Bug#932025: RFS: mwc/2.0.5-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mwc" Package name: mwc Version : 2.0.5-1 Upstream Author : Michael Till Beck URL : https://github.com/Debianguru/MailWebsiteChanges License : GPL-2+, GPL-3+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: mwc - Powerful website-tracking tool To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/mwc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mwc/mwc_2.0.5-1.dsc or from git: https://jff.email/cgit/mwc.git/?h=release%2Fdebian%2F2.0.5-1 Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release. * Migrate to debhelper 12: - Change debian/compat to 12. - Bump minimum debhelper version in debian/control to >= 12. * Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.4.0 (No changes needed). * Move mwcfeedserver from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin. * debian/copyright: - Add year 2019 to debian/* The build with sbuild and pdebuild and the tests with Lintain are ok. Puiparts fails about "package purging left files on system" mostly from a mime package. +--+ | Summary | +--+ Build Architecture: amd64 Build Type: full Build-Space: 436 Build-Time: 4 Distribution: sid Host Architecture: amd64 Install-Time: 51 Job: /data/entwicklung/linux/debian/mwc/mwc_2.0.5-1.dsc Lintian: info Machine Architecture: amd64 Package: mwc Package-Time: 72 Piuparts: fail Source-Version: 2.0.5-1 Space: 436 Status: successful Version: 2.0.5-1 Finished at 2019-07-14T08:31:55Z Build needed 00:01:12, 436k disk space Regards, Jörg Frings-Fürst -- New: GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB 30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D GPG Key: 8CA1D25D CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56 Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31). Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54470 Lieser git: https://jff.email/cgit/ Threema: SYR8SJXB Wire: @joergfringsfuerst Skype:joergpenguin Ring: jff Telegram: @joergfringsfuerst My wish list: - Please send me a picture from the nature at your home.
Re: Packaging repository using both upstream-as-git and tarballs / branch name conflicts
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: If a remote has a branch this doesn't mean your repo has the same branch. Is this intended as agreement with my "rename upstream/master with git branch -u" proposal? Or is it a suggestion to delete Salsa/master and force-push upstream/master over it (i.e. rewrite history to "this mistake never happened", with the implied breakage of other existing clones [0])? Then don't do that. A repo either uses upstream tags directly or uses upstream/* tags that cannot clash with the upstream ones. Should gbp import-orig refuse to do anything (with an error stating that tarballs should not be imported into a git-only repository) if upstream-tag doesn't start with upstream/ ? I tried to ask codesearch how many packages currently set a non-upstream/* upstream-tag in gbp.conf, but it didn't find even the one I know about. [0] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#_recovering_from_upstream_rebase
Re: Packaging repository using both upstream-as-git and tarballs / branch name conflicts
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > > If a remote has a branch this doesn't mean your repo has the same branch. > Is this intended as agreement with my "rename upstream/master with git > branch -u" proposal? Or is it a suggestion to delete Salsa/master and > force-push upstream/master over it (i.e. rewrite history to "this mistake > never happened", with the implied breakage of other existing clones [0])? I cannot tell you what to do with the existing repos but generally branches in the upstream repo and branches in the packaging repo shouldn't clash as branches in the upstream repo don't exist in the packaging repo. > > Then don't do that. A repo either uses upstream tags directly or uses > > upstream/* tags that cannot clash with the upstream ones. > > Should gbp import-orig refuse to do anything (with an error stating that > tarballs should not be imported into a git-only repository) if upstream-tag > doesn't start with upstream/ ? Not sure about this. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#932025: marked as done (RFS: mwc/2.0.5-1)
Your message dated Sun, 14 Jul 2019 15:54:21 +0200 with message-id <20190714135421.gb12...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#932025: RFS: mwc/2.0.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #932025, regarding RFS: mwc/2.0.5-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 932025: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932025 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mwc" Package name: mwc Version : 2.0.5-1 Upstream Author : Michael Till Beck URL : https://github.com/Debianguru/MailWebsiteChanges License : GPL-2+, GPL-3+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: mwc - Powerful website-tracking tool To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/mwc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mwc/mwc_2.0.5-1.dsc or from git: https://jff.email/cgit/mwc.git/?h=release%2Fdebian%2F2.0.5-1 Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release. * Migrate to debhelper 12: - Change debian/compat to 12. - Bump minimum debhelper version in debian/control to >= 12. * Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.4.0 (No changes needed). * Move mwcfeedserver from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin. * debian/copyright: - Add year 2019 to debian/* The build with sbuild and pdebuild and the tests with Lintain are ok. Puiparts fails about "package purging left files on system" mostly from a mime package. +--+ | Summary | +--+ Build Architecture: amd64 Build Type: full Build-Space: 436 Build-Time: 4 Distribution: sid Host Architecture: amd64 Install-Time: 51 Job: /data/entwicklung/linux/debian/mwc/mwc_2.0.5-1.dsc Lintian: info Machine Architecture: amd64 Package: mwc Package-Time: 72 Piuparts: fail Source-Version: 2.0.5-1 Space: 436 Status: successful Version: 2.0.5-1 Finished at 2019-07-14T08:31:55Z Build needed 00:01:12, 436k disk space Regards, Jörg Frings-Fürst -- New: GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB 30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D GPG Key: 8CA1D25D CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56 Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31). Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54470 Lieser git: https://jff.email/cgit/ Threema: SYR8SJXB Wire: @joergfringsfuerst Skype:joergpenguin Ring: jff Telegram: @joergfringsfuerst My wish list: - Please send me a picture from the nature at your home. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:00:45AM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: >Package name: mwc >Version : 2.0.5-1 > Changes since the last upload: > > * New upstream release. > * Migrate to debhelper 12: > - Change debian/compat to 12. > - Bump minimum debhelper version in debian/control to >= 12. > * Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.4.0 (No changes needed). > * Move mwcfeedserver from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin. > * debian/copyright: > - Add year 2019 to debian/* ✓ -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Yo momma uses IPv4! ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ But why should you? ⠈⠳⣄ https://ipv4flagday.net/--- End Message ---
Bug#932004: RFS: uriparser/0.9.3-1
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: >Package name: uriparser >Version : 0.9.3-1 > * New upstream release. > - Refresh symbols file. > - Rewrite build process. > * Migrate to debhelper 12: > - Change debian/compat to 12. > - Bump minimum debhelper version in debian/control to >= 12. > * Declare compliance with Debian Policy 4.4.0 (No changes needed). Hi! The new version drops a lot of symbols. Were they a part of the public API? Unless a dropped symbol was merely a leaked implementation detail not meant to be ever imported by an external object, that'd be an ABI break and thus require a bump. (I have only glanced at the issue, I may investigate it further if you want.) Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Yo momma uses IPv4! ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ But why should you? ⠈⠳⣄ https://ipv4flagday.net/
Upload of texinfo-doc-nonfree?
Hi all, I'm trying to upload new release of texinfo-doc-nonfree to Debian. My first upload was rejected, b/c I made a source-only upload and forgot to set the "XS-Autobuild: yes" in debian/control. Next try was w/ that field and last try w/o that field but binary upload (as that package just generates one binary package, which is arch=all). For the last two uploads (made on "Jul 10 22:53" & "Jul 12 17:53") I didn't even got a confirmation E-Mail that something was uploaded. I reused the revision information from the rejected upload as that package did not make it into Debian. I uploaded to ftp-eu using the default /etc/dput.cf . What did i wrong? Can I check anywhere, what happened to my package? Hilmar -- sigfault #206401 http://counter.li.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#931989: marked as done (RFS: desktopfolder/1.1.0-1 -- Organize your desktop with panels, notes and photos)
Your message dated Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:41:17 +0200 with message-id <20190714154117.gd12...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#931989: RFS: desktopfolder/1.1.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #931989, regarding RFS: desktopfolder/1.1.0-1 -- Organize your desktop with panels, notes and photos to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 931989: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931989 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "desktopfolder" * Package name: desktopfolder Version : 1.1.0-1 Upstream Author : José Amuedo Salmerón joseamu...@gmail.com * URL : https://github.com/spheras/desktopfolder * License : GPL-3+ Section : x11 It builds those binary packages: desktopfolder - Organize your desktop with panels, notes and photos To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/desktopfolder Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/desktopfolder/desktopfolder_1.1.0-1.dsc Notes: I have run check-all-the-things and helped resolve source matters in consultation with the maintainer. I have built via sbuild on the current unstable repo. sbuild is configured to run lintian -i -I --pedantic on the built source. One Information lintian remains - missing autopkgtest. I dont consider it necessary for such a test to be defined. I have rechecked the copyright file - no changes required. If appropriate I would like to continue maintainership of this package (assuming that it is acceptable to Debian) in a similar manner as my current maintainership packages (dak fossfree...@ubuntu.com) Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release - See ChangeLog * Packaging Changes - Control: Bump StandardsVersion: no changes required - Control: Bump debhelper/compat to 12 - Control: Add intltool to build-depends - Drop existing patch since this area has been superseded in this release Regards, David Mohammed --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:39:27PM +0100, David Mohammed wrote: > * Package name: desktopfolder >Version : 1.1.0-1 > Changes since the last upload: > > * New upstream release > - See ChangeLog > * Packaging Changes > - Control: Bump StandardsVersion: no changes required > - Control: Bump debhelper/compat to 12 > - Control: Add intltool to build-depends > - Drop existing patch since this area has been superseded in this > release Packaging changes look ok: nothing complex, binary debdiff looks sane, etc. I'm not sure if I'm holding the package right when it comes to actually using the functionality -- but, it's possible it either has quirks when misused under XFCE (desktopfolder is meant for Gnome/Budgie) or that it's not idiot-proof enough to handle me. But, meh -- I've got too few tuits to do a proper test, other sponsors are likewise overworked, and detailed help is for newbies not for proven long-timers like you. Thus, I assume the functionality is ok, and if not, then that'd be -2. In other words: I reviewed packaging only. And uploaded. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Yo momma uses IPv4! ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ But why should you? ⠈⠳⣄ https://ipv4flagday.net/--- End Message ---
gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish
Hi everyone, I'm trying to update gmsh [1], but the tests on salsa report ``` gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish ``` See [2]. I have no idea why this comes up. Any hints? Cheers, Nico [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gmsh [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/gmsh/-/jobs/221777
Re: gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish
Hi Nico, On 7/14/19 10:35 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm trying to update gmsh [1], but the tests on salsa report > ``` > gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish > ``` This is because there is no tag named `upstream/4.4.0+ds1` in that repo. Maybe you forgot to push a tag? Regards Balu
Bug#931774: RFS: paho.mqtt.c/1.3.0-1 [ITP] -- Eclipse Paho MQTT C client library
Dear Mr Matsui, I am not sure if you received my answer on your comment on the site mentors.debian.net because I replied you via comment on the site mentors.debian.net. It should be fixed in the latest upload where I uploaded the forgotten source tarball. Yours sincerely, Roman Ondráček Dne 11. 07. 19 v 10:06 Roman Ondráček napsal(a): > Dear Mr Iwamatsu, > > Thank you for your suggestion. License under the debian directory is > already changed to the same license as upstream. > > Yours sincerely, > Roman Ondráček > > Dne 11. 07. 19 v 4:08 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu napsal(a): >> Hi, >> >> I have a question. >> You are overriding possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl. This is >> because the license under the debian directory is GPL v2+. >> If possible, change to the same license (EPL) as Upstream. If you do, >> you will solve this overriding. >> >> Best regards, >> Nobuhiro >> >> 2019年7月10日(水) 18:33 Roman Ondráček : >>> >>> Package: sponsorship-requests >>> Severity: wishlist >>> >>> Dear mentors, >>> >>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "paho.mqtt.c" >>> >>> * Package name: paho.mqtt.c >>> Version : 1.3.0-1 >>> Upstream Author : Eclipse Paho Development Team >>> * URL : https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.c >>> * License : EPL-1.0 >>> Section : libs >>> >>> It builds those binary packages: >>> >>> libpaho-mqtt-dev - Eclipse Paho MQTT C client - development files >>> libpaho-mqtt1.3 - Eclipse Paho MQTT C client - shared libraries >>> paho.mqtt.c-examples - Eclipse Paho MQTT C client - example files >>> >>> To access further information about this package, please visit the >>> following URL: >>> >>> https://mentors.debian.net/package/paho.mqtt.c >>> >>> >>> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: >>> >>> dget -x >>> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/paho.mqtt.c/paho.mqtt.c_1.3.0-1.dsc >>> >>> More information about paho.mqtt.c can be obtained from >>> https://www.eclipse.org/paho/clients/c/. >>> >>> Changes since the last upload: >>> >>> * Initial release (Closes: #931716) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Roman Ondráček >>> >> >> > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#931774: RFS: paho.mqtt.c/1.3.0-1 [ITP] -- Eclipse Paho MQTT C client library
Hi, 2019年7月15日(月) 7:30 Roman Ondráček : > > Dear Mr Matsui, > > I am not sure if you received my answer on your comment on the site > mentors.debian.net because I replied you via comment on the site > mentors.debian.net. > > It should be fixed in the latest upload where I uploaded the forgotten > source tarball. Thanks, I can download all files from mentors.debian.net. And I noticed two problem. debian/control: We does not need libc6-dev (>= 2.19.18) in Build-Depends. This is provided in the build-essential package. debian/changelog: Please squash changelog from -1 and -3. There are changelogs up to -3 now, but put them together. Packages uploaded to mentrors are not included in the package as Debian yet. Best regards, Nobuhiro
Bug#929816: RFS: simhash/0.0.20161225-1 [ITA] -- generate similarity hashes to find nearly duplicate files
Hello Adam, Congratulations to Buster release! Now it's time for my trip in Debian again. Will you kind to sponsor 'simhash' anymore and upload it to salsa.debian.org/debian/?. Thanks, laoks
dwz failures
Hi, I have a larger package (eso-midas) that built successfully over the last years. However, a new binNMU failed last night on mips/mipsel/mips64 with the cryptic error message dh_dwz -a dh_dwz: dwz -q -mdebian/eso-midas/usr/lib/debug/.dwz/mipsel-linux-gnu/eso-midas.debug -M/usr/lib/deb[...lengthy argument list...] returned exit code 1 make: *** [debian/rules:25: binary-arch] Error 255 full log: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=eso-midas&arch=mips&ver=19.02pl1.0-1%2Bb1&stamp=1563134252&raw=0 which I do not understand. Is this a bug in dwz? Can I just disable dh_dwz? Cheers Ole
Re: gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish
Indeed, thank you. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:30 PM Balasankar "Balu" C wrote: > > Hi Nico, > > On 7/14/19 10:35 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm trying to update gmsh [1], but the tests on salsa report > > ``` > > gbp:error: upstream/4.4.0+ds1 is not a valid treeish > > ``` > > This is because there is no tag named `upstream/4.4.0+ds1` in that repo. > Maybe you forgot to push a tag? > > Regards > Balu >
