have a question on how to name the package. It

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hi, On 2023-06-20 17:15, Ramūnas Keliuotis wrote: 4. Also, we are using our own open source rust libraries https://github.com/NordSecurity/libtelio https://github.com/NordSecurity/libdrop Maybe there is there a Debin Rust packaging team as well? Yes, there is Debian Rust packaging team [1]. Ac

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Ramūnas Keliuotis writes: > Hi, > > Thank you for the information, I was looking through Debian guides for a > while. > Will review your given links as well. > > Now I need answers to questions: > 1. Is it ok for source code to be in Github? or do I need a Salsa > account? If you're asking if e

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hi, > Is it ok for source code to be in Github? No. In my opinion (and I am aware that sadly, the majority of the project probably does not share this opinion), that is a direct violation of Debian's Code of Conduct, and its Social Contract as well. GitHub has discriminatory terms of use that

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:15:05PM +0300, Ramūnas Keliuotis wrote: > 1. Is it ok for source code to be in Github? or do I need a Salsa account? It is OK for the source code to not have a VCS at all. It's also OK for the packaging to not have a VCS at all, and these are two separate questions, and p

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hi, Thank you for the information, I was looking through Debian guides for a while. Will review your given links as well. Now I need answers to questions: 1. Is it ok for source code to be in Github? or do I need a Salsa account? 2. Do I need to create a source package? *.dsc 3. How to implement

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Nice, You can take a look here now: در سه‌شنبه, ژوئن 20 2023 at ۱۵:۴۹:۴۲ +03:00:00, Ramūnas Keliuotis نوشته بود: Hello, Ok, thank you. Just submitted an ITP request: Now I expect we sh

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hello Ramunas Keliuotis, Here are some manuals and guides that you can use to prepare your package. [1] [2] As I see the source code primarily consists of Golang code, Debian Go Packaging team [3] would be something you might be interested on. Once you finish preparing your package, you'll

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hello, Ok, thank you. Just submitted an ITP request: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038718 Now I expect we should wait for attention from debian developer/maintainer volunteers and get information on how to start the packaging process. Or please let me know how to proceed to t

Re: New package: ITP or RFP ?

On 20.06.2023 13:34, Ramūnas Keliuotis wrote: Hi, We just opensourced our NordVPN Linux application and want to make it available from the public Debian repository. As we are planning to do packaging and support by ourselves, it is still not clear how to properly go through the Debian packaging

New package: ITP or RFP ?

Hello, We just opensourced our NordVPN Linux application and want to make it available from the public Debian repository. As we are planning to do packaging and support by ourselves, it is still not clear how to properly go through the Debian packaging process and we would like to get help and ini

Bug#971594: Asciidoc new package. Check why those existed

Control: tags -1 moreinfo  Hi Leon, I'm not sure about the status of this RFS / it seems that there is some confusion… So lets try to untangle this… What I can see from the diff is that the only package dropped is vim-ascidoc. This looks sane to me, and due to the fact that vim depends on vim-ru

Bug#971594: Asciidoc new package. Check why those existed

Before you drop most packages I would suggest you check why they were created in the 1st place especially the bugs related to the version 8.6.9-4 of the changelog to avoid recreating the same issues over and over again. I think you are referencing this point in the changelog: * asciidoc sp

Bug#971594: Asciidoc new package. Check why those existed

Hi, Before you drop most packages I would suggest you check why they were created in the 1st place especially the bugs related to the version 8.6.9-4 of the changelog to avoid recreating the same issues over and over again. Cheers, Joseph

Bug#959171: New package version

A new package version is available at https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/r/r4d/r4d_1.6-1.dsc

Re: New package - i3lock-color

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:17:34PM -0400, Raymond Li wrote: > Hi, > > I maintain a popular lockscreen called i3lock-color. I've filed an ITP for > it and have a .deb package ready. I need a .changes file to use dput to > upload it to the mentors thinggy, but I have no idea how to get that file > o

New package - i3lock-color

Hi, I maintain a popular lockscreen called i3lock-color. I've filed an ITP for it and have a .deb package ready. I need a .changes file to use dput to upload it to the mentors thinggy, but I have no idea how to get that file or really what to do at all. Would anyone mind giving me some help? Thank

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

Hi Peter, Over one year has passed; do you have any progress on this RFS? Please fix the previous problem mentioned by Gianfranco and push a new version. Due to long period of inactivity, I will close this RFS if there's no response within 31 days. -- Regards, Boyuan Yang 在 2016年12月2日星期五 EDT

Help Checking Continuous Integration in New Package

Dear Debian Mentors, I have created a new package and intend it to support Debian's Continuous Integration capability. I think I have done what needs to be done, but would like someone experienced with Debian CI to verify its operation before I try to upload it. The package is utf8gen, des

Re: ITP: bsearch - new package and help with sponsorship

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 02:23:14PM +0100, James Ridgway wrote: > I've raised an ITP which you can find here: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=894614 You've got a typo in the package name. > And this includes a link to a deb package file which I have created and > uploaded to her

ITP: bsearch - new package and help with sponsorship

Hi, I'm new to debian packages, I'm trying to get my project (bsearch) published as a debian package. I've been reading through the DebianMentorsFaq and I believe I'm at the point where I need help from others

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

Hello, >please check if rebuilding works with the version in experimental, in that case >you will need to do something like =5.9, and compute that value at runtime, >rather than hardcoding it >(so a binNMU will work). please fix the stuff I pointed in the rfs, and discard the qt commit. Qt folk

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

>> "libqt5core5a (<<5.10)" this will make it uninstallable when 5.10 goes in >> unstable... >> isn't it better to just make it compatible with new qt stack? I don't want >> to make qt folks >> sad. >hm, maybe i'm misunderstanding the problem, but i thought the applet >only works with the qt vers

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

Hi, On 03/15/2018 01:05 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hello, >> Thanks, i've added some commits and specified the qt version and pushed >> everything to salsa. > > > please also address the stuff on RFS bug i already pushed those changes a few weeks ago ;) > and... > --with=autoreconf > is

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

Hello, >Thanks, i've added some commits and specified the qt version and pushed >everything to salsa. please also address the stuff on RFS bug and... --with=autoreconf isn't this useless too? "libqt5core5a (<<5.10)" this will make it uninstallable when 5.10 goes in unstable... isn't it better

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

Hi, On 03/15/2018 10:48 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hello, > >> there is a bug with severity: grave in usbguard, because of a libqt5 >> version incompatibility (#892045) and there is already a new version of >> usbguard waiting to be sponsored. Should i fix the bug in the new >> version or

Re: Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

Hello, >there is a bug with severity: grave in usbguard, because of a libqt5 >version incompatibility (#892045) and there is already a new version of >usbguard waiting to be sponsored. Should i fix the bug in the new >version or should i fix it in the version thats already in the archive? I'm ta

Bug with sev: grave while new package waiting

hi mentors, there is a bug with severity: grave in usbguard, because of a libqt5 version incompatibility (#892045) and there is already a new version of usbguard waiting to be sponsored. Should i fix the bug in the new version or should i fix it in the version thats already in the archive? cheers

Re: Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release

ing point is to see what other distro did (e.g. Fedora, Suse, Arch), and discuss with old/new upstream. Having a new package providing pngnq and conflicting / replacing it is feasible https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#virtual-packages you can use update-alternative to let use

Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release

Hi! I would like to have some opinions and suggestions about the best action when updating a package that has a forked version. The forked version is better updated, maintained and has improvements over the original version. Debian has pngnq at version 1.0 with the latest upstream version at 1.1

Bug#862874: RFS: tss2/851-1 [a new package] -- Hello everyone

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tss2" * Package name : tss2 Version : 851-1 Upstream Author : Ken Goldman * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/NotF

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Iban Eguia wrote: > already was a package named `super` in the Debian repositories. > > We first thought of changing our package name to something other than > `super`, but we then noticed that the package had not been updated in more > than 9 years, and we thought

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:23:30PM -0500, Iban Eguia wrote: > Debian by our package. As a summary, our package is written in Rust and > currently requires java-jre as a dependency, since it also packages some Java > projects we currently use for the analysis. All the project and dependencies > we

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

Did you contact with Robert Luberda, the package maintainer for "super"? Anyway, a more specific name should be better than "super", such as "super-aa" or "android-analyzer". __ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives. Ma

Adding a new package to Debian

Dear fellow members of the Debian mentoring community. I am one of the maintainers of [SUPER Android Analyzer](http://superanalyzer.rocks/), an application to check an Android APK application for vulnerabilities. The software has lots of potential and has been added to some software distributio

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

control: tags -1 moreinfo ># debian/copyright and contradicting licensing. this is worth a moreinfo tag, please remove once the copyright (and other) issues are solved! G.

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

stem on top of Git. [...] I've looked over your new package sources (not built it yet). I have some comments of which (only) the first one is something I consider a blocker for uploading it. # debian/copyright and contradicting licensing. While the LICENSE.md file (and debian/copyright) c

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

Peter Pentchev writes: > I am looking for a sponsor for the initial upload of my package > "gitless" - a version control system on top of Git. Would you like to conform to the Python Application Packaging Team https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam> packaging standards? This might

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:15:20PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the initial upload of my package > "gitless" - a version control system on top of Git. > > * Package name: gitless > Ver

Bug#844765: RFS: gitless/0.8.4-1 -- new package

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the initial upload of my package "gitless" - a version control system on top of Git. * Package name: gitless Version : 0.8.4-1 Upstream Author : Santiago Perez de Rosso * URL

Bug#842095: marked as done (RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software)

Your message dated Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:00:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#842095: fixed in qspeakers 1.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #842095, regarding RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#842095: marked as done (RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software)

Your message dated Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:26:02 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software has caused the Debian Bug report #842095, regarding RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software

Bug#842095: RFS: qspeakers/1.0-1 [ITP] -- new package of a loudspeaker design software

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "qspeakers" * Package name: qspeakers Version : 1.0-1 Upstream Author : Benoît Rouits * URL : http://brouits.free.fr/qspeakers/ * License : GPL-3+

Re: Comments and Sponsor for new package privacyIDEA

Hi Paul, oups. Interesting. I guess there will be some things to do, to streamline the package. THanks a lot Cornelius Am Samstag, den 03.10.2015, 18:34 +0200 schrieb Paul Wise: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Cornelius Kölbel wrote: > > > lintian -i -I --show-overrides python-privacyidea_2

Re: Comments and Sponsor for new package privacyIDEA

Hi Gianfranco, thanks for pointing me to the right direction. Kind regards Cornelius Am Samstag, den 03.10.2015, 16:24 + schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: > Hi Cornelius, > > please read [1] to put the package on mentors > and open an RFS bug [2] > > [1] http://mentors.debian.net/intro-mainta

Re: Comments and Sponsor for new package privacyIDEA

Hi Cornelius, please read [1] to put the package on mentors and open an RFS bug [2] [1] http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers [2] https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto cheers, Gianfranco Il Sabato 3 Ottobre 2015 18:18, Cornelius Kölbel ha scritto: Dear mentors, I created a

Re: Comments and Sponsor for new package privacyIDEA

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Cornelius Kölbel wrote: > lintian -i -I --show-overrides python-privacyidea_2.*_amd64.changes > and get some errors about "missing sources" for javascript files. > > But in fact, these are the sources - as they are generated by angular-gettext. Sounds like you ha

Comments and Sponsor for new package privacyIDEA

Dear mentors, I created a package for privacyidea (http://privacyidea.org) but honestly I am a bit lost, now. Yes, there is lots of information, but at the moment I am a bit puzzled by the vast amount. ...and I am wondering what are the next steps. I created an ITP for the package: https

Re: new package to the archive

2014-02-01 C@rlos : > thanks for the Recommended, I will work on that, but also need to know, then > there are no problems, how can upload the application to repositories? > Once the packaging issues are cleaned up, you will need a sponsor to upload it to the archives. The "sponsors" page on ment

Re: new package to the archive

2014-02-01 C@rlos : > I have programmed an application in python + qt, I packaged as an > application of debian, I would like to upload my application to repositories > of debian and ubuntu, is under gpl license and is at this address: > https://github.com/onlyOneUci/OnlyOne > > -- > Conserva lo qu

Re: new package to the archive

Hi Carlos, A Debian package must be uploaded with the source code. Your package has several problems, as no long description and specific dependencies to Ubuntu. $ dpkg -I /tmp/onlyone-1.0.0_all.deb novo pacote debian, versão 2.0. 323770 bytes de tamanho: arquivo de controle=424 bytes. 409

new package to the archive

I have programmed an application in python + qt, I packaged as an application of debian, I would like to upload my application to repositories of debian and ubuntu , is under gpl license and is at this address: https://github.com/onlyOneUci/OnlyOne -- Conserva lo que tienes...Olvida lo que te

Bug#720333: marked as done (RFS: dualword-index/0.1.0-1 [ITP] [new package])

Your message dated Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:27:19 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: dualword-index/0.1.0-1 [ITP] [new package] has caused the Debian Bug report #720333, regarding RFS: dualword-index/0.1.0-1 [ITP] [new package] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Re: Bug #722014 - should I upload new package to stable?

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Tomasz Rybak wrote: > I am DM, I maintain PyCUDA and PyOpenCL which are in contrib > as they require non-free drivers to run software on GPU. > I got bug report #722014 about non-free example distributed > in examples/, in python-pyopencl-doc package. > > Basically

Bug #722014 - should I upload new package to stable?

Hello. I am DM, I maintain PyCUDA and PyOpenCL which are in contrib as they require non-free drivers to run software on GPU. I got bug report #722014 about non-free example distributed in examples/, in python-pyopencl-doc package. Basically example contains some code with: "Copyright NVIDIA. ALl r

Bug#720333: RFS: dualword-index/0.0.2-1 [new package]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dualword-index" * Package name: dualword-index Version : 0.0.2-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Busorguin * URL : http://dualword.org * License : GN

Re: RFS: new package lua-ldoc

Hello. > * You don't need to Build-Depends on quilt and add it in debian/rules > as you are already using 3.0 (quilt) as source/format[0]. I did not know that, thanks for the tip. I changed it. > * I tried quickly but I cannot build the package with cowbuilder. I > have attached the log to this

Re: RFS: new package lua-ldoc

Hello, I looked at your package as I need it to package Awesome 3.5. Here are some issues I found: * You don't need to Build-Depends on quilt and add it in debian/rules as you are already using 3.0 (quilt) as source/format[0]. * I tried quickly but I cannot build the package with cowbuilder.

Bug#696337: marked as done (RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package])

Your message dated Sat, 25 May 2013 04:22:59 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package] has caused the Debian Bug report #696337, regarding RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#696337: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > I am willing to sponsor it when it is ready. How is the update going Alexander? Do you have a new package ready? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org wit

Re: problem install new package

Hi, Alfonso Sabato Siciliano writes: > if I run: # dpkg -i beret_1.2.1-1_amd64.deb [...] > beret depends on libc6-amd64 (>= 2.2.5). libc6-amd64 is a i386 package providing an 64bit libc. For some reason the ${shlibs:Depends} picks this as a dependency instead of the native libc6 package. This

Re: problem install new package

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:45:00PM +0100, Alfonso Sabato Siciliano wrote: > So I have uncopressed beret_1.2.1-1_amd64.deb > and in beret_1.2.1-1_amd64/DEBIAN/control there is: > Depends: beret-data (= 1.2.1-1), libc6-amd64 (>= 2.2.5), > libsdl-image1.2 (>= 1.2.10), > libsdl-mixer1.2, libsdl-ttf2.0

Re: problem install new package

# dpkg -i beret_1.2.1-1_amd64.deb (Reading database ... 419061 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace beret 1.2.1-1 (using beret_1.2.1-1_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement beret ... dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of beret: beret depends on libc6-amd64 (

Re: problem install new package

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:49:47AM +0100, Alfonso Sabato Siciliano wrote: > I have an error: beret depends by libc6-amd64 (>= 2.2.5). This doesn't sound like the correct error text. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: problem install new package

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:49:47AM +0100, Alfonso Sabato Siciliano wrote: > Hi Mentors, > > I have build my first package: $dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc > --source-option=--include-binaries > and I have my 3 packages: beret_1.2.1-1_amd64.deb, > beret-data_1.2.1-1_all.deb and > beret-dbg_1.2.1-1_amd64

RFS: new package lua-ldoc

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor of the new lua-ldoc package, which I would like to have in Debian because it is a build-dependency of version 3.5 of the awesome window manager, which I am using and which is already in Debian. * Package name: lua-ldoc * Version: 1.3.3 * Homepage: http://s

Bug#696337: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

* Paul Wise , 2013-01-23, 10:39: W: dualword: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/dualword I believe that this one is a false positive. blhc didn't complain about the build log. :) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsub

Bug#696337: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

I'll work on these bugs and let you know when they are done. Thank you for your time. Alex. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAqsJ3NM5c4w9u-ZZ7e-pC0

Bug#696337: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > (I don't intend to sponsor this package, sorry.) I am willing to sponsor it when it is ready. Since you are upstream, please read our upstream guide if you didn't already: http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide Please fix the issues Jakub Wilk

Bug#696337: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

(I don't intend to sponsor this package, sorry.) * Alexander Busorguin , 2013-01-04, 22:44: dualword 1.3.0-1 is available at: https://mentors.debian.net/package/dualword Link to .dsc for the lazy: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dualword/dualword_1.3.0-1.dsc The long description

Processed: RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 696337 RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package] Bug #696337 {Done: Bart Martens } [sponsorship-requests] RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: dualword/1.3.0-1 [ITP] [new package]' from &#

Bug#696337: marked as done (RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package])

Your message dated Fri, 04 Jan 2013 04:20:36 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package] has caused the Debian Bug report #696337, regarding RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Processed: retitle to RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 696337 RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package] Bug #696337 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: dualword/1.2.1-1 [ITP] [new package]' from 'RFS: dualword/1.2.0

Processed: RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 696337 wishlist Bug #696337 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package] Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need as

Processed: RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 696337 RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package] Bug #696337 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ITP] [new package]' from 'RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package

Processed: retitle to RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 696337 RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package] Bug #696337 [sponsorship-requests] Subject: RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [new package]' from 'Subject: RFS: dualword/1.2.0 [ne

Re: Advice on a new package

Juhani Numminen writes: > Compat level is indeed 9 (and Build-Depend on debhelper 9). Activating > all hardening flags did produce a bit strange executable. I could not > run it from file manager (it's Thunar 1.2.3-4+b1), it was identified as > a "library". Running application from command line

Re: Advice on a new package

2012/8/30 Markus Koschany : > Hi Juhani, > > i'm working on a debian package myself at the moment and i think the > recommended way to implement hardening is to use dpkg-buildflags. > > http://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough Oh, I hadn't spotted that wiki page. It gave me more information abo

Re: Advice on a new package

On 30.08.2012 21:33, Juhani Numminen wrote: > 2012/8/29 Boris Pek : >>> The package has a Lintian warning: W: fortuner: >>> hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/games/fortuner. How should that be >>> treated? >> >> http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening >> >> Note: Lintian can generate false positive here.

Re: Advice on a new package

Thanks for your help! I've filed an ITP bug, it is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686185 I'd like to package this on Alioth so I asked to get into pkg-games there (the username is jsonic-guest). 2012/8/29 Boris Pek : >> The package has a Lintian warning: W: fortuner: >> hardenin

Re: Advice on a new package

tify-functions usr/games/fortuner. How should that be > treated? http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening Note: Lintian can generate false positive here. So you should check it manually. > And lastly, I've understood there is a freeze now on Debian Wheezy, > how does this affect to packaging a new p

Re: Advice on a new package

On 08/29/2012 02:07 PM, Juhani Numminen wrote: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/games/fortuner Take a look at http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening. If it was me I would use the one that states: DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS = 1 include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk CFLAGS += -Wextra Also the package w

Advice on a new package

treated? And lastly, I've understood there is a freeze now on Debian Wheezy, how does this affect to packaging a new piece of software? To what distribution would the new package come? Thank you in advance. Regards, Juhani Numminen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.deb

Processed: RFS for new package should have severity: wishlist

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package sponsorship-requests Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'sponsorship-requests' Limit currently set to 'package':'sponsorship-requests' > severity 676408 wishlist Bug #676408 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: fusio

Processed: Bug#660128: Change severity to wishlist, it's a new package

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 660128 wishlist Bug #660128 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: heybuddy/0.2.3-1 [ITP] - light identi.ca microblogging client Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need as

Re: new package build

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Yves Jeanrenaud wrote: > What package would you suggest to add it? I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps coreutils, moreutils or debianutils would be the appropriate place. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-r

AW: new package build

Hi, Hmm, mit all if them, but I may implement the rest. What package would you suggest to add it? regards Yves Gesendet von meinem Windows Phone Von: Paul Wise Gesendet: 30.11.2011 12:28 An: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Betreff: Re: new package build On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Yves

Re: new package build

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Yves Jeanrenaud wrote: > I built my first package, a small binary telling you what endianness your > system got. Now I would kindly like to ask if anyone would be so nice to > help me out on how to submit this to the debian archives. dpkg already does that, so eve

new package build

Hi, I built my first package, a small binary telling you what endianness your system got. Now I would kindly like to ask if anyone would be so nice to help me out on how to submit this to the debian archives. best regards Yves Jeanrenaud

Re: RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian, 2nd try)

Thank you very much. On 11 Νοε 2011, at 0:27, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:50:29AM +0200, Nanakos V. Chrysostomos wrote: It needs automake package in the Build-Depends field. I will upload a new update in a few hours. Uploaded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian, 2nd try)

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:50:29AM +0200, Nanakos V. Chrysostomos wrote: >It needs automake package in the Build-Depends field. I will upload a >new update in a few hours. Uploaded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian, 2nd try)

Hi, sorry for that. It needs automake package in the Build-Depends field. I will upload a new update in a few hours. Cheers, Chris. > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:41:33PM +0200, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: >> dget -x >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yubiserver/yubiserver_0.1-1.

Re: RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian, 2nd try)

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:41:33PM +0200, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > dget -x > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yubiserver/yubiserver_0.1-1.dsc It doesn't build with pbuilder. Please see below. [...] dh_testdir # Add here commands to configure the package. ./configure --pref

RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian, 2nd try)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "yubiserver". * Package name: yubiserver Version : 0.1-1 Upstream Author : [Nanakos Chrysostomos ] * URL : [http://www.include.gr/debian/yubiserver/yubiserver-0.1.tar.gz] * License : [GPL-2+] Section

Re: Session on "NEW package workflow" at UDS

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Iain Lane wrote: >    + An Ubuntu document “Why Debian?” that presses the compelling case >      for contributing packages upstream. We have [0], but I imagine >      something more You seem to have missed adding a link for [0]. I guess you mean this? http://wiki.

Re: Session on "NEW package workflow" at UDS

Hey, On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:24:54PM +, Iain Lane wrote: > […] > I thought derivatives and mentors people might be interested to know > that there's going to be a session about what the workflow for getting > new packages into Ubuntu should look like at UDS on Friday at 10:00 EDT > (14:00

Re: Session on "NEW package workflow" at UDS

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 22:24:54 + Iain Lane wrote: > Hello, > > I thought derivatives and mentors people might be interested to know > that there's going to be a session about what the workflow for getting > new packages into Ubuntu should look like at UDS on Friday at 10:00 > EDT (14:00 GMT).

Session on "NEW package workflow" at UDS

Hello, I thought derivatives and mentors people might be interested to know that there's going to be a session about what the workflow for getting new packages into Ubuntu should look like at UDS on Friday at 10:00 EDT (14:00 GMT). In attendance will be myself, Allison Randal and zack. I plan on

Re: RFS: yubiserver (new package in Debian)

Hi, First of all you don't need PostgreSQL to be installed, it uses the much simpler SQLite3 database and it also has an administration tool that lacks from yubikey-server-c. I intend in a near future version to support scale-out characteristics by using the ZeroMQ framework. Kind regards, Chris.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >