Re: Salsa repository requested
Hi, On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Peter Blackman wrote: > Could someone create a project on Salsa under the > debian namespace for qosmic and grant me write access? > (I sign in using this email) Here you go: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/qosmic (assuming I didn't mess up too badly) > I'd like to get Salsa CI running before uploading any new versions. You can enable CI on any repository, e.g. also in your personal namespace. Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1012196: buglist
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 23:09:21 + andre-fle...@posteo.de wrote: Did it by reformating. Hm... You did not answer where you have got the original from. This file seems to be very different from d3.js in https://github.com/d3/d3/releases/download/v3.4.9/d3.zip Also, plugins/playlistanalyzer/ext/LICENSE (BSD-3-clause) needs to be copyied to d/copyright. CC0-1.0 is availabe in /usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0, so please reference this file instead of copying it verbosely to d/copyright. Shall I also handle warnings? You should.
Bug#1012196: buglist
Please remove debian/readme as it does not contain additional info. There are two problems with d/changelog: Please use the luzip665 name/email for the signature lines because exaile is obviously not a natural person. The "Beta release" description is not true anymore. Please just write "Reintroduce package (Closes: #785897)".
Should I give up?
Greetings. I have been trying to package packages related to Elemetary OS's Pantheon for Debian. Several months ago I submitted a few of them to mentors.d.n, and found sponsors, and those packages got accepted. Then they entered the NEW queue. I decided to wait for those packages to make it into the distribution before submitting new ones. I lost track of the time it took for those packages to actually receive a response from the ftp masters. Now, I know all work is voluntary and I don't want to demand anything, but being frank I just got tired of waiting. I had completely forgotten about those packages when I got a response for them, saying that they were rejected. I don't feel motivated at all to actually fix the problems that were pointed out about them. I'm trying to find motivation to work on them once more to fix those issues and then go through the whole process again, but the thought of having to wait several months again to see if everything is acceptable is really discouraging. So, I turn to the mentors present in this discussion list for incentive. Should I try again? Is there anything to say? Thanks in advance. Francisco signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1011406: marked as done (RFS: safe/1.0.1-1 [ITP] -- library for safe c++ mutexes (development files))
Your message dated Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:10:24 +0200 with message-id <6267f365-399b-f983-05d6-fc6add584...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: safe/1.0.1-1 [ITP] -- library for safe c++ mutexes (development files) has caused the Debian Bug report #1011406, regarding RFS: safe/1.0.1-1 [ITP] -- library for safe c++ mutexes (development files) 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.) -- 1011406: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011406 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requestsSeverity: wishlistDear mentors,I am looking for a sponsor for my package "safe": * Package name: safe Version : 1.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Louis-Charles Caron * URL : https://github.com/LouisCharlesC/safe * License : MIT * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/CountOmega/libsafe Section : libsThe source builds the following binary packages: libsafe-dev - library for safe c++ mutexes (development files)To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/safe/Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/safe/safe_1.0.1-1.dscChanges for the initial release: safe (1.0.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release (Closes: #1010940)Regards,-- Matthias Geiger --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Thanks for the update. I have sponsored it. Please note that you do not necessarily need the salsa-ci.yml file to run CI. You can also set recipes/debian.yml@salsa-ci-team/pipeline in the GitLab configuration.--- End Message ---
Bug#1016571: RFS: funcparserlib/1.0.0-0.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Recursive descent parsing library for python3
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:17:38 +0200 =?UTF-8?Q?H=c3=a5vard_F=2e_Aasen?= wrote: If it really is the testsuite that is the problem, I can remove it. Then please do so. Please note that you should not cram too many things into a NMU.
RE: Should I give up?
When there's a rejected package there should be a rejection reason. That's where you should start. Don't be discouraged, I've had my packages rejected before (note: I'm not a mentor / DD, but I have been through this process before), it hasn't stopped me from contributing anywhere yet. Usually, when there's a rejection, there's a *reason* for it and that reason should be documented somewhere and sent to you via email - I would look for those rejection emails and see what the reasoning was for the rejection. Thomas -Original Message- From: Francisco M Neto Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 05:36 To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Subject: Should I give up? Greetings. I have been trying to package packages related to Elemetary OS's Pantheon for Debian. Several months ago I submitted a few of them to mentors.d.n, and found sponsors, and those packages got accepted. Then they entered the NEW queue. I decided to wait for those packages to make it into the distribution before submitting new ones. I lost track of the time it took for those packages to actually receive a response from the ftp masters. Now, I know all work is voluntary and I don't want to demand anything, but being frank I just got tired of waiting. I had completely forgotten about those packages when I got a response for them, saying that they were rejected. I don't feel motivated at all to actually fix the problems that were pointed out about them. I'm trying to find motivation to work on them once more to fix those issues and then go through the whole process again, but the thought of having to wait several months again to see if everything is acceptable is really discouraging. So, I turn to the mentors present in this discussion list for incentive. Should I try again? Is there anything to say? Thanks in advance. Francisco
Re: Should I give up?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:32:43PM +, Thomas Ward wrote: > When there's a rejected package there should be a rejection reason. > That's where you should start. Don't be discouraged, I've had my > packages rejected before (note: I'm not a mentor / DD, but I have been > through this process before), it hasn't stopped me from contributing > anywhere yet. Usually, when there's a rejection, there's a *reason* for > it and that reason should be documented somewhere and sent to you via > email - I would look for those rejection emails and see what the > reasoning was for the rejection. That's not the stated reason though: > the thought of having to wait several months again to see if everything is > acceptable is really discouraging -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Should I give up?
Hi Fransico, * Francisco M Neto [220815 11:36]: > So, I turn to the mentors present in this discussion list for > incentive. Should I try again? Is there anything to say? That's a tough question, and I can see why what happend can be demotivating. But in the end regardless of what you will receive as answer: You will have to find the question to that for yourselve. Surely it is a comittment to maintain a package in Debian, and that's why the easy answer would be: If you currently don't think, that you'll be able to have the motivation to maintain it properly, it is best to give up now. But you can also take a look back: You arleady learned a lot of the technical part and convinced someone that your package(s) should be part of Debian. That is already quite a lot. Now you only have to fix the remaining thing. And the good thing about that is, that you got a reason and know where you have to invest some more work. And you have this mailing lists, which might be able to help you, if you share the reject reason. And if you get the problem fixed fast and a new package uploaded, I would say it is worth a try to ask the ftp-team to recheck the package while they have fresh memory of the issue. That's not unheard of, but of course I can't promise anything. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: Should I give up?
FYI a discussion on this with the original poster of this thread devolved into some swearing on their part off-list and the other reason they're discouraged is because it was 'rejected' due to a missing d/copyright clause. Which according to them is "wrong" and "they should have held and waited for an updated package" which points at the misunderstanding of archive administration behind the scenes. Ultimately, the problem is two-fold: (1) they didn't see the initial rejection email and (2) were waiting months *before* they saw it was rejected, which doesn't mean in my interpretation the rejection and the time they saw the rejection was in fact the same "months after upload". Thomas -Original Message- From: Andrey Rahmatullin Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:28 To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Should I give up? On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:32:43PM +, Thomas Ward wrote: > When there's a rejected package there should be a rejection reason. > That's where you should start. Don't be discouraged, I've had my > packages rejected before (note: I'm not a mentor / DD, but I have been > through this process before), it hasn't stopped me from contributing > anywhere yet. Usually, when there's a rejection, there's a *reason* > for it and that reason should be documented somewhere and sent to you > via email - I would look for those rejection emails and see what the > reasoning was for the rejection. That's not the stated reason though: > the thought of having to wait several months again to see if > everything is acceptable is really discouraging -- WBR, wRAR
Re: Should I give up?
Hi Francisco On 2022/08/15 11:36, Francisco M Neto wrote: I have been trying to package packages related to Elemetary OS's Pantheon for Debian. Several months ago I submitted a few of them to mentors.d.n, and found sponsors, and those packages got accepted. Then they entered the NEW queue. I decided to wait for those packages to make it into the distribution before submitting new ones. I lost track of the time it took for those packages to actually receive a response from the ftp masters. Now, I know all work is voluntary and I don't want to demand anything, but being frank I just got tired of waiting. I had completely forgotten about those packages when I got a response for them, saying that they were rejected. I don't feel motivated at all to actually fix the problems that were pointed out about them. I'm trying to find motivation to work on them once more to fix those issues and then go through the whole process again, but the thought of having to wait several months again to see if everything is acceptable is really discouraging. So, I turn to the mentors present in this discussion list for incentive. Should I try again? Is there anything to say? I think you should try again. You've made too much progress to through it away. That said, I can understand how it's very frustrating, it's often even the case for long DDs when the NEW queue gets long. We're aware of that problem, and there's some good ideas to make it better (like making it possible for any DD to give feedback on a package for faster rejects + feedback), but it's not yet implemented (and right now, I don't think anyone is working on it either). However, after time, every process in Debian does get better, and patience usually pays off. I hope you give it another shot. -Jonathan
Bug#1011368: RFS: libkdumpfile/0.4.1-1 [ITP] -- Python bindings for libkdumpfile9
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:51:12PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Please untag moreinfo when you have provided a version which uns autopkgtest > successfully. > Quick update - been chasing test suite failures that also affect Fedora, now that 0.5.0 is out we're really close to a fully working Debian package so I'm going to look at the autopkg test failures now - seems to be mostly due to libkdumpfile doing its own non-standard Python packaging (fun). Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
