Need sponsor for packages python-irclib and jabber-irc
Hello. At first: I already have a sponsor - Cosimo Alfarano but he is on vacancy up to end of August. I have prepared new version of python-irclib (I'm maintainer of it). It contains small modification to allow jabber-irc package work better. The jabber-irc is the new package and it is not in Debian archive yet. This is the IRC-transport for jabber server. It is written in python basing on the libraries python-xmpp (that I'm the maintainer too) and python-irclib. You can look for my activity in debian project in BTS by email of submitter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Since python-irclib is already in Debian archive - we will need a NMU. -- Respectfully Alexey Nezhdanov
irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
hello list... i am the maintainer of irda-utils which recently got this bug filed against it: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267278 the fix suggested there does not work. the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this? irda-utils defines: Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools Provides: irda-tools Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools necessary which depends on irda-utils? thanks for suggestions, sebastian -- ::: .O. ::: ..O ::: OOO ::: lynx -source http://www.kodeaffe.de/shensche.pub | gpg --import signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> hello list...
>
> i am the maintainer of irda-utils which recently got this bug filed
> against it:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267278
>
> the fix suggested there does not work.
> the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and
> irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a
> dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are
> not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this?
> irda-utils defines:
>
> Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools
> Provides: irda-tools
> Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools
>
> but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools
> necessary which depends on irda-utils?
I think it can be done with Replaces/Provides/Conflicts.
- Did you try with "Provides: irda-common, irda-tools"
- What does apt say if you do the dist-upgrade from woody to sid/sarge
with /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10debug containing
Debug
{
pkgProblemResolver "true";
pkgAcquire "false";
pkgAcquire::Worker "false";
pkgDPkgPM "false";
pkgOrderList "false";
pkgInitialize "false"; // This one will dump the configuration space
NoLocking "false";
Acquire::Ftp "false";// Show ftp command traffic
Acquire::Http "false"; // Show http command traffic
aptcdrom "false";// Show found package files
}
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
On 2004-08-23 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and > irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a > dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are > not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this? > irda-utils defines: > Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools > Provides: irda-tools > Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools > but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools > necessary which depends on irda-utils? Yes, a empty pseudo package is necessary. cu andreas -- "See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf, fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha. Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
library packaging problem
Hi, I am trying to package a library. This is my first package (yes, I know that it is depreciated for packaging newbies, but I need it in my job...). I have used upstream .tar.gz sources (they use autoconf and automake) and tried to follow the new maintainer's guide. The problem is that the dpkg-buildpackage produces packages with just the docs, but no library files inside (the appropriate directories have been created, but they are empty), although they reside in debian/tmp. This is true for both the libxxx.deb and the libxxx-dev.deb Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly trivial) error? Thank you, Matthias GN Otometrics -- Hortmann Dipl.Phys. Dr. Matthias Zenker Entwicklung / Development Auchtertstraße 4, D-72770 Reutlingen Tel. ++49(0)7121/99435-60, Fax -79 eMail: mzenker at gnotometrics dot de http://www.hortmann.de
BOINC
This mail registers my intent to take over the package maintenance of BOINC as per this bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=259936 Any problems, please mail me. Cheers, Ben -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.seigan.org GPG Fingerprint: 4309 1C58 5143 AFAC F69E 11CD 76FD 56D4 1223 E387 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: library packaging problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-23 18:16:20 +0200]: > Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly > trivial) error? Can we look into the package's source? Without checking we have a hard time guessing. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Sponsor for a new package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi people I have created a package of Raster3D. It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. Words from the author: I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't really. I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for publication, that they should be properly cited. The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is the UW's pine license: ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. *END* Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits of color information per pixel. Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html My package is lintiand and linda clean. I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. Someone to sponsor me? Thank you very much Nelson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= =wdOg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
Hi Mentors, David, I am looking for a sponsor for sidplay-libs and sidplay, both available from mentors.debian.net[1][2]. Both needed to play Commodore C64 music files (.sid) on Linux. As sidplay-libs fixes a FTBFS bug, I would be very thankful if someone can look into it and upload soon. Please build the package to include the changes from 2.1.0-3 (ie with debuild -v2.1.0-2), as it was uploaded, but not processed because my previous sponsor (Algernon, on holiday now) had several problems ranging from bad gpg signature on .changes to strange warning messages. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. Based on his words, it looks like it'd be at *best* non-free. It certainly could not be included in Debian proper. This is, in fact, the same situation pine is in. I'm not sure if you could even get it in to non-free w/o a formal license, honestly, I would hope you couldn't. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:16, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi people > > I have created a package of Raster3D. > It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ > > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. > > Words from the author: > > I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the > Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to > use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions > must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in > non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to > feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not > want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't > really. This violates section 3 of the DFSG if I understand him correctly. > > I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have > changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and > compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for > the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. > > I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for > publication, that they should be properly cited. Possibly a violation of section 6. > > The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is > the UW's pine license: > ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html Ack, comparisions to Pine's license can't be good. > > I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if > I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that > except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for > scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. > > *END* > > Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of > proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, > triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, > Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer > algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary > programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering > descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, > bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures > composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with > highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits > of color information per pixel. > > Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html > > My package is lintiand and linda clean. The newest standards version is 3.6.1, your package is using 3.6.0. You probably want to update that in debian/control. > I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. > Judging by what you've said in the mail, I doubt Raster3D could go in anything but non-free. It would help considerably to get an actual license with the package (though there could be one, the server is slow and I don't have time to download the files to examine them). > Someone to sponsor me? > > Thank you very much > Nelson > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc > 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= > =wdOg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-23 20:16:34 -0300]: > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. DFSG[1]: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html
RFS: zmanim and qtzmanim
I'm looking for sponsors for three small packages that I have written myself: Package: qtzmanim Version: 1.0.7 Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) according to the GR"A opinion. This is a GUI version using QT. Package: zmanim Version: 1.0.6 Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) according to the GR"A opinion. http://kabloom.dnsalias.com/~bloom/ -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. My key was last signed 08/18/2004. If you use GPG *please* see me about signing the key. * My computer can't give you viruses by email. ***
Re: BOINC
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:14:15PM +0100, Ben Hill wrote: > This mail registers my intent to take over the package maintenance of > BOINC as per this bug report: No it doesn't. A message to the bug report, renaming the bug from an RFP to an ITP, and changing the bug owner to yourself, would register your intent. Instructions for all of these actions can be found in the BTS documentation at http://www.debian.org/Bugs. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:35:08PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >Hi, > > My sponsor uploaded sidplay related packages for me. It was like before >with other packages: I get a message that the upload was ok, then that >it was accepted. However for two binary packages I get this snippshet: >-- snip -- >(new) libresid-dev_2.1.0-3_i386.deb optional devel >WARNING: Already present in main distribution. >-- snip -- Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html and you will see libresid-dev listed there. >What does it mean, and how can I fix it? The package already contained >this binary package, so it is definiately not new. I have triple checked >that the distribution name is ok: unstable; also it does not happen with >all the binary packages from that source, only with two of them. >Thanks for any hints in advance, >Laszlo/GCS Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist: --11:25:54-- http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz => `sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz' Resolving mentors.debian.net... 212.12.58.102 Connecting to mentors.debian.net[212.12.58.102]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 11:25:55 ERROR 404: Not Found. >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ Output from running pbuilder on the source package: ... Obtaining the cached apt archive contents Installing the build-deps -> Attempting to parse the build-deps : pbuilder-satisfydepends,v 1.18 2003/04/20 03:40:36 dancer Exp $ -> Considering debhelper (>= 3.0.0) -> Trying debhelper -> Considering libsidplay2-dev (>= 2.1.0-4) Tried versions: 2.1.0-2 -> Does not satisfy version, not trying E: Could not satisfy build-dependency. E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. ... It tried to use libsidplay2-dev from sidplay-libs which is currently version 2.1.0-2 in sid. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:43:08AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: >Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: > >http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html > >and you will see libresid-dev listed there. Which is a package you are taking over from ivo. Sorry for the noise. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: crasm
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:54:27PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >[1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/ debian/copyright is missing the following line [6][7]: Copyright (c) 1987 Leon Bottou The description in debian/control doesn't mention the upstream homepage [8][9]. [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html [7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html [8] http://people.debian.org/~walters/descriptions.html [9] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: zmanim and qtzmanim
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0700, Ken Bloom wrote: >I'm looking for sponsors for three small packages that I have written >myself: > > Package: qtzmanim > Version: 1.0.7 > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) >according to the GR"A opinion. This is a GUI version using QT. > > Package: zmanim > Version: 1.0.6 > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) >according to the GR"A opinion. > >http://kabloom.dnsalias.com/~bloom/ Where are the .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz files? I can only find the .changes and .deb files at: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~bloom/ Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: kst: A KDE data analysis program
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker wrote: >The debian/copyright lists the upstream authors, but doesn't give any >copyright declaration: > >Also, AUTHORS also includes "Rick Chern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", >which is not listed in debian/copyright. > >Also, there are quite a few other copyright holders not listed: > >$ grep -ih copyright kst/kst/* | sort | uniq | wc -l >38 Include the upstream homepage in the description in debian/control. Also, remove the commented out lines in debian/rules. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need sponsor for packages python-irclib and jabber-irc
At 23 Aug 2004, 09:30 Alexey Nezhdanov wrote: > I have prepared new version of python-irclib (I'm maintainer of it). It > contains small modification to allow jabber-irc package work better. > The jabber-irc is the new package and it is not in Debian archive yet. > This is the IRC-transport for jabber server. It is written in python basing > on the libraries python-xmpp (that I'm the maintainer too) and > python-irclib. I have uploaded the source packages here: http://www.penza-gsm.ru/snake/xmpp/ -- Respectfully Alexey Nezhdanov
irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
hello list... i am the maintainer of irda-utils which recently got this bug filed against it: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267278 the fix suggested there does not work. the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this? irda-utils defines: Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools Provides: irda-tools Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools necessary which depends on irda-utils? thanks for suggestions, sebastian -- ::: .O. ::: ..O ::: OOO ::: lynx -source http://www.kodeaffe.de/shensche.pub | gpg --import signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> hello list...
>
> i am the maintainer of irda-utils which recently got this bug filed
> against it:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267278
>
> the fix suggested there does not work.
> the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and
> irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a
> dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are
> not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this?
> irda-utils defines:
>
> Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools
> Provides: irda-tools
> Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools
>
> but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools
> necessary which depends on irda-utils?
I think it can be done with Replaces/Provides/Conflicts.
- Did you try with "Provides: irda-common, irda-tools"
- What does apt say if you do the dist-upgrade from woody to sid/sarge
with /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10debug containing
Debug
{
pkgProblemResolver "true";
pkgAcquire "false";
pkgAcquire::Worker "false";
pkgDPkgPM "false";
pkgOrderList "false";
pkgInitialize "false"; // This one will dump the configuration space
NoLocking "false";
Acquire::Ftp "false";// Show ftp command traffic
Acquire::Http "false"; // Show http command traffic
aptcdrom "false";// Show found package files
}
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: irda-utils: howto dist-upgrade when package name has changed?
On 2004-08-23 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and > irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a > dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are > not replaced automatically by irda-utils. how can i handle this? > irda-utils defines: > Replaces: irda-common, irda-tools > Provides: irda-tools > Conflicts: irda-common, irda-tools > but that does not seem to suffice. is a pseudo-package irda-tools > necessary which depends on irda-utils? Yes, a empty pseudo package is necessary. cu andreas -- "See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf, fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha. Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
library packaging problem
Hi, I am trying to package a library. This is my first package (yes, I know that it is depreciated for packaging newbies, but I need it in my job...). I have used upstream .tar.gz sources (they use autoconf and automake) and tried to follow the new maintainer's guide. The problem is that the dpkg-buildpackage produces packages with just the docs, but no library files inside (the appropriate directories have been created, but they are empty), although they reside in debian/tmp. This is true for both the libxxx.deb and the libxxx-dev.deb Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly trivial) error? Thank you, Matthias GN Otometrics -- Hortmann Dipl.Phys. Dr. Matthias Zenker Entwicklung / Development Auchtertstraße 4, D-72770 Reutlingen Tel. ++49(0)7121/99435-60, Fax -79 eMail: mzenker at gnotometrics dot de http://www.hortmann.de
BOINC
This mail registers my intent to take over the package maintenance of BOINC as per this bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=259936 Any problems, please mail me. Cheers, Ben -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.seigan.org GPG Fingerprint: 4309 1C58 5143 AFAC F69E 11CD 76FD 56D4 1223 E387 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: library packaging problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-23 18:16:20 +0200]: > Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly trivial) > error? Can we look into the package's source? Without checking we have a hard time guessing. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sponsor for a new package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi people I have created a package of Raster3D. It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. Words from the author: I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't really. I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for publication, that they should be properly cited. The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is the UW's pine license: ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. *END* Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits of color information per pixel. Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html My package is lintiand and linda clean. I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. Someone to sponsor me? Thank you very much Nelson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= =wdOg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
Hi Mentors, David, I am looking for a sponsor for sidplay-libs and sidplay, both available from mentors.debian.net[1][2]. Both needed to play Commodore C64 music files (.sid) on Linux. As sidplay-libs fixes a FTBFS bug, I would be very thankful if someone can look into it and upload soon. Please build the package to include the changes from 2.1.0-3 (ie with debuild -v2.1.0-2), as it was uploaded, but not processed because my previous sponsor (Algernon, on holiday now) had several problems ranging from bad gpg signature on .changes to strange warning messages. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. Based on his words, it looks like it'd be at *best* non-free. It certainly could not be included in Debian proper. This is, in fact, the same situation pine is in. I'm not sure if you could even get it in to non-free w/o a formal license, honestly, I would hope you couldn't. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-23 20:16:34 -0300]: > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. DFSG[1]: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sponsor for a new package
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:16, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi people > > I have created a package of Raster3D. > It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ > > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. > > Words from the author: > > I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the > Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to > use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions > must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in > non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to > feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not > want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't > really. This violates section 3 of the DFSG if I understand him correctly. > > I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have > changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and > compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for > the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. > > I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for > publication, that they should be properly cited. Possibly a violation of section 6. > > The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is > the UW's pine license: > ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html Ack, comparisions to Pine's license can't be good. > > I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if > I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that > except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for > scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. > > *END* > > Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of > proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, > triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, > Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer > algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary > programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering > descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, > bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures > composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with > highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits > of color information per pixel. > > Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html > > My package is lintiand and linda clean. The newest standards version is 3.6.1, your package is using 3.6.0. You probably want to update that in debian/control. > I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. > Judging by what you've said in the mail, I doubt Raster3D could go in anything but non-free. It would help considerably to get an actual license with the package (though there could be one, the server is slow and I don't have time to download the files to examine them). > Someone to sponsor me? > > Thank you very much > Nelson > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc > 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= > =wdOg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: zmanim and qtzmanim
I'm looking for sponsors for three small packages that I have written myself: Package: qtzmanim Version: 1.0.7 Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) according to the GR"A opinion. This is a GUI version using QT. Package: zmanim Version: 1.0.6 Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) according to the GR"A opinion. http://kabloom.dnsalias.com/~bloom/ -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. My key was last signed 08/18/2004. If you use GPG *please* see me about signing the key. * My computer can't give you viruses by email. *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BOINC
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:14:15PM +0100, Ben Hill wrote: > This mail registers my intent to take over the package maintenance of > BOINC as per this bug report: No it doesn't. A message to the bug report, renaming the bug from an RFP to an ITP, and changing the bug owner to yourself, would register your intent. Instructions for all of these actions can be found in the BTS documentation at http://www.debian.org/Bugs. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:35:08PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >Hi, > > My sponsor uploaded sidplay related packages for me. It was like before >with other packages: I get a message that the upload was ok, then that >it was accepted. However for two binary packages I get this snippshet: >-- snip -- >(new) libresid-dev_2.1.0-3_i386.deb optional devel >WARNING: Already present in main distribution. >-- snip -- Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html and you will see libresid-dev listed there. >What does it mean, and how can I fix it? The package already contained >this binary package, so it is definiately not new. I have triple checked >that the distribution name is ok: unstable; also it does not happen with >all the binary packages from that source, only with two of them. >Thanks for any hints in advance, >Laszlo/GCS Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist: --11:25:54-- http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz => `sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz' Resolving mentors.debian.net... 212.12.58.102 Connecting to mentors.debian.net[212.12.58.102]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 11:25:55 ERROR 404: Not Found. >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ Output from running pbuilder on the source package: ... Obtaining the cached apt archive contents Installing the build-deps -> Attempting to parse the build-deps : pbuilder-satisfydepends,v 1.18 2003/04/20 03:40:36 dancer Exp $ -> Considering debhelper (>= 3.0.0) -> Trying debhelper -> Considering libsidplay2-dev (>= 2.1.0-4) Tried versions: 2.1.0-2 -> Does not satisfy version, not trying E: Could not satisfy build-dependency. E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. ... It tried to use libsidplay2-dev from sidplay-libs which is currently version 2.1.0-2 in sid. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:43:08AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: >Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: > >http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html > >and you will see libresid-dev listed there. Which is a package you are taking over from ivo. Sorry for the noise. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: crasm
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:54:27PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: >[1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/ debian/copyright is missing the following line [6][7]: Copyright (c) 1987 Leon Bottou The description in debian/control doesn't mention the upstream homepage [8][9]. [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html [7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html [8] http://people.debian.org/~walters/descriptions.html [9] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: zmanim and qtzmanim
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0700, Ken Bloom wrote: >I'm looking for sponsors for three small packages that I have written >myself: > > Package: qtzmanim > Version: 1.0.7 > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) >according to the GR"A opinion. This is a GUI version using QT. > > Package: zmanim > Version: 1.0.6 > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) >according to the GR"A opinion. > >http://kabloom.dnsalias.com/~bloom/ Where are the .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz files? I can only find the .changes and .deb files at: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~bloom/ Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: kst: A KDE data analysis program
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker wrote: >The debian/copyright lists the upstream authors, but doesn't give any >copyright declaration: > >Also, AUTHORS also includes "Rick Chern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", >which is not listed in debian/copyright. > >Also, there are quite a few other copyright holders not listed: > >$ grep -ih copyright kst/kst/* | sort | uniq | wc -l >38 Include the upstream homepage in the description in debian/control. Also, remove the commented out lines in debian/rules. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Need sponsor for packages python-irclib and jabber-irc
At 23 Aug 2004, 09:30 Alexey Nezhdanov wrote: > I have prepared new version of python-irclib (I'm maintainer of it). It > contains small modification to allow jabber-irc package work better. > The jabber-irc is the new package and it is not in Debian archive yet. > This is the IRC-transport for jabber server. It is written in python basing > on the libraries python-xmpp (that I'm the maintainer too) and > python-irclib. I have uploaded the source packages here: http://www.penza-gsm.ru/snake/xmpp/ -- Respectfully Alexey Nezhdanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-24 12:13:26 +1000]: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: > >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ > > sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist: > > --11:25:54-- > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz >=> `sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz' > Resolving mentors.debian.net... 212.12.58.102 > Connecting to mentors.debian.net[212.12.58.102]:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found > 11:25:55 ERROR 404: Not Found. Exactly; if there's no change in the upstream version (like this case), then it is not uploaded again. I know this is a little bug as mentors.debian.net does not host the whole Debian tree, but dupload does not know it. So, as sidplay-libs 2.1.0-2 is in the archive, and I have done only -3 and -4, dupload uploaded only the diff. It is a feature. Please fetch the sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz from your Debian mirror. > >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ > > Output from running pbuilder on the source package: > > ... > Obtaining the cached apt archive contents > Installing the build-deps > -> Attempting to parse the build-deps : pbuilder-satisfydepends,v 1.18 2003/04/20 > 03:40:36 dancer Exp $ > -> Considering debhelper (>= 3.0.0) >-> Trying debhelper > -> Considering libsidplay2-dev (>= 2.1.0-4) > Tried versions: 2.1.0-2 >-> Does not satisfy version, not trying > E: Could not satisfy build-dependency. > E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. See above. Please build sidplay-libs first. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-24 12:46:32 +1000]: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:43:08AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > >Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: > > > >http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html > > > >and you will see libresid-dev listed there. Yes, but what does warning mean, when libresid-dev already exists? Why that said a new binary package? OK, my sponsor had some problems uploading it, somehow gnupg produced bad signature for him, then dsc changed on his next upload, so the md5sum was not correct, etc. All in all uploding sidplay-libs 2.1.0-3 failed. > Which is a package you are taking over from ivo. Yes, and? It should not generate that warning. > Sorry for the noise. No problem, I am just curious why the uploading failed. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:28:14AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: > Exactly; if there's no change in the upstream version (like this case), >then it is not uploaded again. I know this is a little bug as >mentors.debian.net does not host the whole Debian tree, but dupload does >not know it. So, as sidplay-libs 2.1.0-2 is in the archive, and I have >done only -3 and -4, dupload uploaded only the diff. It is a feature. Please see the -sa option of dpkg-buildpackage: -si, -sa, -sd These options control whether the original source archive is included in the upload generated by dpkg-buildpackage and dpkg-genchanges if any source is being generated (ie, -b or -B haven't been used). By default, or if -si is specified, the original source will be included if the version number ends in -0 or -1, ie if the Debian revision part of the version number is 0 or 1. -sa forces the inclusion of the original source; -sd forces its exclusion and includes only the diff. >Please fetch the sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz from your Debian mirror. Will do. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 Australia `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: zmanim and qtzmanim
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:29:57PM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0700, Ken Bloom wrote: > >I'm looking for sponsors for three small packages that I have written > >myself: > > > > Package: qtzmanim > > Version: 1.0.7 > > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals > >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) > >according to the GR"A opinion. This is a GUI version using QT. > > > > Package: zmanim > > Version: 1.0.6 > > Description: A program for computing the times for jewish rituals > >This program calculates the zmanim (times for Jewish rituals) > >according to the GR"A opinion. > > > > [my incorrect kabloom.dnsalias.com url snipped] > > Where are the .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz files? I can only find > the .changes and .deb files at: > > http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~bloom/ I'm not sure why they disappeared, but they're back now. And thanks for noticing that I got the URL wrong. -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. My key was last signed 08/18/2004. If you use GPG *please* see me about signing the key. * My computer can't give you viruses by email. *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
