Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Alexander Schmehl]

Good Morning!


* MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 22:45]:

> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without 
>  
> restriction and without cost.

IANADD, so I can't sponsor you, but have one remark:

I think neither you nor upstream should use the word »freeware« if you
mean »You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish.«,
which is the copyright statement in fpdf.php.

At least here in germany (and I think in other countries, too)
»freeware« is normaly meant as »you may us it for free, distribute it if
you wish, but are not allowed to modify it«.


At this point I wanted to write you, why your debian/copyright state,
that the software is GPL licensed, since that is in the debian/copyright
of your orig.tar.gz. But since I have drunk a coffe before sending this
mail, I ask you why your orig.tar.gz contains a debian subdirectory,
which is modified by your patch.

And since I drank a second coffe before sending this mail, I wonder, why
your orig.tar.gz contains an fpdf-1.52 direcory, which seems to be an
old working directory.


Yours sincerely,
  Alexander


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Santiago Vila]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:

> Dear Mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor form the package fpdf-1.52
>
> * Package name  : fpdf-1.52
> * Version : 1.52
> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without
> restriction and without cost.

"Freeware" is not a license. I doubt such thing is acceptable as a
free software license.

The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code (DFSG #4).

The current license allows "use and modify" but does not explicitly
allow redistribution of a modified version.

Please talk to the author and suggest a proper license. While we are
at it, I would avoid the use of the word "freeware". It usually means
"free" in the free beer sense, not in the free speech sense.

Re: RFS: libswt3.0-gtk2

[Jesper Zedlitz]

> As this is a java package, you need to follow the debian java policy:
> libswt3.0-gtk2-java and *-jni for the jni libs.
>
I have changed that, the new packages can be found at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libswt3.0-gtk2-java/

> Are you also willing to maintain the motif bindings?
>
Maybe -- I will take a look at that.

Jesper

-- 
 Jesper Zedlitz   eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Homepage : http://www.zedlitz.de
  ICQ# : 23890711


pgpm9kYwh71Xp.pgp
Description: signature

deleting old packages from m.d.n

[Jesper Zedlitz]

Is there a way to delete (my own) old packages from m.d.n? 

Jesper

-- 
 Jesper Zedlitz   eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Homepage : http://www.zedlitz.de
  ICQ# : 23890711


pgpSrAtQZA7XE.pgp
Description: signature

Re: RFS: gnubik - 3D Rubik's cube game

[Florian Ernst]

Dear mentors, hello Shaun!

Shaun Jackman added to my ITP he may be able to sponsor gnubik. Thanks
a lot, Shaun.

I've dropped the Build-Depends on freeglut3-dev thanks to a notice
from upstream, it isn't really needed for normal packaging. Now I
believe the packaging is ready for inclusion into the Debian archives.

Updated files (built using pbuilder, lintian / linda clean) can be
found at .

Shaun, please tell me anything you might want to be fixed / explained.

Thanks for taking your time,
cheers,
Flo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: deleting old packages from m.d.n

[Christoph Haas]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:08:58AM +0200, Jesper Zedlitz wrote:
> Is there a way to delete (my own) old packages from m.d.n? 

In the near future we (the m.d.n team) will provide a new web interface
where uploaders can manage their own packages. Until then we usually
help when getting an email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unfortunately somehow the MX entry for our host seems to be gone. We
have already mailed to appropriate contacts. :(

Which package is it?

 Christoph

-- 
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%--3,41 All

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nathaniel W. Turner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 22 July 2004 10:39 pm, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> use dh_make to create debian/.


But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)


- -- 
Nathaniel W. Turner
http://houseofnate.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAQXK25cAeUrFyDIRAkMjAJ4tV0V7LTACQM0Ds8CoDg9TiyGB6QCgpsPn
AIHVnTjHgbeT5Nk89PDSChU=
=SadM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Silly question about man page

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> On Thursday 22 July 2004 10:39 pm, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > use dh_make to create debian/.
> 
> 
> But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> 

I avoid dh_make (debhelper code is easy to write), but in general I
prefer systems with fewer build-dependencies to systems with more
build-dependencies. In particular, many of my users find it very helpful
if all the build-dependencies are in stable.

debhelper is well enough deployed now that that build-dependency isn't a
problem, and I find that it enhances readability enough over plain
dpkg-dev that it's worth it. I tend to find it very hard to work out
what a cdbs package is really doing behind the scenes, though.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly question about man page

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > use dh_make to create debian/.
> 
> 
> But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> 

I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
it is shipped without documentation.

Or maybe only I can't find it?

And please don't tell me that source is the best documentation :P

regards
fEnIo
-- 
  _  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | 
IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0)  phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link
ooO--(_)--Ooo  http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nathaniel W. Turner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 23 July 2004 09:11 am, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
>
> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
> it is shipped without documentation.

Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
starters.

I agree, documentation is rather helpful to have.  =)

Cheers,
nate

- -- 
Nathaniel W. Turner
http://houseofnate.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBARqx25cAeUrFyDIRAgS3AKDvxe7F3PBG6v2skeMv2Ru5FRdv8QCdF7Cw
f81z6EgTAvr9cpxy8sF3+38=
=dXBP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Silly question about man page

[Pierre HABOUZIT]

> Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
> see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
> starters.
> 
> I agree, documentation is rather helpful to have.  =)

  well, _more_ documentation would be helpfull too.
  we cannot say cdbs doc is very verbose ...

  for example, I've tryed hard (even with grepping /usr/share/cdbs) to
find how cdbs handled lintian overrides, /usr/share/doc symlink for
multi binary packages ...  And I've gave up to use a cdbs mechanism and
I've used some dh_* scripts (and even cp's grrr) for those parts ...

  There is no FAQ, even no real cdbs page ([1] is really not a good
page, even with the fancy png)

  And don't misundersand me, cdbs is really _great_ but its
documentation well, it cannot suck, it even doesn't really exists IMHO

  [1] http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/
-- 
Pierre Habouzit   http://www.madism.org/
-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-
gpg : 1024D/A1EE761C  6045 409E 5CB5 2CEA 3E70  F17E C41E 995C C98C 90BE 
spam: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

Hi,

 I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

Thanks,
Laszlo/GCS
-- 
BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company  Linux Support Center
Software engineer   Developer
+36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Jay Berkenbilt]

>I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
>   package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
>   package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
>   Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
>   bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

In your package status package:

http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html

You'll see, under "Problems", that the package has not entered testing
even though the 10-day delay is over.  Click on "Check why" there to
see the reasons.

http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn

You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked
by perl.  Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be
active effort in resolving that issue.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ql.org/q/

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Andreas Metzler]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:21:52PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
>  I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

The testing migration scripts ("britney") broke two days ago,
there is no bug with packages.qa.d.o.

The bug has been found (iirc by Steve Langasek) and I hope to see
testing migration start again tonight or the tomorrow.
  cu andreas

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Thomas Viehmann]

Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>  I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.
Here, this shows as
invalidated by dependency
Depends: cvs2svn subversion (not considered)

Kind regards

T.

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

Hi Jay,

* Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 11:46:45 -0400]:

> >I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> >   package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> >   package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> >   Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> >   bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.
> 
> In your package status package:
> 
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html
> 
> You'll see, under "Problems", that the package has not entered testing
> even though the 10-day delay is over.  Click on "Check why" there to
> see the reasons.
> 
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn
> 
> You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked
> by perl.  Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be
> active effort in resolving that issue.
 I am appreciate your answer, and I know this. But please read my question:
the problem is not that my package is not entered testing because it is
blocked by perl at the end; the problem is that p.q.d.o still shows
version 0.0.1173 in "Testing Status", and not see the new, 0.1263
version. It should show "* 4 days old (needs 10 days); * Too young, not
considered." as 0.1263 was uploaded on 2004-07-19.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[MiguelGea]

On dv, 2004-07-23 at 10:43, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Good Morning!
> 
> 
> * MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 22:45]:
> 
> > * License   : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without 
> >  
> > restriction and without cost.
> 
> IANADD, so I can't sponsor you, but have one remark:
> 
> I think neither you nor upstream should use the word »freeware« if you
> mean »You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish.«,
> which is the copyright statement in fpdf.php.
> 
> At least here in germany (and I think in other countries, too)
> »freeware« is normaly meant as »you may us it for free, distribute it if
> you wish, but are not allowed to modify it«.
> 
Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
me to read FAQ#1:

1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).
There is no usage restriction. You may embed it freely in your
application (commercial or not), with or without modification. You may
redistribute it, too. 

> And since I drank a second coffe before sending this mail, I wonder, why
> your orig.tar.gz contains an fpdf-1.52 direcory, which seems to be an
> old working directory.

ups! Its a mistake!

-- 
Miguel Gea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Python package status

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

* Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:

> There is a python policy that you should probably read.
 Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
not find that there. But after searching around, I found
http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it? I see
it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official Debian pages?

> which means a "Depends: python (>= 2.1)" is probably all you need.
 That was I looking for, thanks again. Also, now I install package
modules under /usr/lib/site-python instead of
/usr/local/lib/python${PYTHON_VER}/site-packages .

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

Re: Silly question about man page

[Brian Nelson]

"Nathaniel W. Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Friday 23 July 2004 09:11 am, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
>> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
>>
>> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
>> it is shipped without documentation.
>
> Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
> see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
> starters.

You're welcome.

It sure would be nice if cdbs development wasn't, err, completely
dead...

-- 
You win again, gravity!

Menu section for pypanel

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

Hello.

I'm packaging PyPanel which is a lightweight panel/taskbar for X11 window
managers. I'd like to add some menu entry for it.

Any ideas which section would be adequate?

I read /usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz, but I can't find any suitable
section... maybe Apps/Tools?

regards
fEnIo

http://pypanel.sourceforge.net

-- 
  _  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | 
IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0)  phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link
ooO--(_)--Ooo  http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:

> Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
> me to read FAQ#1:
>
> 1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
> FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).

"Freeware" is not a free software license.

> There is no usage restriction. You may embed it freely in your
> application (commercial or not), with or without modification. You may
> redistribute it, too.

May it be redistributed *after* being modified? A well written
non-copyleft license should not need a FAQ to clarify it. Can you
suggest the author to use a simple BSD-like license if it fits his
idea of "freeware"? It would make life easier to everybody.

Re: Re: Ask for mentor and advices

[Pascal Greliche]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Oops, sory, it was not the right package.
This one wasn't build from me.

There is mine :

deb debian.i-connexion.net test qmail-scanner
deb-src debian.i-connexion.net test qmail-scanner

PS : Sorry for being so long, I didn't realised it was a mailing-list 
and that I would have no answer to my address.

PS2 : is the PGP right there ?
- -- Pascal Greliche
Service Technique ICX France
Tel : 08 99 703 403
Fax : 08 26 800 206
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBAYkqNB5xCNYOs7cRArBvAJ9Jq2lAClYUlZQxmpvQgepf2ws08wCguzhw
bk/2RiQo++UhYZePhhcgnco=
=TlDY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
Pascal Greliche
Service Technique ICX France
Tel : 08 99 703 403
Fax : 08 26 800 206

Re: Python package status

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:

> * Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
>
> > There is a python policy that you should probably read.
>
>  Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
> not find that there. But after searching around, I found
> http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
> /usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it?

According to Bug #225419, it is currently a "proposed" policy only.

> I see it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official
> Debian pages?

Maybe when it becomes "official". See Bug #243291.

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nico Golde]

Hallo Magnus,

* Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 18:34]:
> This ought to be a simple question to answer. I've just created a
> package for gcursor (no ITP filed yet). It's a binary executable in
> /usr/bin so it needs a man-page. However, there is none from upstream,
> so I simply left the one generated by dh_make (renamed it to gcursor.1
> though) and hoped that things would happen automagically. lintian
> complains about the missing man-page, so I add a line in Makefile.am:
> 
>  man1_MANS = gcursor.1

you dont have to. just put the gcursor.1 file in debian directory and
add to the rules file
dh_installman debian/gcursor.1 
no editing of the makefile.

> and a line to debian/rules to copy the file (inspired by the line for
> docbook-to-man):
> 
>  build-stamp:  config.status
> ...
>   cp debian/gcursor.1 gcursor.1
>   ...
> 
> Still no luck though. could someone give some hints on how to get the
> man-page to be installed?

regards nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de
GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69  C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF
Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nico Golde]

Hallo Bartosz,

* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 18:35]:
> > > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > > use dh_make to create debian/.
> > 
> > 
> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> > 
> 
> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
> it is shipped without documentation.

the documentation is very low, but the file
/usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html is enough to understand the basics.
and https://wiki.duckcorp.org/DebianPackagingTutorial_2fCDBS is a little
bit better i think.
 
> Or maybe only I can't find it?

no, there is not really a documentation. but it is quite easy, i only
needed one day to switch my gtksee package to cdbs.
 
> And please don't tell me that source is the best documentation :P

:) it is :)
regards nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de
GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69  C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF
Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Alexander Schmehl]

Good Morning!


* MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 22:45]:

> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without  
> restriction and without cost.

IANADD, so I can't sponsor you, but have one remark:

I think neither you nor upstream should use the word »freeware« if you
mean »You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish.«,
which is the copyright statement in fpdf.php.

At least here in germany (and I think in other countries, too)
»freeware« is normaly meant as »you may us it for free, distribute it if
you wish, but are not allowed to modify it«.


At this point I wanted to write you, why your debian/copyright state,
that the software is GPL licensed, since that is in the debian/copyright
of your orig.tar.gz. But since I have drunk a coffe before sending this
mail, I ask you why your orig.tar.gz contains a debian subdirectory,
which is modified by your patch.

And since I drank a second coffe before sending this mail, I wonder, why
your orig.tar.gz contains an fpdf-1.52 direcory, which seems to be an
old working directory.


Yours sincerely,
  Alexander


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Santiago Vila]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:

> Dear Mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor form the package fpdf-1.52
>
> * Package name  : fpdf-1.52
> * Version : 1.52
> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without
> restriction and without cost.

"Freeware" is not a license. I doubt such thing is acceptable as a
free software license.

The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code (DFSG #4).

The current license allows "use and modify" but does not explicitly
allow redistribution of a modified version.

Please talk to the author and suggest a proper license. While we are
at it, I would avoid the use of the word "freeware". It usually means
"free" in the free beer sense, not in the free speech sense.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: libswt3.0-gtk2

[Jesper Zedlitz]

> As this is a java package, you need to follow the debian java policy:
> libswt3.0-gtk2-java and *-jni for the jni libs.
>
I have changed that, the new packages can be found at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libswt3.0-gtk2-java/

> Are you also willing to maintain the motif bindings?
>
Maybe -- I will take a look at that.

Jesper

-- 
 Jesper Zedlitz   eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Homepage : http://www.zedlitz.de
  ICQ# : 23890711


pgpZ7EFY8vrsU.pgp
Description: signature

deleting old packages from m.d.n

[Jesper Zedlitz]

Is there a way to delete (my own) old packages from m.d.n? 

Jesper

-- 
 Jesper Zedlitz   eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Homepage : http://www.zedlitz.de
  ICQ# : 23890711


pgpkFRKFhxrxV.pgp
Description: signature

Re: RFS: gnubik - 3D Rubik's cube game

[Florian Ernst]

Dear mentors, hello Shaun!

Shaun Jackman added to my ITP he may be able to sponsor gnubik. Thanks
a lot, Shaun.

I've dropped the Build-Depends on freeglut3-dev thanks to a notice
from upstream, it isn't really needed for normal packaging. Now I
believe the packaging is ready for inclusion into the Debian archives.

Updated files (built using pbuilder, lintian / linda clean) can be
found at .

Shaun, please tell me anything you might want to be fixed / explained.

Thanks for taking your time,
cheers,
Flo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: deleting old packages from m.d.n

[Christoph Haas]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:08:58AM +0200, Jesper Zedlitz wrote:
> Is there a way to delete (my own) old packages from m.d.n? 

In the near future we (the m.d.n team) will provide a new web interface
where uploaders can manage their own packages. Until then we usually
help when getting an email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unfortunately somehow the MX entry for our host seems to be gone. We
have already mailed to appropriate contacts. :(

Which package is it?

 Christoph

-- 
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%--3,41 All


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nathaniel W. Turner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 22 July 2004 10:39 pm, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> use dh_make to create debian/.


But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)


- -- 
Nathaniel W. Turner
http://houseofnate.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAQXK25cAeUrFyDIRAkMjAJ4tV0V7LTACQM0Ds8CoDg9TiyGB6QCgpsPn
AIHVnTjHgbeT5Nk89PDSChU=
=SadM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Silly question about man page

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> On Thursday 22 July 2004 10:39 pm, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > use dh_make to create debian/.
> 
> 
> But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> 

I avoid dh_make (debhelper code is easy to write), but in general I
prefer systems with fewer build-dependencies to systems with more
build-dependencies. In particular, many of my users find it very helpful
if all the build-dependencies are in stable.

debhelper is well enough deployed now that that build-dependency isn't a
problem, and I find that it enhances readability enough over plain
dpkg-dev that it's worth it. I tend to find it very hard to work out
what a cdbs package is really doing behind the scenes, though.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly question about man page

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > use dh_make to create debian/.
> 
> 
> But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> 

I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
it is shipped without documentation.

Or maybe only I can't find it?

And please don't tell me that source is the best documentation :P

regards
fEnIo
-- 
  _  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0)  phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link
ooO--(_)--Ooo  http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nathaniel W. Turner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 23 July 2004 09:11 am, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
>
> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
> it is shipped without documentation.

Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
starters.

I agree, documentation is rather helpful to have.  =)

Cheers,
nate

- -- 
Nathaniel W. Turner
http://houseofnate.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBARqx25cAeUrFyDIRAgS3AKDvxe7F3PBG6v2skeMv2Ru5FRdv8QCdF7Cw
f81z6EgTAvr9cpxy8sF3+38=
=dXBP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Silly question about man page

[Pierre HABOUZIT]

> Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
> see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
> starters.
> 
> I agree, documentation is rather helpful to have.  =)

  well, _more_ documentation would be helpfull too.
  we cannot say cdbs doc is very verbose ...

  for example, I've tryed hard (even with grepping /usr/share/cdbs) to
find how cdbs handled lintian overrides, /usr/share/doc symlink for
multi binary packages ...  And I've gave up to use a cdbs mechanism and
I've used some dh_* scripts (and even cp's grrr) for those parts ...

  There is no FAQ, even no real cdbs page ([1] is really not a good
page, even with the fancy png)

  And don't misundersand me, cdbs is really _great_ but its
documentation well, it cannot suck, it even doesn't really exists IMHO

  [1] http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/
-- 
Pierre Habouzit   http://www.madism.org/
-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-
gpg : 1024D/A1EE761C  6045 409E 5CB5 2CEA 3E70  F17E C41E 995C C98C 90BE 
spam: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

Hi,

 I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

Thanks,
Laszlo/GCS
-- 
BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company  Linux Support Center
Software engineer   Developer
+36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Jay Berkenbilt]

>I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
>   package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
>   package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
>   Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
>   bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

In your package status package:

http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html

You'll see, under "Problems", that the package has not entered testing
even though the 10-day delay is over.  Click on "Check why" there to
see the reasons.

http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn

You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked
by perl.  Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be
active effort in resolving that issue.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ql.org/q/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Andreas Metzler]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:21:52PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
>  I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.

The testing migration scripts ("britney") broke two days ago,
there is no bug with packages.qa.d.o.

The bug has been found (iirc by Steve Langasek) and I hope to see
testing migration start again tonight or the tomorrow.
  cu andreas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Thomas Viehmann]

Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>  I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.
Here, this shows as
invalidated by dependency
Depends: cvs2svn subversion (not considered)

Kind regards

T.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

Hi Jay,

* Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 11:46:45 -0400]:

> >I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the
> >   package four days ago. Still, "Testing Status" shows the previous
> >   package: "* 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate" etc.
> >   Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general'
> >   bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant.
> 
> In your package status package:
> 
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html
> 
> You'll see, under "Problems", that the package has not entered testing
> even though the 10-day delay is over.  Click on "Check why" there to
> see the reasons.
> 
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn
> 
> You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked
> by perl.  Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be
> active effort in resolving that issue.
 I am appreciate your answer, and I know this. But please read my question:
the problem is not that my package is not entered testing because it is
blocked by perl at the end; the problem is that p.q.d.o still shows
version 0.0.1173 in "Testing Status", and not see the new, 0.1263
version. It should show "* 4 days old (needs 10 days); * Too young, not
considered." as 0.1263 was uploaded on 2004-07-19.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[MiguelGea]

On dv, 2004-07-23 at 10:43, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Good Morning!
> 
> 
> * MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040721 22:45]:
> 
> > * License   : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without  
> > restriction and without cost.
> 
> IANADD, so I can't sponsor you, but have one remark:
> 
> I think neither you nor upstream should use the word »freeware« if you
> mean »You may use, modify and redistribute this software as you wish.«,
> which is the copyright statement in fpdf.php.
> 
> At least here in germany (and I think in other countries, too)
> »freeware« is normaly meant as »you may us it for free, distribute it if
> you wish, but are not allowed to modify it«.
> 
Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
me to read FAQ#1:

1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).
There is no usage restriction. You may embed it freely in your
application (commercial or not), with or without modification. You may
redistribute it, too. 

> And since I drank a second coffe before sending this mail, I wonder, why
> your orig.tar.gz contains an fpdf-1.52 direcory, which seems to be an
> old working directory.

ups! Its a mistake!

-- 
Miguel Gea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Python package status

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

* Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:

> There is a python policy that you should probably read.
 Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
not find that there. But after searching around, I found
http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it? I see
it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official Debian pages?

> which means a "Depends: python (>= 2.1)" is probably all you need.
 That was I looking for, thanks again. Also, now I install package
modules under /usr/lib/site-python instead of
/usr/local/lib/python${PYTHON_VER}/site-packages .

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly question about man page

[Brian Nelson]

"Nathaniel W. Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Friday 23 July 2004 09:11 am, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:34:12AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
>> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
>>
>> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
>> it is shipped without documentation.
>
> Documentation was missing from the package for a while, but it's back now; 
> see /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html and /usr/share/doc/cdbs/why.html for 
> starters.

You're welcome.

It sure would be nice if cdbs development wasn't, err, completely
dead...

-- 
You win again, gravity!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Menu section for pypanel

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

Hello.

I'm packaging PyPanel which is a lightweight panel/taskbar for X11 window
managers. I'd like to add some menu entry for it.

Any ideas which section would be adequate?

I read /usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz, but I can't find any suitable
section... maybe Apps/Tools?

regards
fEnIo

http://pypanel.sourceforge.net

-- 
  _  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0)  phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link
ooO--(_)--Ooo  http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fpdf-1.52

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:

> Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
> me to read FAQ#1:
>
> 1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
> FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).

"Freeware" is not a free software license.

> There is no usage restriction. You may embed it freely in your
> application (commercial or not), with or without modification. You may
> redistribute it, too.

May it be redistributed *after* being modified? A well written
non-copyleft license should not need a FAQ to clarify it. Can you
suggest the author to use a simple BSD-like license if it fits his
idea of "freeware"? It would make life easier to everybody.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Ask for mentor and advices

[Pascal Greliche]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oops, sory, it was not the right package.
This one wasn't build from me.
There is mine :
deb debian.i-connexion.net test qmail-scanner
deb-src debian.i-connexion.net test qmail-scanner
PS : Sorry for being so long, I didn't realised it was a mailing-list 
and that I would have no answer to my address.
PS2 : is the PGP right there ?
- -- Pascal Greliche
Service Technique ICX France
Tel : 08 99 703 403
Fax : 08 26 800 206
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBAYkqNB5xCNYOs7cRArBvAJ9Jq2lAClYUlZQxmpvQgepf2ws08wCguzhw
bk/2RiQo++UhYZePhhcgnco=
=TlDY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
Pascal Greliche
Service Technique ICX France
Tel : 08 99 703 403
Fax : 08 26 800 206
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Python package status

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:

> * Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
>
> > There is a python policy that you should probably read.
>
>  Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
> not find that there. But after searching around, I found
> http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
> /usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it?

According to Bug #225419, it is currently a "proposed" policy only.

> I see it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official
> Debian pages?

Maybe when it becomes "official". See Bug #243291.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nico Golde]

Hallo Magnus,

* Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 18:34]:
> This ought to be a simple question to answer. I've just created a
> package for gcursor (no ITP filed yet). It's a binary executable in
> /usr/bin so it needs a man-page. However, there is none from upstream,
> so I simply left the one generated by dh_make (renamed it to gcursor.1
> though) and hoped that things would happen automagically. lintian
> complains about the missing man-page, so I add a line in Makefile.am:
> 
>  man1_MANS = gcursor.1

you dont have to. just put the gcursor.1 file in debian directory and
add to the rules file
dh_installman debian/gcursor.1 
no editing of the makefile.

> and a line to debian/rules to copy the file (inspired by the line for
> docbook-to-man):
> 
>  build-stamp:  config.status
> ...
>   cp debian/gcursor.1 gcursor.1
>   ...
> 
> Still no luck though. could someone give some hints on how to get the
> man-page to be installed?

regards nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de
GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69  C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF
Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Silly question about man page

[Nico Golde]

Hallo Bartosz,

* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-23 18:35]:
> > > FYI, dh_installman is, by default, commented out in debian/rules, if you
> > > use dh_make to create debian/.
> > 
> > 
> > But why on earth would anyone use dh_make when we have cdbs?  ;-)
> > 
> 
> I can say only for myself, but cdbs is completely useless for me as far as
> it is shipped without documentation.

the documentation is very low, but the file
/usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs.html is enough to understand the basics.
and https://wiki.duckcorp.org/DebianPackagingTutorial_2fCDBS is a little
bit better i think.
 
> Or maybe only I can't find it?

no, there is not really a documentation. but it is quite easy, i only
needed one day to switch my gtksee package to cdbs.
 
> And please don't tell me that source is the best documentation :P

:) it is :)
regards nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de
GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69  C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF
Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature