Hi i don't see any problem here
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=liblastfm&suite=unstable
But if you have a fixed package feel free to ping me and i'll have a look(I'm
not a symbols - savvy man)
Cheers,
G
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 9 Dec, 2015 at 21:09, Stefan Ahle
Hi,
Thanks for signing and uploading!
> Note: I removed the "debian/liblastfm*.new", because it was useless in
> the context.
>
> I also tried to mv the .new in the original and correct location, but
> the build failed with a gensybols error.
>
> so I just removed it and signed&uploaded.
This
Your message dated Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:34:09 +0100
with message-id <56683be1.1050...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#805393: Subject: RFS: liblastfm/1.0.9-1 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #805393,
regarding RFS: liblastfm/1.0.9-1 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi
> sed 's/ \(_.*\) \(.*\)/ (c++)"\1" \2/' package.symbols | c++filt >
> package.symbols.new
this was intended with an additional
mv package.symbols.new package.symbols
(I didn't find a quick way to replace them inline)
> Thanks for building, bu
Hi,
I've uploaded a new version to mentors.debian.net
> sure, I built for the last missing archs:
> http://debomatic-powerpc.debian.net/distribution#unstable/liblastfm/1.0.9-1/buildlog
> http://debomatic-s390x.debian.net/distribution#unstable/liblastfm/1.0.9-1/buildlog
Thanks for building, but it
Hi Stefan,
>yes, the question actually is why one is liblastfm1 and the other
>liblastfm5-1(I mean the -1, but it isn't a real problem I guess)
>On Qt4 build the library so-name is liblastfm.so.1 and the package
> scheme is: → liblastfm1
>For the Qt5 build the name is liblastfm5.so.1 and the
Hi,
> yes, the question actually is why one is liblastfm1 and the other
> liblastfm5-1(I mean the -1, but it isn't a real problem I guess)
On Qt4 build the library so-name is liblastfm.so.1 and the package
scheme is: ** → liblastfm1
For the Qt5 build the name is liblastfm5.so.1 and the scheme i
Hi,
>Fixed! I've set up a new repository.
wonderful
>Oha, this is great. Now the symbols are human readable.
:)
>liblastfm1 is build against Qt4 and liblastfm5-1 is build against Qt5.
>I've adopt the names of lintian.
yes, the question actually is why one is liblastfm1 and the other
libl
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:05 +0100, Stefan Ahlers wrote:
> In which case I should add UpstreamMetadatas into the package?
Whenever there is an upstream where you can fill in any of the fields
listed on the UpstreamMetadata wiki page.
> Is it a "nice to have" feature or in some cases necessary?
I
Paul Wise wrotes:
> If the wiki page isn't clear enough, try the examples:
> https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata#Examples
Sorry my question was wrong. In which case I should add
UpstreamMetadatas into the package? Is it a "nice to have" feature or in
some cases necessary? For me it looks lik
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Stefan Ahlers wrote:
> I'm not sure what I have to add for upstream metadatas
If the wiki page isn't clear enough, try the examples:
https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata#Examples
> I do not know what to do with the output of
>
> flawfinder -Q -c .
I would j
Hi,
> 1) VCS-* they should point to Debian packaging, not to upstream packaging
> (this is done in copyright)
Fixed! I've set up a new repository.
> 2) symbols:
> sed 's/ \(_.*\) \(.*\)/ (c++)"\1" \2/' package.symbols | c++filt >
> package.symbols.new
>
> and look to the "new" file :)
> (you might
Hi,
>I tried to fix most of the points. I replaced my patch with a applied
>upstream patch. One of the symbol files had a wrong file name. This
>should be fixed, too.
lets see :)
1) VCS-* they should point to Debian packaging, not to upstream packaging
(this is done in copyright)
2) symbols:
s
Hi,
I tried to fix most of the points. I replaced my patch with a applied
upstream patch. One of the symbol files had a wrong file name. This
should be fixed, too.
I'm not sure what I have to add for upstream metadatas and I do not know
what to do with the output of
flawfinder -Q -c .
Please l
Control: owner -1 !
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Stefan
(some issues of libjdns also apply here, and Pabs review is correct, so please
check them before)
in additions:
please consider moving priority to optional
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
the other
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Stefan Ahlers wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "liblastfm"
I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here is a review:
There don't appear to be any blockers.
These things would be nice to fix:
Please put DEP-3 a header on the patch.
http:/
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "liblastfm"
* Package name: liblastfm
Version : 1.0.9-1
Upstream Author : Michael Coffey
* URL : https://github.com/lastfm/liblastfm
* License : GPL-3+
Se
Your message dated Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:29:21 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: liblastfm/0.4.0~git20090710-2 [RC]
has caused the Debian Bug report #680141,
regarding RFS: liblastfm/0.4.0~git20090710-2 [RC]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 02:03:57PM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I'm concerned by the following lintian warnings on mentors,
> which I can reproduce locally:
>
> W: liblastfm-fingerprint0: hardening-no-fortify-functions
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblastfm_fingerprint.so.0.4.0
> W: liblastfm0: h
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 02:03:57PM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I'm concerned by the following lintian warnings on mentors,
> which I can reproduce locally:
>
> W: liblastfm-fingerprint0: hardening-no-fortify-functions
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblastfm_fingerprint.so.0.4.0
> W: liblastfm0: h
I'm concerned by the following lintian warnings on mentors,
which I can reproduce locally:
W: liblastfm-fingerprint0: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblastfm_fingerprint.so.0.4.0
W: liblastfm0: hardening-no-fortify-functions
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblastfm.so.0.4.0
Yes, you're right. Thank you.
An updated version is now on mentors.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:42:28PM +0100, Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 03/07/12 22:52, John Stamp wrote:
> > * URL : http://mxcl.github.com/liblastfm/
>
> This URL leads to a 404. This URL is also lis
Hi John,
On 03/07/12 22:52, John Stamp wrote:
> * URL : http://mxcl.github.com/liblastfm/
This URL leads to a 404. This URL is also listed in the debian/copyright
file.
It was probably correct at one stage, but github have probably changed
the link format since the last liblastfm upl
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "liblastfm"
* Package name: liblastfm
Version : 0.4.0~git20090710-2
Upstream Author : Last.fm Ltd.
* URL : http://mxcl.github.com/liblastfm/
* License :
Thank you very much for the review.
The .qmake.cache file is a result of the idiosyncratic build system that
upstream uses (ruby scripts + qmake). qmake processes that file before
the project files.
I'm pulling this off mentors until I can improve the package quality.
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10
I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here is a review:
You may want to run wrap-and-sort -s
You might want to switch to debhelper 7 dh rules.tiny style.
demos/demo*.cpp and parts of tests/ are in the public domain, but
debian/copyright does not document that.
Why is there a .qmake.cache
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "liblastfm".
* Package name: liblastfm
Version : 0.4.0~really0.3.3-1
Upstream Author : Last.fm Ltd.
* URL : https://github.com/mxcl/liblastfm/
* License : GPL-3+
Section : libs
It builds
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "liblastfm".
* Package name : liblastfm
Version : 0.4.0~git20090710-1
Upstream Authors : Max Howell
Jono Cole
Doug Mansell
* URL : http://www.last.fm/
* License
28 matches
Mail list logo
