RFS: couriergrey (3rd)
Dear Gergely, debian-mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "couriergrey". * Package name: couriergrey Version : 0.3.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Matthias Wimmer * URL : http://couriergrey.com * License : GPL-2+ Section : net On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 01:58:13PM +0100, Marco Balmer wrote: > Dear Gergely, > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 04:21:26PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > Your debian/copyright file is also incomplete (and invalid, too): > > * There is no separation between the first Source paragraph, and the > >Files paragraph. > > * It lists the upstream author as the copyright holder for debian/ (you > >only have a single Files section, so it applies to everything, > >including debian/), which is not the case. > > * It lists GPLv3 as the license, while the source headers incidcate > >GPLv2+. > > * The copyright year (2011) is wrong. According to the source headers, > >it should be 2007-2011. > > Fixed/uploaded all of your remarks, may you have a look again? Thank you! By the way I've added Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser fields and fixed a bug in packaging. dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/couriergrey/couriergrey_0.3.0.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Marco Balmer signature.asc Description: GnuPG Signature
uscan, dfsg and changelog
Hi, I have a source that needs to be repackaged due to some copyright issues. From the Mentors FAQ, I found that I should name the package "foo-1.2.3+dfsg-1". So, I made a repacking script (should it have a predefined name, btw?) like: 8<--- #!/bin/sh ver=$2 orig_tar=$1 wd=mktmp -d tar xf $orig_tar -C $wd rm -rf $wd/foo/non-free-part tar czf foo-$ver+dfsg.orig.tar.gz -C $wd . rm -rf $wd 8<--- which creates the foo-1.2.3+dfsg.orig.tar.gz file. Then I put the following into my debian/changelog: 8<--- foo (1.2.3+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=low * New package. Closes: #xx -- Ole Streicher Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:37:00 +0100 8<--- When I now run "uscan -debug -f" (to check the script), I get uscan debug: [...] -- Found the following matching hrefs: [...] http://foo.bar.edu/foo/foo-1.2.3.tar.gz Newest version on remote site is 1.2.3, local version is 1.2.3+dfsg => remote site does not even have current version -- Scan finished so it obviously tries to put the +dfsg suffix to the download file. How can I avoid that? Best Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ytzhazvkcze@news.ole.ath.cx
Re: uscan, dfsg and changelog
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:12:37 +0100, Olе Streicher wrote: > uscan debug: [...] > -- Found the following matching hrefs: >[...] > http://foo.bar.edu/foo/foo-1.2.3.tar.gz > Newest version on remote site is 1.2.3, local version is 1.2.3+dfsg > => remote site does not even have current version > -- Scan finished > > so it obviously tries to put the +dfsg suffix to the download file. > > How can I avoid that? Cf. for example http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-perl/packages/jifty.git;a=blob;f=debian/watch Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- Warp 7 -- It's a law we can live with. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116132303.gh7...@colleen.colgarra.priv.at
Re: uscan, dfsg and changelog
Hi, On 01/16/2012 02:12 PM, Olе Streicher wrote: When I now run "uscan -debug -f" (to check the script), I get uscan debug: [...] -- Found the following matching hrefs: [...] http://foo.bar.edu/foo/foo-1.2.3.tar.gz Newest version on remote site is 1.2.3, local version is 1.2.3+dfsg => remote site does not even have current version -- Scan finished so it obviously tries to put the +dfsg suffix to the download file. How can I avoid that? uscan can mangle versions. To strip the dfsg suffix, you need something like opts=dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg\d+$// in your watch rule. Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f142659.1010...@debian.org
Packaging proprietary software
This is my first post in this list and I couldn't find an older post in the archives which answered my questions. I need to package a commercial application for automatic installation in a cluster, as well as not messing up the system. I want it to integrate well with the Debian environment. The package is just a directory with lots of binaries and it likes to install itself in /opt. Besides that, it needs to set some environment variables (similar to JAVA_HOME and friends). What is the best way to approach this? Do I change the PATH environment variable to point to, lets say, /opt/bin? Are there problems with "creating" new environment variables in a package installation? If someone could point me to some material about this, I would appreciate that. I've read some documentation so far but I've still got a lot to read. Thanks in advance for your time and attention, Ivan
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:48:52PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: Hi, before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get the bug fixed. > > in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload > > of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting DMUA > > on public sponsoring requests. > > I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this > control field. Droped. > > I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. > > E.g. by looking in QA? There are other people where I promised and failed to look at prior work. I'd never try to do something like this again when I don't know if I can take the time to do it for sure. > > I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the > > deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file? > > Yep. But I'm not aware on the release plans for apache. Anyway, > *right now* the NEWS file looks as a wrong place for the > deprecation warning stuff. Agreed. > > I've no idea if we currently have that as a > > policy or not. > > No. > > > Actually most packages seem to stick to the > > mod_foo.c naming but there is at least the alias_module which > > diverts. > > $ fgrep -R ' /etc/apache2/mods-available/|grep _module > /etc/apache2/apache2.conf: > /etc/apache2/apache2.conf: > /etc/apache2/apache2.conf: > /etc/apache2/mods-available/alias.conf: > /etc/apache2/mods-available/reqtimeout.conf: > /etc/apache2/mods-available/deflate.conf: > > These all are core modules. Yeah looks like the anticipated mixture. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116150910.ga11...@sho.bk.hosteurope.de
Re: Packaging proprietary software
Hi, On 01/16/2012 03:27 PM, Ivan Reche wrote: The package is just a directory with lots of binaries and it likes to install itself in /opt. Besides that, it needs to set some environment variables (similar to JAVA_HOME and friends). What is the best way to approach this? Do I change the PATH environment variable to point to, lets say, /opt/bin? Are there problems with "creating" new environment variables in a package installation? For site packages, I would install the program to /opt/whatever as it wants and install a wrapper script in /usr/bin that sets the required environment variables and starts the program. This way users have the program in their $PATH by default and the environment stays clean. Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f143c12.10...@debian.org
Re: Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
> before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get > the bug fixed. Thank you. >> I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this >> control field. > > Droped. > >> > I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not. >> >> E.g. by looking in QA? > > There are other people where I promised and failed to look at prior work. > I'd never try to do something like this again when I don't know if I can > take the time to do it for sure. Looks like DM does not make sence at all :( I'm waiting for upload for months just in case of very simple changeset (e.g. for rpaf or php-memcached). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116162839.gi31...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sergey, On 16.01.2012 17:28, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > Looks like DM does not make sence at all :( > > I'm waiting for upload for months just in case of very > simple changeset (e.g. for rpaf or php-memcached). You seem to misunderstand the DM status. It is not a Debian Developer Lite. It does not mean you, as a DM, are trusted to upload any given package to Debian at any time. If you got DM status you can earn trust of a sponsor for a _particular_ package by getting upload rights for that package only. This means, your sponsor trusts you to upload and manage _this particular_ package all alone. It does not mean, he trusts you to manage any package. Thus, you need to start from scratch for every new package again and convince any sponsor of a that package again that you're deserving upload rights for that package. That's also why many people are upset if DMs set the DMUA flag for the very first upload themselves. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPFFdbAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtp1wP/3tK5DFHorRI9fVxSJM0QQGA VgFGTpJPsOIVHe+AKPOH61Nq/drOnz75CACfvIB2MtC1CIdcgwcQ61qXqP7pb6pv fUeR+xRy6SeEdI9+Tfg4SmnQR6ET5+BdbZxLKUuJdStk9mEaGHNAfvuU9rwg69vV 4O00BIRmaOcy0SdNQK+5IeIIUfwtHcD6I3v6R9kgq7fosqYCvkuIBTSwykgmIbGe Itsm6FDExhsEOfObS1/VId3MxfGhQs1bP0adgdnKaF+mTz2D2JapKLD2zx0jLO5M 6n7F5Sun7fDnxLLMjX8YUtrgxU84g/H7jPo/5hYICVbaGAk5B/+MBfuAevyR2zxj hPvqmRGcmRkRXeM1OFBtjyUSalTMoKezuQOkYnt4WHp+5ihUKjQNhyyMd45xGtrE oPqfjMad1XRACG3/gR3iS81tDRu3FhnzeQykL8Cdqic9SnnrDIlc1qPJC806UpOT F7uT3cg8ICUMV/HnTb0ydTd+gYw/ifzTrCb+eWygvLU4IqLvzotMllTFG0hiotmY 1Z2VYA+6QFlxobC/HyQ9pih0JszucoXYZSBxpScB+AYWLqhu5qp6MZuu3KAM51ld 9Y3BRSztG2kiy8C1y1f40IhSbuIz3Im7DGgrU0taJHG1HfozYJvtJkEBquDa0ZlR 5I7HqU9Nn9OX6Lqz67+w =L50b -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f14575b.4010...@toell.net
RFS: libpam-abl , bug fix , package is already in Debian
Dear mentors , could you please sponsor my package libpam-abl which fixes FTBFS bug #655119 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.2-2.dsc Thank you , Alex On 05/07/2011 04:59 PM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > Package name: libpam-abl > License : GPL 2 > Description : pam_abl blocks hosts which are attempting a brute > force attack. > pam_abl is able to protect any service which uses it for authentication. > It works on the assumption that an attacker won't get the password right > without a lot of trying. It watches for attacks by counting how many > times > a certain user or host tries to log into the service unsuccessfully. > When a set number of failed logins occurs, the host or user name is > recorded. After that point, it will be impossible for that user or > host to successfully log in. The attacker can keep trying as much as > he wants, but will never find a way to login with his current method. > > Bug #356733 ITP: libpam-abl -- blacklist hosts and users after failed > authentication attempts > > the package is uploaded to mentors.debian.net > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libpam-abl/ > > Thank you in advance , > > Alex signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: libpam-abl , bug fix , package is already in Debian
* Alex Mestiashvili , 2012-01-16, 19:21: Dear mentors , could you please sponsor my package libpam-abl which fixes FTBFS bug #655119 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.2-2.dsc The changelog says "debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed", but 0.4.2-1 had already this field. What do you mean by "other architectures" (in the patch header)? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116183822.ga3...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: libpam-abl , bug fix , package is already in Debian
On 01/16/2012 07:38 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Alex Mestiashvili , 2012-01-16, 19:21: >> Dear mentors , >> could you please sponsor my package libpam-abl which fixes FTBFS bug >> #655119 >> >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.2-2.dsc >> > > The changelog says "debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed", but > 0.4.2-1 had already this field. > > What do you mean by "other architectures" (in the patch header)? > Hi Jakub , It failed to built on many archs - https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libpam-abl With this patch it suppose to be better , but I agree that the description sounds ambiguous. I've uploaded a new version with the corrected description . I also modified changelog such a way that line "debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed" appears in the correct section , but I have some doubts if it is ok to edit old changelog sections . Best regards , Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f14778d.5010...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi there! How shall software be handled, when it needs - huge modifactions - scripts to be replaced by 'debianized' ones - to be extended by custom scripts or progs when packaging it for debian? Shall the custom / replaced stuff be placed inside debian/source/include-binaries? Or should it be forked from upstream and seperately developed as debian-native? BR, Björn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk8UjPIACgkQ3u1SIc8s7PUFXAD/dlexMpz32mX7x//rv7/G4r7P kCoD3EAvpZDdT8yqYGEBAJMNGjPHALsBlDVVlcvCwKSIp8QJ0nZodMtYPYLIRkVk =YXpU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f148cf7.4040...@googlemail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
2012/1/17 Björn Esser: > - huge modifactions Get those included upstream. > - scripts to be replaced by 'debianized' ones Make those scripts generic but configurable, send the required changes upstream and drop in a second configuration file overriding the defaults. > - to be extended by custom scripts or progs Not sure what you mean here. > Shall the custom / replaced stuff be placed inside > debian/source/include-binaries? No, patch the source. > Or should it be forked from upstream and seperately developed as > debian-native? Here you miss out on future updates from upstream so I would discourage that. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fo9ieqh4fbdcwxr71swujjcpnyneysrayxreumqce...@mail.gmail.com
How mature is Pkg-format 3.0 (git), yet?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi there! I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now. BR, Björn. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk8Une4ACgkQ3u1SIc8s7PWuXgEAhXSGrJOhx93UjUU3OmQZ9toY mRxOJ+99KX9TJHDQGPUA/0eKvCuWDdVM3vSBC4u3Gn7qE4WZXAsS7mVh0sfb5WZW =v5pK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f149def.7090...@googlemail.com
Re: RFS: shaarli
2012/1/14 Jakub Wilk : > * Emilien Klein , 2012-01-14, 15:56: > >> dget -x >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shaarli/shaarli_0.0.33beta-1.dsc >> >> Shaarli contains the jQuery 1.6.2 minified file, > > > …for which we have no source. This is violation of DFSG §2. > (And additionally, upstream is violating jQuery's license.) Hi Jakub, Arno, and the other mentors, I've worked with upstream Shaarli to fix the issue with the inclusion of the minified jQuery files. Upstream has released a tarball that uses the jQuery CDN instead of the local minified files (which have been removed from the archive), so I've rebuilt the package using this new tarball. I've uploaded it to mentors, it should be processed in a few minutes. Could someone please review my RFS? Thanks! +Emilien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANqxmqGOiKDVT4scVxqvcE-OHPjR4+jfa7XJ=nxmyxvjhev...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: oss-compat (RC bug fix)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "oss-compat". The updated package adds a Multi-Arch declaration (#651335) and handles its configuration file according to policy (#649507, which is RC). The dsc is available at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/oss-compat/oss-compat_1.dsc and the package's page on m.d.n is http://mentors.debian.net/package/oss-compat I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How mature is Pkg-format 3.0 (git), yet?
2012/1/17 Björn Esser: > I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now. It is not currently accepted by the Debian archive: http://bugs.debian.org/642801 -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6ejwrhbrszhfshjjaqwolx8xxqgwtjodhy2-tyh6+r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: shaarli
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Emilien Klein wrote: > I've worked with upstream Shaarli to fix the issue with the inclusion > of the minified jQuery files. Upstream has released a tarball that > uses the jQuery CDN instead of the local minified files (which have > been removed from the archive) That isn't a good idea either since it breaks when users of it have network access to the software but no general Internet access to get to the jQuery CDN. Much better would be to depend on the Debian package of jQuery and use that. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fxsekazqvecspa-jkngqtqgh7yrmjkik7netameop...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
> You seem to misunderstand the DM status. I don't think so, but thank you for explanation. > It is not a Debian Developer > Lite. It does not mean you, as a DM, are trusted to upload any given > package to Debian at any time. It just a meaningless thing for now. See below. > If you got DM status you can earn trust of a sponsor for a _particular_ > package by getting upload rights for that package only. This means, your > sponsor trusts you to upload and manage _this particular_ package all > alone. It does not mean, he trusts you to manage any package. > > Thus, you need to start from scratch for every new package again and > convince any sponsor of a that package again that you're deserving > upload rights for that package. > > That's also why many people are upset if > DMs set the DMUA flag for the very first upload themselves. For example, that was not "a very first upload" (of mod_rpaf) for me. But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. At the end, there is a lot of Linux distributions. Bureacracy tends to disappoint people, not vice versa. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120116225732.gk31...@darkstar.order.hcn-strela.ru
Re: RFS: couriergrey (3rd)
Marco Balmer writes: > Dear Gergely, debian-mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "couriergrey". Will have a look this week. Sorry for the delays. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ty3v8bg0@luthien.mhp
Re: RFS: libapache2-mod-rpaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sergey, On 16.01.2012 23:57, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > For example, that was not "a very first upload" (of mod_rpaf) for me. > But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on. That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made similar experiences. > At the end, there is a lot of Linux distributions. Bureacracy tends > to disappoint people, not vice versa. I know what you mean. I am a Debian Maintainer by myself and I'm in the same situation as you are. Several Debian developers are perhaps quite annoyed by me as well, as I was complaining a lot about the sponsor situation in Debian in the past. But please understand, the Debian Maintainer status does not guarantee you privileged access to Debian archives just because you have been advocated to such a role. It only means you went through a simple procedure where someone confirmed you have some skills and you deserve to work a bit more autonomously. For a particular package you still need to earn your sponsor's trust before he allows you to upload a package yourself. That's especially bad if you had to switch sponsor for some reasons, but that happens sometimes. I'm sorry for you, but threatening does not help anyone. However, I am sure one ore two more uploads of your package will change the situation again for you. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPFLjZAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtfBIP/iB2TWlo3p31RD5xXFhLQo5S iP6/w/3cv3DMsUsUd5wNByvftONNC89zJiKG2J0YFmDZ79/K6VbgGm8onDC8FX2Y 6ZgG+eNLIGZ4WkIV21bmu7f92a24uhC0t1AUxaH2M2M4CNiHpqMcoN7PRhkaBBzd SzjBtvqzo62Ly0dUH/+XLQr+n2IDXMj2eR8vzjEvteBygo/Nny+QxOzULof5s0iy TFw8jRvv/xn7fCEGe+E9pAI0tAwQbncqXEhGia7ZJCk+YDqZMXyIt9uOoX7fuX5k 3RqJmfFj6CPBS6YNE3y4OHRZJ/UPUe3L9iYq94cDo6c8jFBJj3OJM8MRyZ70tdCi TR3uWzbv6oFqoXBZPZ1+H0Hiw9TuzFy1Q6Caq7+bYeEj28F4aIozVRFHmcYIjQsK 7tF//m2pnpkpQN/NPrNpx4ormrpq42WO3jH/d4jSU2jlr8e6fkOkKeWgilGkJLan bGp7D2dpzN79l2bGg1LDvg3p0zTw2sCMbeCx3g9azQzFwuSPlZrvrgA04qbes58d WBDovjI0jJDZtHoPM8oTX4ZoIi36mZAAd/0bejYG6bF1eSw/jgUdgkN8rjaAnZXV 2JzqRkDzMevQahLsuAwoORssugl5oI8CmdY0HBqArtdpzEloBrjmEphG+Xb6MnCo KELwOmEVUr/uMwzKwFZy =i5ix -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f14b8d9.7010...@toell.net
Re: RFS: oss-compat (RC bug fix)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Stephen Kitt wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "oss-compat". The updated package > adds a Multi-Arch declaration (#651335) and handles its configuration file > according to policy (#649507, which is RC). > > The dsc is available at > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/oss-compat/oss-compat_1.dsc and > the package's page on m.d.n is http://mentors.debian.net/package/oss-compat I note that the package is installable on hurd-*. AFAICT Hurd doesn't support sound or Alsa so maybe it should not depend on 'hurd' or should switch to architecture linux-any (or linux-all if that existed)? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6h5bth9dmwxevkoia+7mhjpkzk0tr1wes8beqhtw_x...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
2012/1/16 Björn Esser : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi there! > > How shall software be handled, when it needs > > - huge modifactions Modify original sources in Debian. > - scripts to be replaced by 'debianized' ones > - to be extended by custom scripts or progs > when packaging it for debian? > > Shall the custom / replaced stuff be placed inside > debian/source/include-binaries? Yes, you should replace inside sources, and call it ~dfsg. Let's analyze VirtualBox sources a bit -- a *HUGE* Open-Source project, that was Debianized. (only a bit smaller than Linux-kernel/GCC/LibreOffice) Debian 6: Upstream 3.2.10_OSE = 58 MB Debianized 3.2.10_OSE = 28 MB (DFSG version) This is a *huge* reduction cut by more than one-half of the original. So... what was removed ? A. Windows compatibility -- both binaries and source code were removed. * sources seems to have some Microsoft headers, which is necessary to build it on Windows at all. B. Build tools: Original VBox is cross-platform, so they include a lot of useless-for-Debian and duplicate stuff, such as common libraries: 1. binaries for WIndows to build there: as86, bcc, glib, libxidl, zlib, iconv *Debian doesn't need it. 2. Linux libraries (in source form): libpng, libxml, libxslt, zlib <-- they were included in original source code Original: root@xrig:/tmp/virtualbox-ose/VirtualBox-3.2.10_OSE# ls src/libs/ boost-1.37.0 liblzf-3.4libxml2-2.6.30 Makefile.kmk zlib-1.2.1 kStufflibpng-1.2.8 libxslt-1.1.22 xpcom18a4 Debianized: root@xrig:/tmp/virtualbox-ose/virtualbox-ose-3.2.10-dfsg# ls src/libs/ boost-1.37.0 kStuff liblzf-3.4 Makefile.kmk xpcom18a4 *Debian's kmk was patched to use Debian's libs instead. 3. extra source code: (VBoxAdditions) for Windows: was removed. for irrelevant Linux versions was also removed. For example original have files which are only relevant for XFree86 systems. Original: root@xrig:/tmp/virtualbox-ose/VirtualBox-3.2.10_OSE# ls src/VBox/Additions/x11/x11include/ 1.3 fixesproto-4.0 libXcomposite-0.4.0 xf86driproto-2.1.0 1.4 fontsproto-2.1.0 libXdamage-1.1 xorg-server-1.3.0.0 1.5 glproto-1.4.10 libXfixes-4.0.3 xorg-server-1.5.3 1.6 inputproto-1.4.4 mesa-7.2 xorg-server-1.6.0 4.3 inputproto-1.9.99.902 Mesa-7.5 xorg-server-1.6.0-local 7.0 libdrm-2.0.1 pixman-0.16.0 xorg-server-1.6.99-20090831 7.1 libdrm-2.4.13 randrproto-1.3.0 xorg-server-1.8.0 compositeproto-0.4 libpciaccess-0.10.8renderproto-0.11 xorg-server-1.9.0 damageproto-1.1.0 libx11-1.1.5-other xextproto-7.1.1 xproto-7.0.18 Debianized: root@xrig:/tmp/virtualbox-ose/virtualbox-ose-3.2.10-dfsg# ls src/VBox/Additions/x11/x11include/ 1.4 mesa-7.2 In short, you see: 1. binaries must be dropped 2. support for old libraries can be dropped (at your choice, XFree86 case) 3. support for duplicate libraries, that are included in Debian NOTE: * You cannot force upstream to drop support for Windows, or binary tools that help them build their tree on Windows. (although you can ask them to separate some Windows build binaries into a separate package) * You cannot force upstream to drop support for old Linux systems, including those that use XFree86. * No need to fork in most cases. It can be done without forking, but it's difficult task. I suggest you to download virtualbox-ose-3.2.10-dfsg source from Debian 6, compare it to upstream, and learn from this extreme case of Debianization. Upstream sources: http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/3.2.10/VirtualBox-3.2.10-OSE.tar.bz2 Makefiles were patched heavily. Basically if you remove stuff from upstream, then you do it in original file, like: "virtualbox-ose_3.2.10-dfsg.orig.tar.gz" But if you add or modify stuff, you do it via patch, like: "virtualbox-ose_3.2.10-dfsg-1.diff.gz" I hope this example was helpful. Best wishes, -- -Alexey Eromenko "Technologov" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOJ6w�t3cgwv-pk5z-an7e3jg0ot6eqvezdwrpatqebyg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote: > Yes, you should replace inside sources, and call it ~dfsg. In general it should be +dfsg not ~dfsg. ~dfsg/+dfsg should only be added when repacking for DFSG-related reasons, so not in this case. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6eqr2w-fyvdgjyshmi9xn+jmfzdt8j5mieau4bce+z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
Alexey Eromenko writes: > Yes, you should replace inside sources, and call it ~dfsg. Is the source being repackaged for DFSG reasons? If not, ‘~dfsg’ is a confusing choice. -- \ “Religious faith is the one species of human ignorance that | `\ will not admit of even the *possibility* of correction.” —Sam | _o__) Harris, _The End of Faith_, 2004 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hazv41a4@benfinney.id.au
Re: RFS: oss-compat (RC bug fix)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > I note that the package is installable on hurd-*. AFAICT Hurd doesn't > support sound or Alsa so maybe it should not depend on 'hurd' or > should switch to architecture linux-any (or linux-all if that > existed)? The kind folks on #debian-hurd pointed out that kldutils provides module-init-tools on kFreeBSD and that it is useful for oss-compat to be installable on hurd since other things depend on it (that don't nessecarily need OSS at runtime). I took the liberty of adding (LP: #340873) to the changelog. Uploaded. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Eth4Ff3BZ9jHJKhEY96sDBfy8+-p+VR=xrSbt3q=h...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
> Is the source being repackaged for DFSG reasons? If not, ‘~dfsg’ is a > confusing choice. VirtualBox src ships with binary *.exe, which are forbidden in Debian. I don't know specific paragraphs of violations. But I'm just a Debian-student, not mentor (@_@) -- -Alexey Eromenko "Technologov" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOJ6w=euu1et4vhek5r0+nzyrxguuyguvhtr5ywdnvuesmw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re-review request/RFS for current packaging of Red Eclipse
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> Hello again, upstream has now released Red Eclipse 1.2 and hence this is
> partly a RFS, partly a re-review request.
...
> [1]
> Is this motivation good enough for not using stand-alone Enet?
Hmm, I don't have a good answer for that.
> [2]
> I have argumented that we should treat this as Public Domain, but gotten
> no clear answer if it is good enough for Debian, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/01/msg4.html
> I have contacted the author (no response yet) with a request for CC0
> clarification, but is this really a necessity?
An FTP Assistant seems to think thats fine, good enough for me then:
arand: Seems okay to me, as we have a quite clear indication
of the authors will.
> [3]
> I've tried adding at least the compressed maps types to file(1), see
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652988 , the other
> things I'm unsure how I would do, cubescript in particular has no good
> indicator, apart from a .cfg file ending :/
Thanks.
> [4]
> List of duplicates have been forwarded, but it's mostly a wontfix since
> linking isn't as easy on windows.
What about removing the dupes and only referring to the remaining files?
> [5]
> I have removed ${shlibs:Depends} from the -dbg packages, is this
> correct?
I think so yeah.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6FKCKrJevxUAKKyLL=oXyUyG-oqf0CC2B965i=0sd_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to handle software which needs huge modification when packaging for Debian
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:00:04AM +0200, Alexey Eromenko wrote: > > Is the source being repackaged for DFSG reasons? If not, ‘~dfsg’ is a > > confusing choice. > > VirtualBox src ships with binary *.exe, which are forbidden in Debian. .exe file are fine, as long as they can be rebuilt with free tools. Even binaries that don't have their sources in this package but are shipped somewhere else in Debian are ok. On the other hand, removing bloat is a good idea, especially if it takes a lot of space. Object code in a (free) source package is by definition bloat. -- 1KB // Yo momma uses IPv4! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
