Re: Files permission in the debian directory

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:05:11PM +0100, fre...@free.fr wrote:
> What are the recommended permissions for all the files that reside inside the 
> debian directory ?
Usual 644/755 I suppose, what makes you think about different perms?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: dwarf-fortress

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 04:47:42PM +0100, Beren Minor wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dwarf-fortress".
That's good news.
Unfortunately, the package is not ready yet.

>  dwarf-fortress-bin - Dwarf Fortress binaries
>  dwarf-fortress-data - Dwarf Fortress data files
>  dwarf-fortress-mod-ironhand - Dwarf Fortress graphic mod "Ironhand"
>  dwarf-fortress-mod-mayday - Dwarf Fortress graphic mod "Mayday"
>  dwarf-fortress-mod-phoebus - Dwarf Fortress graphic mod "Phoebus"
> 
> To access further information about this package, please visit the
> following URL:
> 
>   http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwarf-fortress
> 
> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
> 
>   dget -x 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/d/dwarf-fortress/dwarf-fortress_0.34.2.0-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> --
Please don't include '-- ' in the middle of your emails, it marks the end
of the message text.

> There's already an ITP for this package in debian but it has been
> inactive for a long time and without any.
Did you try to contact the previous ITP owner?

> I'm not a Debian Maintainer and I'm also looking for advices and
> comment on the way the game has been packaged, as the available
> upstream binaries are 32bits only, and I had to embed 32bit libraries
> with the package in order to have it work. 
You should not embed libraries. You also should not set Architecture: any.
If you want to see a i386-only binary packaged for amd64, you may look at
zsnes (though the proper way is multi-arch dpkg but it is not available in
unstable now).

You have a build system that uses git magic and branches while an
unpacked Debian source package is a directory with upstream sources from
upstream tarball(s) and debian/ directory with build files. Also, as you
include 3rd-party mods, you should ask about their distribution licenses
and mention them in debian/copyright.

There are some more or less minor things such as copyright notices in
descriptions and old Standards-Version, but they are not important for
now, as I could not even build the package.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: dwarf-fortress

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:48:50PM +0100, Beren Minor wrote:
> The other correct way, as far as I could see, to have an i386 package
> available on amd64 is to use ia32-libs package, however this package
> does not contain all the required dependencies for dwarf-fortress
> (sdl-ttf, sdl-image and glew are missing). 
For the reference: #598909.
Also, glew doesn't seem to be needed.

> > You have a build system that uses git magic and branches while an
> > unpacked Debian source package is a directory with upstream sources from
> > upstream tarball(s) and debian/ directory with build files. Also, as you
> > include 3rd-party mods, you should ask about their distribution licenses
> > and mention them in debian/copyright.
> I'm using git-buildpackage for building, and patch queue maintained
> with the same tool. Patches aren't commited to debian branch (maybe
> they should), but can be regenerated with "gbp-pq export" command
> before running git-buildpackage. 
I'm not talking about patches, gbp and gbp-pq. I mean git checkout magic
in your Makefile.

> > There are some more or less minor things such as copyright notices in
> > descriptions and old Standards-Version, but they are not important for
> > now, as I could not even build the package.
> I'm not sure what the procedure is to build the package from the
> mentors uploaded files
As with any other standalone Debian package, dget --build for .dsc URL or
dpkg-source -x and dpkg-buildpackage for downloaded one. You should learn
these tools before learning git-buildpackage.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: dwarf-fortress

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 06:15:00PM +0100, Beren Minor wrote:
> > I'm not talking about patches, gbp and gbp-pq. I mean git checkout magic
> > in your Makefile.
> >
> > As with any other standalone Debian package, dget --build for .dsc URL or
> > dpkg-source -x and dpkg-buildpackage for downloaded one. You should learn
> > these tools before learning git-buildpackage.
> 
> That's what I've just realised, indeed. I'm maintaining the upstream
> sources and third party mods on different git branches for clarity
> purpose and to keep things clean and separated. I should probably
> introduce a new fake upstream branch with all these merged together.
> I'll work on it.
Or make use of format 3.0 multi-orig feature.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: dwarf-fortress

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 01:15:39AM +0100, Beren Minor wrote:
> I've updated the packages on mentors and splitted the original one in
> two. There's the main dwarf-fortress with binaries, data files and
> scripts for modding support, and the default graphic mod package that
> is also required. I've not re-uploaded the other third-party mods for
> now but they would be packaged as separate packages as well. Both
> should build without Git.
> 
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwarf-fortress
I've tried to build this package but on amd64 it cannot find GL/glew.h and
fails to build.
So I've created an i386 cowbuilder chroot and tried to build for i386. It
couldn't install libncursesw-dev because there is no such package in the
archive.

> http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwarf-fortress-mod-default
Why did you split this from the original package? Isn't it a part of the
original distribution?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Standard Versions

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 02:01:57PM +0100, Werner Detter wrote:
> I'm currently wondering where to check stuff that has changed from one 
> standard version
> to the next (e.g. 3.9.2 vs. 3.9.3) and what is relevant for own packages. Is 
> there
> something like a changelog?
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#666925: RFS: mpdscribble/0.22-3 [ITA]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mpdscribble"

 * Package name: mpdscribble
   Version : 0.22-3
   Upstream Author : Max Kellermann 
 * URL : http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Client:Mpdscribble
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : sound

  It builds those binary packages:

  mpdscribble - Last.fm reporting client for mpd
  mpdscribble-dbg - Last.fm reporting client for mpd - debugger symbols

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/mpdscribble


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mpdscribble/mpdscribble_0.22-3.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

  [Daniel Martí]
  * Add status option to the initscript.

  [Andrey Rahmatullin]
  * Adopt the package, move it to the pkg-mpd team. Update Maintainer,
Uploaders, Vcs-* accordingly (Closes: #612908).
  * Bump debhelper compatibility level to 9.
  * Enable all hardening options.
  * Explicitly use the soup backend instead of the default curl backend.
  * Update debian/copyright to the latest DEP5 version.
  * Drop obsolete README.source.
  * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (no change needed).
  * Drop an ancient version from the ucf dependency.

  Regards,
   Andrey Rahmatullin


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#659047: RFS: rpg - Readable Password Generator

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> First, If you're proposing a different algorithm for password
> generation, have you looked into contributing the algorithm to apg? If
> not, why? 
Please also note that while apg generates secure passwords, rpg doesn't
care about such things. It even uses $RANDOM as the entropy source.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#659047: RFS: rpg - Readable Password Generator

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:24:19AM +0400, Vladimir Stavrinov wrote:
> As for security, I hope there are no such problems in last uploaded
> version.
Please clearly state somewhere that your software doesn't attempt to
generate cryptographically secure passwords.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: hints for creating deb packages with cmake build system

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 02:19:44PM +0200, Werner Detter wrote:
> I am looking for instructions on how to create a debian package that uses 
> cmake as build
> system as I'm wondering how the debian/rules should look and what it should 
> contain for
> cmake? Can anyone tell me a small package that uses cmake as build system, 
> where i could
> peak for a debian/rules file? Any other good hints or links? :)
dh_auto_configure(1) supports cmake.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: *.dirs and *.install files

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:27:20AM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
> Hello. I've created a number of Debs for single-binary packages in the
> past, but now I am getting into packaging libraries. For the most part
> it has not been difficult to figure out how to package a library, but I
> am not quite clear on a certain point: could some one explain to me what
> are the precise purposes of the *.dirs and *.install files in the
> debian/ directory? There are four of these files in my debian/ directory:
> 
> * libcsv3.dirs
> * libcsv3.install
> * libcsv-dev.dirs
> * libcsv-dev.install
man dh_install
man dh_installdirs



-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: burp FTBFS (was: Re: Problems with build)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:26:47PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > Build for hppa and powerpcspe won't build with this meesages:
> > 
> >   burp (= 1.3.4-2) build-depends on one of:
> >   - debhelper (= 9.20120513)
> 
> I don't see that on https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=burp
> so where are the build logs for the two platforms you mentioned ?
http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=burp&suite=sid

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Problems with build

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:00:57PM +, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote:
> Can some help with this problem?
> 
> Build for hppa and powerpcspe won't build with this meesages:
> 
>   burp (= 1.3.4-2) build-depends on one of:
>   - debhelper (= 9.20120513)
I don't think these ports are supposed to work. Ignore them.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bad lintian warning?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:59:02PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> My package:
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate
> 
> The warning:
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink.html
> 
> a) I notice the warning is appearing for the lib package and NOT the
> -dev package itself
Apparently that's intended: the tag is reported against the package
containing the library.

> b) I notice the verbose output (on the mentors summary page) shows an
> SONAME in a slightly different format:
> 
>usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so.0.0.0 usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so
> 
> Notice: librutil-1.8.so, while the -dev package creates a symlink in the
> form librutil.so
Yes, that's the problem. Lintian cuts out everything after ".so" when
searching for the dev symlink while libtool with -release doesn't include
the release number in the dev symlink (see also info libtool "7.4 Managing
release information"). If you encode the library version in the library
name, you are supposed to specify that version when linking, otherwise
it's pointless. Note that the libtool example (libbfd-2.9.0.so) doesn't
have a soversion while your libs have -version-info 0:0:0 in addition to
-release 1.8 and that's why the libs are named libfoo-1.8.so.0.0.0 instead
of more common libfoo-1.8.so.

> c) If I install the packages manually on my own machine, I find the
> symlink is really there after installing the -dev package:
There is no librutil-1.8.so.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: bad lintian warning?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 09:03:09AM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> b) I notice the verbose output (on the mentors summary page)
> >> shows an SONAME in a slightly different format:
> >> 
> >> usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so.0.0.0 usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so
> >> 
> >> Notice: librutil-1.8.so, while the -dev package creates a symlink
> >> in the form librutil.so
> > Yes, that's the problem. Lintian cuts out everything after ".so"
> > when searching for the dev symlink while libtool with -release
> > doesn't include the release number in the dev symlink (see also
> > info libtool "7.4 Managing release information"). If you encode the
> > library version in the library name, you are supposed to specify
> > that version when linking, otherwise it's pointless. Note that the
> > libtool example (libbfd-2.9.0.so) doesn't
> 
> Ok, so if people are supposed to specify the version when linking,
> then I should do these two things:
> 
> - - not ship the librutil.so symlink at all in the -dev package?
If you drop -version-info and use -release to declare ABI breaks you will
have a libfoo.so symlink and you will need to link against -lfoo. If you
want to have -version-info for ABI breaks and -release for something
different (parallel APIs?) to link against -lfoo-1.8 then maybe you need
some manual work, I'm not sure about such scenarios. Please rethink what
version schemes do you want to use.

> - - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
> explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
I'm not sure you want to keep the current names for the lib and the dev
symlink (but if you do, then probably you should override the warning).

> > have a soversion while your libs have -version-info 0:0:0 in
> > addition to -release 1.8 and that's why the libs are named
> > libfoo-1.8.so.0.0.0 instead of more common libfoo-1.8.so.
> 
> I realize -version-info is redundant here, but is it prohibited to set
> - -version-info when using -release?  The libtool manual is not explicit
> about whether I can mix them.
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers
The manual seems to talk about the usual case with compatible changes
(-version-info) vs the less usual case with each version incompatible with
others (-release). I don't know how is libtool intended to work with both
arguments provided, but in you case it doesn't include -release in the dev
symlink name which means you cannot have different dev libraries
coinstalled.

> I thought setting -version-info would allow for minor changes, e.g.
> 
> - - a 1.8.1 release may have -version-info 0:1:0
> - - a 1.8.5 release might have -version-info 1:0:0
> 
> but all 1.8.x releases would have SONAME librutil-1.8.so
To be honest I don't see much reason to have different file names for libs
with the same soname as in the real world you end up using the newest one
anyway (I'm speaking only about ELFs on Linux though).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dh >= 9 builds strange debug-pkg

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:03:06AM +0200, Björn Esser wrote:
> Why does dh >= 9 (in paticular the latest version in sid) put the
> debugging-symbols in
> usr/lib/debug/.build-id/$(2-Byte-Random)/$(Random).debug when building
> a lib with multi-arch-support?
Because it uses NT_GNU_BUILD_ID field to identify the binary, not the
binary name. It's documented in debhelper(7) under v9 changes.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#676516: RFS: prelink/0.0.20090925-2 [QA]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal


Hello.

I request a fast QA upload of the prelink package with several patches
from the upstream VCS that fix the wine build. I want to have wine built
with this version (more precisely, with the version that produces proper
binaries, if this upload doesn't fix everything) in wheezy.

The package is available at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/prelink/prelink_0.0.20090925-2.dsc

http://bugs.debian.org/676390 tracks the problem with the current sid
version of the prelink package. http://bugs.debian.org/676246 tracks the
problem with wine caused by the problem with prelink. Both these bugs are
in Cc:.

$ debdiff prelink_0.0.20090925-1.dsc prelink_0.0.20090925-2.dsc |diffstat
 debian/patches/r187.dpatch |  124 +
 debian/patches/r188.dpatch |  104 
 debian/patches/r189.dpatch |   57 +
 debian/patches/r190.dpatch |   32 +++
 prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/changelog  |   11 ++
 prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/control|3 
 prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/patches/00list |4 
 7 files changed, 333 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

$ diffstat prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/patches/r187.dpatch 
prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/patches/r188.dpatch 
prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/patches/r189.dpatch 
prelink-0.0.20090925/debian/patches/r190.dpatch 
 dwarf2.c |   76 +--
 dwarf2.h |   31 +
 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

The changelog entry:

  * QA upload
  * debian/control: Set Maintainer: to the QA group, drop Uploaders:
  * debian/patches/: Add r187.dpatch, r188.dpatch, r189.dpatch and
r190.dpatch, cherry-picked from the upstream SVN
(svn://sourceware.org/svn/prelink), which define and handle several new
DWARF codes emitted by gcc > 4.5 (Closes: #676390)


I am aware of ITA #657967 and of work that is done by Daniel but I'm
afraid that it can miss wheezy while fixing wine actually requires only
relatively small changes to two files.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#659522: O: prelink -- ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:33:31AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> There are two RFS bugs for prelink, bug 659522 from Daniel Martí and bug 
> 676516
> from Andrey Rahmatullin.  Both RFS'es claim to have a package ready for
> sponsoring at mentors.
> 
> At first sight the package at mentors seems from Daniel Martí.
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/prelink
> Uploader: Daniel Martí 
> Uploaded: 2012-06-07 13:29
> 
> But it is from Andrey Rahmatullin.
There are both packages on that page.

> So sponsors sponsoring the package currently at mentors should be aware of 
> that
> this package is from Andrey Rahmatullin.
Sponsors should be aware that purposes of that two package versions are 
different.

> To limit further confusion I'm removing the block with Daniel Martí's RFS and
> adding a block with Andrey Rahmatullin's RFS.  I'm also closing Daniel Martí's
> RFS because there is currently no package to be sponsored from Daniel Martí.
> Also, I think that there should be only RFS per package at a time.
I don't think this was a good idea.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: unable to upload packages dsc files.. URGENCY

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 11:42:12AM -0430, PICCORO McKAY Lenz wrote:
> i try to upload my dsc packages and sources but i get key singin errors, i
> generated the 4096 key and put in debian mentors profile.. but when i
> upload this happened:
> 
> GnuPG signature check failed on XX.changes
> gpg: Signature made Fri May 18 23:24:18 2012 UTC using DSA key ID YYY
DSA 4096? I don't think so.

> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
Make sure you have used the same key as one you have uploaded.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#659522: RFS: prelink/0.0.20111012-1 [ITA] - ELF prelinking utility to speed up dynamic linking

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:13:16AM +0200, Daniel Martí wrote:
> Thanks for the QA upload. I'll repack my ITA as NMU and retitle this bug
> now. If I understand the process correctly, I should put the QA team as
> its maintainer, but leave myself in the changelog entry for this NMU,
> right?
Daniel, please also integrate the 0.0.20090925-2 upload into your package
(as its patches are obsolete for the new version, the only thing needed is
to add its changelog entry to your debian/changelog).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#659522: prelink - problems with 0.0.20090925-4

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:28:33PM +0200, Daniel Martí wrote:
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccH3oLmR.o: undefined reference to symbol 'bar'
> /usr/bin/ld: note: 'bar' is defined in DSO ./reloc1lib1.so so try adding
> it to the linker command line
> ./reloc1lib1.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> cp: cannot stat `reloc1': No such file or directory
> FAIL: reloc1.sh
The current Debian package doesn't run tests.

> There's about two pages of them, then fails and so doesn't build. The
> deb3 script is well able to convert all the patches with no errors,
> that's not the cause. This happens with 20111012-1 as well, in the exact
> same way. I've tried compat level 9 on both of them, both failed
> equally.
Unrelated. You probably uncommented running tests in build-stamp: or
changed testsuite/Makefile.* to run them on `make all`.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#678212: RFS: xboxdrv/0.8.4-1

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

 Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xboxdrv"

 * Package name: xboxdrv
   Version : 0.8.4-1
   Upstream Author : Ingo Ruhnke 
 * URL : http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/xboxdrv/
 * License : GPL-3+
   Section : utils

  It builds those binary packages:

xboxdrv- Xbox360 gamepad driver for the userspace

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/xboxdrv


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xboxdrv/xboxdrv_0.8.4-1.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

  * New upstream version
  * debian/patches/fix-xboxdrv-manpage.patch:
- update for the new upstream version
  * debian/compat:
- bump to 9
  * debian/control:
- bump Build-Depends for debhelper to >= 9
- bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (no change needed)
  * debian/patches/use-PATH.patch:
- use $PATH from the environment during the build to make use of ccache
  when it's available
  * debian/rules:
- pass CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS to scons
- enable all hardening options
  * debian/copyright:
- update the format URL
- update copyright years


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#678214: RFS: qmpdclient/1.2.2-2

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "qmpdclient"

 * Package name: qmpdclient
   Version : 1.2.2-2
   Upstream Author : Voker57 
 * URL : http://bitcheese.net/wiki/QMPDClient
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : sound

  It builds those binary packages:

qmpdclient - Qt4 client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmpdclient


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qmpdclient/qmpdclient_1.2.2-2.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

  * Fix fr_FR translation, patch by Cédric Boutillier (Closes: #640505)
  * Fix "Files: *" paragraph in debian/copyright
  * Switch to debhelper level 9
  * Enable all hardening options
  * Fix the 64x64 icon dimensions
  * Add a manpage
  * Bump Standards-Version: to 3.9.3 (no change needed)
  * Update the copyright format URL
  * Update copyright years


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#678414: RFS: dwarftherapist/0.6.12+hg20120621-1 [ITP]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dwarftherapist"

 * Package name: dwarftherapist
   Version : 0.6.12+hg20120621-1
   Upstream Author : Justin Ehlert 
 * URL : http://code.google.com/p/dwarftherapist/
 * License : Expat
   Section : contrib/utils

  It builds those binary packages:

dwarftherapist - Extension application for the game Dwarf Fortress

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/dwarftherapist

  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/d/dwarftherapist/dwarftherapist_0.6.12+hg20120621-1.dsc


Note that the package should be kept in sync with Dwarf Fortress releases (it
can be mitigated locally by finding new .ini somewhere and placing them into
appropriate locations but it is not very user-friendly) so ideally a
sponsor should be ready to regularly sponsor newer versions.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Copyright problems for the opensource reimplementation of a closed-source library (ITP #679504)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> I want the libary to be a fully compatible runtime and compile-time
> replacement for the closed-source one, so I have no choice but to use
> the exact same symbol names in my header. What I do is I take the
> header of the closed-source library, wipe out the comments and
> elaborated macros, and then implement all the functions of the exposed
> API in a .c file. As a consequence, there is very little actual
> difference between my header and the one of the closed-source library.
> 
> The question is: what copyright issues could I possibly be exposed to?
> I've been asking the question to wine developpers [1], who have to
> deal with the same kind of issues, but since I intent to package my
> work for debian, I would be more comfortable if someone confirmed me
> it is ok to do what I do, and if it is not, how I can fix it.
We are not lawyers, but see the recent Google v. Oracle lawsuit.
Of course that's only USA law and USA court, but you cannot get one answer
for the whole world.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Looking for an sponsor

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 09:27:15PM +1000, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
> I have been reading lots of documentation in the last days, and I believe
> that next thing I need to move forward is to find an sponsor.
> 
> I have some idea to get started:
>  - I have packaged a beanstalk python client, which does not exist in the
> debian repository. http://code.google.com/p/pybeanstalk/ (I have some
> warnings while doing debuild but it looks all right, maybe someone might
> would like to have a look ?)
I don't see an ITP for this package (and that would be one of your lintian
warnings, so please read them carefully).
If you want some reviews of your package, you need to publish it. We
recommend http://mentors.debian.net/ for this (though you are not required
to use it).

>  - I am willing to maintain PHP Code Sniffer, which is Orphaned (
> http://bugs.debian.org/679251 )
Start with retitiling this bug to ITA and contacting Thomas as stated in
the last email there.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: xinetd

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> could someone sponsor this?
> 
> http://galileo.dmi.unict.it/~ltworf/xinetd/
It's 403 so I cannot be sure it targets sid, but if it does, are you
aware of the freeze and its implications?


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: xinetd

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:28:56PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > could someone sponsor this?
> > > 
> > > http://galileo.dmi.unict.it/~ltworf/xinetd/
> > 
> > It's 403 
> 403?
All files yield 403 Forbidden.

> > so I cannot be sure it targets sid, but if it does, are you
> > aware of the freeze and its implications?
> Sure, it will stay in unstable for a while, is it a problem?
Updating a package in unstable during the freeze makes updating that
package in testing (if needed) more complicated.


P.S. No need to Cc: me.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: xinetd

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:57:12PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > Updating a package in unstable during the freeze makes updating that
> > package in testing (if needed) more complicated.
> Well it's not _STRICTLY_ needed for it to go into testing, the changes are 
> not 
> that important. 
I mean if the package that is now in testing will need to be updated with
some urgent fix, it won't be possible to upload the fix directly into unstable.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dpkg-source aborting due to unexpected upstream changes when run inside pbuilder

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:21:39PM -0400, Alex Korobkin wrote:
> 1. Download the source of my package: apt-get source liblcms2-2
Note that we don't have Ubuntu precies as our default repo so the command
doesn't do the same as for you. You mean dget
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/lcms2/lcms2_2.2+git20110628-2ubuntu3.dsc
This is important because the sid version doesn't have this problem.

> And then it all ends with a message claiming that dpkg-source detected
> changes to upstream due to the patches it applied itself earlier.
Wrong.
The changes are caused by the clean target and I get the same message just
by running dpkg-buildpackage in the unpacked source (even *before*
building).

>  dpkg-source -b lcms2-2.2+git20110628
> dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> dpkg-source: warning: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but
> Maintainer: does not have Ubuntu address
> dpkg-source: warning: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but
> there is no XSBC-Original-Maintainer field
> dpkg-source: info: building lcms2 using existing
> ./lcms2_2.2+git20110628.orig.tar.gz
> dpkg-source: warning: newly created empty file 'config.status' will
> not be represented in diff
> dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are:
>  lcms2-2.2+git20110628/Makefile
> 
> dpkg-source: info: you can integrate the local changes with dpkg-source 
> --commit
> dpkg-source: error: aborting due to unexpected upstream changes, see
> /tmp/lcms2_2.2+git20110628-2ubuntu3.diff.nAswlJ
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -b lcms2-2.2+git20110628 gave
> error exit status 2
> E: Failed autobuilding of package
> 
> 
> Why dpkg-source thinks the patches are a problem and shouldn't be applied?
It never said the patches are problem.
The problem is Makefile files that are regenerated by configure called in
the clean target.
That these files are patched by debian/patches/debian-changes-* is another
problem, caused by this one.

This problem was reported in September as #643177 and fixed in the Debian
package version 2.2+git20110628-2.1 in March.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dpkg-source aborting due to unexpected upstream changes when run inside pbuilder

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:51:58AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > The problem is Makefile files that are regenerated by configure called in
> > the clean target.
> > That these files are patched by debian/patches/debian-changes-* is another
> > problem, caused by this one.
> Sounds like a situation where I would get rid of the patch and switch
> to dh-autoreconf.
The patch is already dropped in sid, in fact it was never needed, it's
just the older dpkg being helpful and generating a crappy patch for you.

The (older) package runs ./configure; make clean in the clean target while
dh-autoreconf IIUC used for removing changes made in build targets. 
The current package replaces clean with distclean and doesn't have any
problems with repeated builds.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: tool to create .deb for proprietary software?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:46:08PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> Is there a tool to create a .deb from a directory of files? I am
> thinking of a Mathematica install I just had to perform and I'd rather
> put a .deb in our local repo and have clients pull it rather than
> manually installing this application on a bunch of computers.
Please check first that the installer only copies files, not does some
other things (calling some tools to modify some global configuration for
example). Otherwise you will need some manual work anyway.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: New Maintainer Question: Upgrade to Sid?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:33:52AM -0700, Eric wrote:
> I'm a new maintainer taking over the maintenance of an existing
> package. I have a question about the computer on which I'm creating
> the package. Should I upgrade it to sid or leave it at stable?
If you are able to live on sid, do it, as it will make a lot of things
easier (you will still need a clean sid shroot for some of them though). 

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mentors site: uploading fails - 403 Forbidden

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 01:12:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Can someone please let me know if this is my fault or a server issue?
There is already turnserver 0.6-1 on the mentors incoming queue, did you
try to upload it twice?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mentors site: uploading fails - 403 Forbidden

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> Can someone please let me know if this is my fault or a server
> >> issue?
> > There is already turnserver 0.6-1 on the mentors incoming queue,
> > did you try to upload it twice?
> Yes, I made another change and then tried to upload again
You cannot make a new upload until the old one has been processed.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mentors site: uploading fails - 403 Forbidden

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
>  Can someone please let me know if this is my fault or a server
>  issue?
> >>> There is already turnserver 0.6-1 on the mentors incoming queue,
> >>> did you try to upload it twice?
> >> Yes, I made another change and then tried to upload again
> > You cannot make a new upload until the old one has been processed.
> True, but the actual problem is #665986. Using FTP or getting dput to
> ignore HTTP/403 errors solves the problem for incomplete uploads.
This is not an incomplete upload, but a different upload with the same
version. I don't see why exiting with an error is not a desired behavior
here.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: shlib-calls-exit and the flex-generated function yy_fatal_error

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:47:49PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Overrides are discouraged for experimental/info level tags. Perhaps
> lintian could be modified to ignore this when the exit() occurs inside
> yy_fatal_error(), not sure how it detects this though.
By checking the symbol table, obviously, so no way.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Any idea how to write watch file for codeplex hosted sources?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:23:02PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I have spent some time into writing a watch file for
> 
> https://csb.codeplex.com/releases/
> 
> but failed and some research on mailing lists revealed some other
> failures.  Any idea whether a clever mangling might help anyway?
No, as you can't get a direct link to sources without JavaScript at all.
All you can get is a list of name-version strings with links to individual
download pages, and that won't help uscan.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Any idea how to write watch file for codeplex hosted sources?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:40:11PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I have spent some time into writing a watch file for
> > > 
> > > https://csb.codeplex.com/releases/
> > > 
> > > but failed and some research on mailing lists revealed some other
> > > failures.  Any idea whether a clever mangling might help anyway?
> > No, as you can't get a direct link to sources without JavaScript at all.
> > All you can get is a list of name-version strings with links to individual
> > download pages, and that won't help uscan.
> 
> Sorry, but that's not true.  The source of the https response above
> contains
> 
> https://csb.codeplex.com/downloads/get/466454
> 
> as direct link and it delivers the tarball in question after some
> seconds of delay.
That's JS.

> The line of html code that contains this link also
> contains the version number as link content so finally some mangling
> should work.
That's JS too.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: shlib-calls-exit and the flex-generated function yy_fatal_error

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:10:58PM +0100, Erik Sjölund wrote:
> I got rid of the shlib-calls-exit by letting CMake replace the exit()
> call with an abort call(). 
That sounds very wrong.

> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13364139/lintian-reports-shlib-calls-exit-from-flex-generated-source-code-when-building-a
It also looks horribly.
Also, it's a wrong question: you don't need to "modify the DEB package so
that the lintian will stop reporting shlib-calls-exit", you need to fix
the error, if you don't want to ignore it, and you didn't fix the error.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dhrystone package looking for a sponsor

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:30:22PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I packaged the Dhrystone benchmark for Debian, as I coulnd't find a
> package for it:
> 
> https://github.com/qris/dhrystone-deb
> 
> And I'd like to find a sponsor to check and maybe upload it for me.
> Thanks in advance.
Please publish it as a source package somewhere (preferably on
mentors.debian.net). Also, you don't seem to have fixed all lintian
warnings (I didn't try lintian, I'm looking at the source files). Also,
did you read your README.source? Also, the licensing is questionable.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dhrystone package looking for a sponsor

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:17:25PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The warnings and errors are:
> 
> W: dhrystone: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
> W: dhrystone: description-synopsis-starts-with-article
> E: dhrystone: section-is-dh_make-template
> W: dhrystone: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/dhry

> I have created a bug and modified the changelog to reference it. How
> should I write the description synopsis? 
Not starting with an article.

> What section of what is a dh_make template? 
It is a control field.

> I don't have a manpage for dhry.
Consider writing it.

These answers are contained in the lintian tag descriptions, you should
read them before asking.


Also, you should run lintian with -I -E --pedantic to get the full set of
messages.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#694817: RFS: mcelog/1.0~snapshot20121127-1~exp1 [ITA]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

 Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mcelog"

 * Package name: mcelog
   Version : 1.0~snapshot20121127-1~exp1
   Upstream Author : Andi Kleen 
 * URL : http://mcelog.org/download.html
 * License : GPL-2
   Section : admin

  It builds those binary packages:

mcelog - x86 Machine Check Exceptions collector and decoder

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/mcelog


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mcelog/mcelog_1.0~snapshot20121127-1~exp1.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

  * New upstream snapshot
+ Don't call all unsupported systems "new" (Closes: #676573)
  * Upload to experimental
  * Adopt the package (Closes: #688540)
  * Switch to debhelper v9 and to dh(1)
  * Rewrite debian/copyright in the machine-readable format, mention the
license of rbtree.*
  * Add the Homepage field
  * Add the Vcs-* fields
  * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.4 (no change needed)
  * Fix a spelling error
  * Escape hyphens in the manpage
  * Add proper Default-Stop: to the initscript


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: git-buildpackage: can it recreate the orig.tar.gz without the pristine-tar?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 01:44:55PM +0100, Miguel Telleria de Esteban wrote:
> Why does git-buildpackage need pristine-tar to generate the orig.tar.gz
> file?.
It doesn't and it's even not enabled by default.

> Can't it just pick the contents from the upstream branch
> together with version number from debian/changelog and regenerate the
> orig.tar.gz from it?
That's the default workflow.

> RESULT:
> 
>the orig.tar.gz does not get created in the build area 
What errors do you get?

> EXPECTED RESULT (that I can reproduce manually)
>-  checkout temporarily the upstream branch
>-  generate an .orig.tar.gz from it and move it to the build-area
>-  checkout again the debian branch
>-  proceed as normal
> 
>  and it works !!
> 
> so why does not git-buildpackage do this?
It does.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: git-buildpackage: can it recreate the orig.tar.gz without the pristine-tar?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 03:30:09PM +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> In my limited experience if the upstream project uses git already and
> _tags_ stable releases it is very easy to avoid using pristine-tar
It's also very easy to avoid it in any other workflow: just don't enable
it. There is no difference between tags on a branch with upstream commits
and tags made by git-import-orig, and if the upstream doesn't tag
releases, you can tag them. This all is unrelated to pristine-tar.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Using ccache with git-buildpackage

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Hello. I use git-buildpackage and want to use ccache. I tried exporting
overriden CC and PATH, but that had no effect and `echo' in debian/rules
shows that both variables are reverted to the defaults. Does
git-buildpackage clear the environment? How can I use ccache in this
configuration?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DEP5 and multiple copyrights for same file

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Jean Schurger wrote:
> Another question: is there a sort of inheritance ? like:
> 
> --
> Files: directory/*.c
> Copyright: 2004-2010, Somebody
> License: GPL-2
>  See /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2.
> 
> Files directory/foo.c
> Copyright: 1984, Another Guy
> Licemse: other
>  Other license bla, bla, bla.
> --
> 
> As foo.c match '*.c' and 'foo.c', is that "clear enough" that it's under
> the copyrights ?
It's clear enough that only the latest entry applies: "Multiple Files
paragraphs are allowed. The last paragraph that matches a particular file
applies to it."

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: openteacher

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 02:29:17PM +0530, Arvind S Raj wrote:
>  Oh I didn't know that! Made the necessary changes! And one question-is it
> possible to view the files in a particular git repository via the browser?
> Navigating to http://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/openteacher.git/ didn't
> help much. Is there such a provision?
http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/openteacher.git;a=summary
It's already in your debian/control as Vcs-Browser:

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: openteacher

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 03:13:26PM +0530, Arvind S Raj wrote:
> > http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/openteacher.git;a=summary
> > It's already in your debian/control as Vcs-Browser:
> Thanks Andrey! That link is invalid; updated it to the right one! Wouldn't
> have even guess it was wrong :).
Really? That link is valid.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Renaming and gzipping upstream changelog

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:10:24PM -0400, Scott Howard wrote:
> In your debian rules file you can use:
> dh_installchangelogs -k {your_changelog_filename}
> 
> (the -k is to keep the upstream changelog file name and symlink it to
> changelog.gz, feel free to drop it if you wish, it will rename the
> file changelog.gz)
> 
> or, if using dh7 style rules:
> override_dh_installchangelogs:
> [tab] dh_installchangelogs -k {your_changelog_filename}
"If none is specified, it looks for files with names that seem likely to be
changelogs. (In compatibility level 7 and above.)"
So explicit dh_installchangelogs doesn't need additional arguments and dh
tiny rules will do everything automatically (if the file is named
Changelog or ChangeLog).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: Renaming and gzipping upstream changelog

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Michele Gastaldo wrote:
> > > In your debian rules file you can use:
> > > dh_installchangelogs -k {your_changelog_filename}
> > > 
> > > (the -k is to keep the upstream changelog file name and symlink it to
> > > changelog.gz, feel free to drop it if you wish, it will rename the
> > > file changelog.gz)
> > > 
> > > or, if using dh7 style rules:
> > > override_dh_installchangelogs:
> > > [tab] dh_installchangelogs -k {your_changelog_filename}
> > 
> > "If none is specified, it looks for files with names that seem likely to be
> > changelogs. (In compatibility level 7 and above.)"
> > So explicit dh_installchangelogs doesn't need additional arguments and dh
> > tiny rules will do everything automatically (if the file is named
> > Changelog or ChangeLog).
> For some reason, it doesn't seem to work like that. I had to specify an 
> override for dh_installchangelogs.
It works for me without the override for
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kpartsplugin/kpartsplugin_20101216-1.dsc
on current sid.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: what if upstream provides debian build directory

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You can also suggest to upstream that they include the debian
> directory in a examples directory or similar, so that it doesn't get
> in the way of packaging (or just not distribute it in the main package
> at all.)
See also http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#PristineUpstreamSource

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: udisks-glue

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:01:00PM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
>  - In debian/copyright, the Format header should contain the versioned
>DEP5 URL [1]. And you could avoid repeating the BSD-2-clause license
>text by using a standalone license paragraph. Also, you should not
>duplicate the Copyright line in the License header; this information
>is already in the Copyright header (I mean remove lines 10-11 and
>38).
> 
>[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=173
Shouldn't that be http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ ?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RFC/RFS: hg-fast-export

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Hi all.

I've packaged hg-fast-export (ITP#574914), it is uploaded to
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=hg-fast-export
and http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/hg-fast-export.git;a=summary

I've seeking not only a sponsor, but, more importantly, any comments. The
package is used incrementally import/convert Mercurial repositories to git
and I've packaged it to be able to store upstream hg history in a git.d.o
repository. If there are more comfortable ways to do that, I'd be glad to
use them.

If there is no such ways, this package looks very useful to many people
who also want to store upstream history in git (there was a small thread
on -devel@ several days ago about this). In this case I do not want to
upload a low-quality package so I want reviews or even maintainership
help/takeover.

Here is short tutorial for the mentioned use case:

hg clone http://hgrepo/ ~/hg/foo
mkdir ~/git/foo; cd ~/git/foo
git init
hg-fast-export -r ~/hg/foo -o upstream

Now we have upstream branches as upstream/branchname git branches and
upstream tags as git tags. To import newer commits, one does hg pull in
~/hg/foo and repeats hg-fast-export invocation in ~/git/foo.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: hg-fast-export

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 06:30:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Is there no git-svn style way to interact with hg repos through git?
From the docs:

The way the hg API and remote access protocol is designed it is not
possible to use hg-fast-export on remote repositories
(http/ssh). First clone the repository, then convert it.

And I haven't seen yet another software which can be used instead of
hg-fast-export (see also
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Interfaces,_frontends,_and_tools#Mercurial
).

> Having a separate hg repo that I have to deal with is a bit sub-optimal,
> I'd prefer a hypothetical git-hg to create the hg repo under .git and
> manage it for me when I do `git fetch` or whatever.
Well, there is https://github.com/offbytwo/git-hg , it is a 120-lines
shell script which uses (bundled) hg-fast-export and seems to create a hg
repo at .git/hgcheckout, but I didn't try it.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: hg-fast-export

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:03:09AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Well, there is https://github.com/offbytwo/git-hg , it is a 120-lines
> shell script which uses (bundled) hg-fast-export and seems to create a hg
> repo at .git/hgcheckout, but I didn't try it.
I've tried git-hg from https://github.com/barak/git-hg and filed an ITP
for it.
It can be used as git-hg clone http://hgrepo/ hgrepo and then git-hg
fetch, but it apparently doesn't offer anything to people who clone the
resulting git repo and want to update it from the upstream hg.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: hg-fast-export

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 07:33:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> The git-remote-hg project seems like a much more natural way to
> interact with remote hg repositories. I saw some evidence on the git
> list and wiki that git-remote-foo is the way forward for foreign VCS
> support in git. There was even a GSoC project to get git-remote-svn
> into git. No idea about when it or git-remote-hg will be complete
> though.
Yes, I've got some responses about it on debian-devel@ / #622172.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: hg-fast-export

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:29:35PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > Well, there is https://github.com/offbytwo/git-hg , it is a 120-lines
> > shell script which uses (bundled) hg-fast-export and seems to create a hg
> > repo at .git/hgcheckout, but I didn't try it.
> I've tried git-hg from https://github.com/barak/git-hg and filed an ITP
> for it.
> It can be used as git-hg clone http://hgrepo/ hgrepo and then git-hg
> fetch, but it apparently doesn't offer anything to people who clone the
> resulting git repo and want to update it from the upstream hg.
git-hg and hg-fast-export are in NEW (by git-hg author, bap@).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RFS: librsync (updated package)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.7-8
of my package "librsync".

It builds these binary packages:
librsync-dbg - rsync remote-delta algorithm library (debug)
librsync-dev - rsync remote-delta algorithm library (development)
librsync1  - rsync remote-delta algorithm library
rdiff  - Binary diff tool for signature-based differences

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The upload would fix these bugs: 543849, 608470, 622495

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/librsync
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
contrib non-free
- dget 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/librsync/librsync_0.9.7-8.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Andrey Rahmatullin

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Workflow with debian/ in VCS

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:46:00AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Am I missing a tool? 
svn users use svn-buildpackage to store only debian/ in VCS, so yes.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licensing question

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 06:18:17PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
> > If you link against code which links against OpenSSL, IANAL, but I think
> > you also need to have the exception in your own code.
> So you mean add this exception in debian/copyright? 
No, you can't change the upstream license. If this exception is already
present in the upstream license, all is OK, otherwise the upstream needs
to add it, you can't do that yourself.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:39:57PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> The first one is the config.sub replacement. What about using something
> like the following for your configure target:
> set -e; if ! [ -f config/config.sub.backup ]; then \
> mv config/config.sub config/config.sub.backup; \
> ln -s /usr/share/misc/config.sub config/config.sub; \
> fi
> 
> And kind of the reverse for the clean target.
autotools_dev dh addon and related executables (from autotools-dev
package) are made specifically for this purpose.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:29:49PM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote:
> Will this upload resolve the problem of compiling only
> to linux and kfreebsd and exclude hurd-i386 architecture?
> I changed Architecture Field from any to linux-any.
kfreebsd is not linux so setting linux-any you excluded it.
I think you need to narrow the arch field only when the code *fails to
compile* because, for example, of some linux-only syscall. When it doesn't
build because of missing build-deps, that may change in the future so I
don't do anything (I'm quite new to Debian packaging so I may be wrong
though).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: librsync (updated package)

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:27:56PM +0800, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.7-8
> > of my package "librsync".
> The package looks good.
> Have you found a sponsor?
Not yet.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Git and tarballs

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 03:12:41PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Does pristine-tar work if the upstream branch contains files which have been 
> removed during repack?
Unfortunately the directory and the tarball must have identical contents.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Git and tarballs

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Does pristine-tar work if the upstream branch contains files which have 
> > > been 
> > > removed during repack?
> > Unfortunately the directory and the tarball must have identical contents.
> 
> That's not true, but the larger the difference the larger the delta file
> will be.
How can I create this delta? The man page says only about creating a delta
for a tarball without a directory.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please try expo.debian.net -- a replacement for mentors.debian.net

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:53:48PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> > But after dput, may be explain the process ? Both, briefly the before
> > debexpo uploading workflow ? Imo, to have a little tuto on packaging
> > on this website will be great. :)
> Really? I think there are many documents on how to create a Debian
> package and from my point of view is not necessary to replicate once
> again them on expo.d.n.
> It's just my opinion :-)
Well, links to the policy and maint-guide won't hurt.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please try expo.debian.net -- a replacement for mentors.debian.net

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:41:37PM +0200, benoît tuduri wrote:
> I have seen this notice on the website for dput command, thanks :) .
> But after dput, may be explain the process ? Both, briefly the before
> debexpo uploading workflow ? Imo, to have a little tuto on packaging
Do you mean the process of finding a sponsor or a description of a package
life following the upload to the site?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: aescrypt

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:16:23PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> * License : gpl3
No, it's GPL2+ for aes.c and sha256.c and non-free "freeware" license (not
explicitly allowing modification) for other files.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: aescrypt

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 06:13:52AM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> My motivation for maintaining this package is: [fill in].
Huh?

> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aescrypt
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aescrypt/aescrypt_3.05-1.dsc
You don't have a git repo (even though Vcs-* is filled in) so I couldn't 
find what exactly did you change from the last upload, but looks like you
changed only "GPL3" to "GPL2" in one place of debian/copyright, making it 
even worse. And it seems you didn't ask the authors about licenses, as
I've suggested several times.

According to http://forums.packetizer.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=92 , the 
non-GPL files are really non-GPL, so you can only ask the upstream to 
clarify the license, because apparently they wanted to use some permissive
one, but failed. Without this, the package cannot enter the Debian
archive.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RFS: gkrellm-gkrellmpc

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gkrellm-gkrellmpc".

 * Package name: gkrellm-gkrellmpc
   Version : 0.1~beta10-2
   Upstream Author : Mina Naguib 
 * URL : http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Client:GKrellMPC
 * License : GPL-2
   Section : sound

It builds those binary packages:

gkrellm-gkrellmpc - GKrellM plugin for controlling MPD

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/gkrellm-gkrellmpc

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gkrellm-gkrellmpc/gkrellm-gkrellmpc_0.1~beta10-2.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards,

Andrey Rahmatullin

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RFS: qmpdclient

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "qmpdclient".

 * Package name: qmpdclient
   Version : 1.2.2-1
   Upstream Author : Voker57 
 * URL : http://bitcheese.net/wiki/QMPDClient
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : sound

It builds those binary packages:

qmpdclient - Qt4 client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/qmpdclient

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qmpdclient/qmpdclient_1.2.2-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards,

Andrey Rahmatullin

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cavalry

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Misha Strong wrote:
> I've just written my own program, and I'd like it added to your distro.
I've already filed two ITPs: #637761, #639366. That means that you are
going to make a Debian package for this software. If that is true, did you
make the package?

> Cavalry: synchronize documents with an FTP server.
> 
> [Input] This program takes the name of a folder on your system, and
> recursively scans all OpenOffice and MS-Word documents within it. It
> also includes any ASCII-text files available.
> 
> [Processing] Then the daemon checks file access times, and also looks
> for changes to their data. As necessary, they are copied to the server:
> 
> [Output] The IP address or DNS of an existing FTP server is read from
> the config file. In an efficient and reliable manner, all data are
> transferred to same. Finally, the entire process is repeated with your
> remote server as [Input], and your own hard drive as [Output] --
> basically in reverse.
I'm not going to comment on usability or usefulness of the software, but
both these things are questionable.
Also, the software has no homepage, no source and no description outside
the ITPs and this email.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cavalry

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 09:41:08PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Misha Strong wrote:
> > I've just written my own program, and I'd like it added to your distro.
> I've already filed two ITPs: #637761, #639366. 
I meant "you've".

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cavalry

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:40:27AM +0200, Misha Strong wrote:
> You guys say that my app. won't be very useful, why is that? It provides
> a good way for people with low-quality connections to access remote
> data.
It's hard to say anything specific without seeing the source.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flashcache - call for resolution / seeking for a mentor

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:21:00PM +1000, onlyjob wrote:
> Could someone please kindly have a look at the package I've made
> (and provide comments)?
You didn't fix Vcs-* per Arno comments in the ITP bug.

What is "This has to be exported to make some magic below work." (before
'export DH_OPTIONS')?

You dont need --with quilt and quilt Build-Dep with 3.0 (quilt) and lintian
tells you that.

If "At the moment this version works only on x86_64 a.k.a. amd64" why
Architecture: linux-any?

Some files under utils/ are 2-BSD and it is useful to document that in
debian/copyright. It may be better to convert debian/copyright to
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ format at least in this case.
Also, I think "Based on DM-Cache: Copyright (C) International Business
Machines Corp., 2006" should be reflected in debian/copyright too.

The patch lacks author information (did you see
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ ? it suggests adding other useful
information to patch headers).

> The package I need someone to look at is "flashcache" uploaded to
> mentors.debian.net
The usual practice is to provide at least an URL of .dsc.
It's
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/flashcache/flashcache_1.0~20110920132357-1.dsc

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flashcache - call for resolution / seeking for a mentor

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:13:33PM +1000, onlyjob wrote:
> > You didn't fix Vcs-* per Arno comments in the ITP bug.
> I can't quite do it yet because I have no public repository.
Then remove the tags. They are optional.
> Given that our only option is merge, it looks like there will be no
> second repository.

> > What is "This has to be exported to make some magic below work." (before
> > 'export DH_OPTIONS')?
> Hmm, apparently a remnants after dh_make
No, looks like a blind copy-paste.

> > If "At the moment this version works only on x86_64 a.k.a. amd64" why
> > Architecture: linux-any?
> That is an interesting question.
> We believe that upstream may eventually fix that.
> 
> I remember reading discussion on this some time ago, regarding
> different package with similar problem.
> It was suggested that limiting package for the only architecture as
> workaround for upstream bugs is not recommended
> because package may be ported to a different architecture etc. I had
> impression that if package meant to be useful on linux-any
> it should be a target architecture despite know problems with some
> particular architectures.
> Please correct me on this - what's the best practice?
Why it doesn't work on other architectures? Does it build there? Is the
not working of a "doesn't launch" kind or "works but sometimes crashes"
kind? Can it corrupt user data because of this?


> > The patch lacks author information (did you see
> > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ ? it suggests adding other useful
> > information to patch headers).
> No I did not - thank you very much for the hint.
I've asked this because you have Description tag in the patch header.
Usually manually created patches don't have any metadata at all.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: package errors requiring human judgment to detect?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 02:10:39PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> * Check (build-)dependencies
>   + Are all dependencies declared? In particular: Does the package make
> use of external commands/includes only insofar they are (build-)essential?
>   + Can they be satisfied in main?
>   + Are they properly versioned if required?
> * Does the package build cleanly two times in a row
That can be automatically tested but requires more than a text analyzer.

> * Can the package be upgraded, removed, purged
I think there is a tool for it.

> * Does the watch file work (if any)
This requires network access but can be tested automatically, isn't it?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildings fails due to missing link against gzclose

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 05:34:41PM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> we are trying to build the Gummi (LaTeX editor with preview pane) 0.6 beta 
> with Pdebuilder (Sid) on
> Ubuntu Oneiric, but the building fails due to a missing link against 
> 'gzclose' (Zlib) - please see
> the build log: http://paste.debian.net/143237/
That's because -lz was not specified in the link command.
>
> I've contacted the developers, and they added the reference to the upstream:
> http://dev.midnightcoding.org/redmine/projects/gummi/repository/diff?rev=1032&rev_to=1031
> but it still fails to build and we're stuck a little here.
I don't see how can this patch help as -lz still is not used in the link
command. $(zlib_LIBS) needs to be added to gummi_LDADD in src/Makefile.am.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildings fails due to missing link against gzclose

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 05:23:10PM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> Info: the problem vanished when I've builded with other builders than 
> pbuilder.
pbuilder was created to be able to build in a controlled environment. No
wonder that some errors are not present in uncontrolled environments, but
that doesn't mean they do not exist at all.
gummi-0.5.999-svn1032.tar.gz cannot be built on my sid system even without
pbuilder.

> Greetings,
> Daniel Stender
> 
> On 06.11.2011 22:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 05:34:41PM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> >> we are trying to build the Gummi (LaTeX editor with preview pane) 0.6 beta 
> >> with Pdebuilder
> >> (Sid) on Ubuntu Oneiric, but the building fails due to a missing link 
> >> against 'gzclose'
> >> (Zlib) - please see the build log: http://paste.debian.net/143237/
> > That's because -lz was not specified in the link command.
> >> 
> >> I've contacted the developers, and they added the reference to the 
> >> upstream: 
> >> http://dev.midnightcoding.org/redmine/projects/gummi/repository/diff?rev=1032&rev_to=1031
> >>  but
> >> it still fails to build and we're stuck a little here.
> > I don't see how can this patch help as -lz still is not used in the link 
> > command. $(zlib_LIBS)
> > needs to be added to gummi_LDADD in src/Makefile.am.
> 
> 

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What to do if there's already a debian-dir inside the .orig.tar?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:15:35AM -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> You can simply ignore it; there's no need to repack the tarball just
> to remove the debian dir. dpkg-buildpackage (or your favourite
> wrapper) will remove the debian dir inside the original tarball and
> use yours at build time.
This is true only for 3.0 (quilt) format.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Buildings fails due to missing link against gzclose

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:06:00PM +0100, Daniel Stender wrote:
> >> Info: the problem vanished when I've builded with other builders than 
> >> pbuilder.
> > pbuilder was created to be able to build in a controlled environment. No 
> > wonder that some
> > errors are not present in uncontrolled environments, but that doesn't mean 
> > they do not exist at
> > all. gummi-0.5.999-svn1032.tar.gz cannot be built on my sid system even 
> > without pbuilder.
> 
> Thanks for the comment.
> 
> Would you please try if it fails also with latest packet:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gummi/gummi_0.5.999-svn1045-1.dsc
> and would you send me build log if it fails again?
It does, with the same error.

gcc -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include   -pthread
-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gtk-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0
-I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2
-I/usr/include/libpng12 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include   -pthread
-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gtk-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0
-I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2
-I/usr/include/libpng12 -I/usr/include/gtksourceview-2.0
-I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include   -pthread
-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gtk-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0 -I/usr/include/pixman-1
-I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0
-I/usr/include/poppler/glib -I/usr/include/poppler -I/usr/include/glib-2.0
-I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/cairo
-I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/   -pthread -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0
-I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0
-I/usr/include/gdk-pixbuf-2.0 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0
-I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12
-I/usr/include/gtkspell-2.0 -I/usr/include/cairo
-I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0/ -I/usr/include/glib-2.0
-I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include   -export-dynamic -Wall -O2
-DDATADIR=\"/usr/share/gummi\" -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -g -O2
-Wl,--as-needed -o gummi biblio.o configfile.o editor.o environment.o
texlive.o latexmk.o rubber.o gui-menu.o gui-tabmanager.o gui-import.o
gui-main.o gui-prefs.o gui-preview.o gui-search.o gui-snippets.o
gui-infoscreen.o gui-project.o synctex_parser.o synctex_parser_utils.o
importer.o iofunctions.o external.o project.o latex.o motion.o signals.o
snippets.o template.o update.o utils.o tabmanager.o main.o -lglib-2.0
-pthread -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgio-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0
-lpangocairo-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lcairo -lpango-1.0 -lfreetype
-lfontconfig -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0
-pthread -lgtksourceview-2.0 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0
-lgio-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lpangocairo-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lcairo
-lpango-1.0 -lfreetype -lfontconfig -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0
-lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0   -pthread -lpoppler-glib -lgdk-x11-2.0
-lpoppler -lpangocairo-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lpango-1.0 -lcairo
-lgmodule-2.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0   -pthread
-lgtkspell -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgio-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0
-lpangocairo-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lcairo -lpango-1.0 -lfreetype
-lfontconfig -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglib-2.0

/usr/bin/ld: synctex_parser.o: undefined reference to symbol 'gzclose'
/usr/bin/ld: note: 'gzclose' is defined in DSO /usr/lib/libz.so.1 so try
adding it to the linker command line
/usr/lib/libz.so.1: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

There is still no -lz here. There is still nothing in src/Makefile.am that
could add -lz to the link command.

If it fails on your pbuilder with latest sid, why are you asking others to
double-check this? It should be enough proof for you that the software is
still not fixed.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [update]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:49:32PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-ipcalc".
> 
>  * Package name: python-ipcalc
>Version : 0.3-2
>Upstream Author : Wijnand Modderman 
>  * URL : http://dev.tehmaze.com/projects/ipcalc
> 
>  * License : MIT
>Section : python
> 
> It builds those binary packages:
> 
> python-ipcalc - perform IP subnet calculations
> 
> To access further information about this package, please visit the
> following URL:
> 
>   http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-ipcalc
> 
> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
> 
>   dget -x 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-ipcalc/python-ipcalc_0.3-2.dsc
I: python-ipcalc source: quilt-patch-missing-description network.patch
I: python-ipcalc source: quilt-patch-missing-description hex_toipv4.patch
W: python-ipcalc source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff pkg-info

Current Standards-Version is 3.9.2.

The extended description starts with a lowercase letter.

"The Debian packaging" including patches is GPL3 while the software itself
is MIT so the resulting product must be GPL3. Years in the copyright do
not include 2011.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [update]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 02:31:36PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> updated but still have a warning, please take a look at it
Your diff.gz creates python-ipcalc-0.3/pkg-info.
Patch headers should be in DEP-3 form, though this is not a requirement.
License issues still exist.
README.source seems redundant.
Description still contains lowercase letters (and paragraphs should be
separated by an "empty" line).
Homepage is 404.

> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, mezgani ali  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Wilk  wrote:
> >
> >> * mezgani ali , 2011-11-09, 12:49:
> >>
> >>   
> >> http://mentors.debian.net/**package/python-ipcalc
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
> >>>
> >>>  dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/**debian/pool/main/p/python-**
> >>> ipcalc/python-ipcalc_0.3-2.dsc
> >>>
> >>
> >> (I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
> >>
> >> Lintian says:
> >> I: python-ipcalc source: quilt-patch-missing-**description network.patch
> >> I: python-ipcalc source: quilt-patch-missing-**description
> >> hex_toipv4.patch
> >> W: python-ipcalc source: patch-system-but-direct-**changes-in-diff
> >> pkg-info
> >>
> >> These files should not be in diff.gz:
> >> debian/.pc/.quilt_patches
> >> debian/.pc/.quilt_series
> >> debian/.pc/.version
> >>
> >> I create the package using debuild, so may i remoce .pc from debian
> > directory and run debuild ?
> >
> >
> >> Current standards version is 3.9.2.
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [update]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:33:09PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> > > updated but still have a warning, please take a look at it
> > Your diff.gz creates python-ipcalc-0.3/pkg-info.
> Please can you explain me this point ?
> What is the problem with diff.gz ?
Did you read the description of patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff
lintian tag?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [update]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 04:54:34PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> All job is done Andrey, what do you think ?
You've renamed README.Debian to README.source.

debian/patches/01_network.patch: 
- Why Forwarded: not-needed?
- Origin: states that the patch was taken from #533437, this is not true
- Bug-Debian: states that #533437 is related to the patch, this is not
  true either

debian/patches/02_hextoipv4.patch:
- Again, why Forwarded: not-needed?

debian/copyright:
- License: GPL-3 but text for MIT? Anyway, I'd suggest you to relicense
  your work to MIT rather than put additional burden on the package users
  by changing the package license.
- The Debian packaging is: Copyright (C) 2011? What about 2009?

debian/control: Description still starts from lowercase letters.

> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:33:09PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> > > > > updated but still have a warning, please take a look at it
> > > > Your diff.gz creates python-ipcalc-0.3/pkg-info.
> > > Please can you explain me this point ?
> > > What is the problem with diff.gz ?
> > Did you read the description of patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff
> > lintian tag?
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [update]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 03:36:40PM +, mezgani ali wrote:
> Why may i rename my work to MIT ?
Because you have the copyright.

> please explain , if i understand i have to remove GPL-3 and let the
> package licence as is it
What should I explain?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: How to rebuild a package with full source upload?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 02:17:27PM +0100, With No Name wrote:
> in the changes/upload file I have only those three files, but I need the
> 
> package_1.2.3.tar.gz
> 
> too.  How do I do this?
Add -sa to the build command you use.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: regarding lintain errors in my package

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:12:27PM +0530, karunakar medamoni wrote:
> i was uploaded one package scl-sandhi  to mentors.debian.net please
> check lintain errors and suggest me how to remove those error from my
> package.
Did you read the descriptions of these tags?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: content of a package on repo

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:24:50PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> 2012/12/22 Vincent Cheng :
> > dpkg-deb -x systemtap-sdt-dev_1.7-1+b1_amd64.deb .
> 
> This only lists the contents without unpacking:
> deb -I systemtap-sdt-dev_1.7-1+b1_amd64.deb
ITYM dpkg-deb
Also, -c only lists the contents.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: content of a package on repo

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:59:11PM +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote:
> >>>dpkg-deb -x systemtap-sdt-dev_1.7-1+b1_amd64.deb .
> >>
> >>This only lists the contents without unpacking:
> >>deb -I systemtap-sdt-dev_1.7-1+b1_amd64.deb
> >ITYM dpkg-deb
> >Also, -c only lists the contents.
> 
> I was wondering about the same a while ago (how to list files of a
> package in the repository) so I think it's worth adding to the the
> list's FAQ:
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#How_do_I_list_the_content_of_a_package
FWIW I don't think this question is related to -mentors and packaging and
I think in the ideal world packagers would be familiar with Debian enough
to know how to use dpkg-deb or at least where to search for a command to
list .deb contents.
Unfortunately, in the real world packagers sometimes don't know how to
file bugs.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lintian warning hardening-no-fortify-functions in dualword project...

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 09:40:54PM +0300, Alexander Busorguin wrote:
> It was caused by calls to Festival functions, for example: void
> festival_tidy_up();
(because -lFestival is static-only)

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I'm so frustrated trying to adopt a package, I could scream.

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 10:29:49PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > It's ITA, not ITP, and you forgot to retitle and claim the bug..
> I don't see how I'm supposed to do that?
> 
> I'm pasting in what I see when I run reportbug in an Emacs shell.
You use reportbug to report bugs. You use the email interface (directly or
via bts(1)) for everything else.
And if you are going to maintain packages in Debian you are supposed to
read http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer and
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control (linked from
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/). Maybe places more likely to be read by new
contributors should have more info on that but be prepared that most
places won't.

> There's no ITA option here.
Right, ITA bugs are made from RFA/O bugs.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: I'm so frustrated trying to adopt a package, I could scream.

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:45:42PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I appreciate your time.  I had tried the email to control as my first
> method, but there was no response, no success or error.
That's strange. Make sure you've sent the email to the proper address.

> So after reading through the debian mentors pages here,
> http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers, where it says that the
> reportbug system is the preferred way
It doesn't say that and it doesn't talk about managing bugs anyway.

> Now I'm registered on the upload website and I have isolated a
> possible explanation for my troubles. I've got a lot of different
> emails, the one that my package signing key refers to is
> pauljoh...@freefaculty.org.  But in the message to control, I tried to
> use my gmail address.  I suppose also the control email may check my
> "from" address to make sure it is the one I am registered with.
First, the BTS is not related to mentors.d.n. Second, you can use any
email when interacting with the BTS, there is no registration there.

> If I ever do succeed with this, I'm going to come back and start a big
> argument with you all.  This process is badly designed.  If Debian
> wants people to maintain packages, why not make adoption simpler?  The
> package itself is the important part, any other hassle is pure dead
> weight on the Debian development process :(
I agree with Jeremy here and it's sad to see that people who want to
maintain packages often never used the BTS, even for reporting bugs. While
this may mean insufficient familiarity with Debian, first of all it means
the maintainer will have problems with managing bugs in the packages they
maintain.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Watch file help needed

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> the watch file of the prospective package meme[1] is reporting a new
> version but fails to download the latest version (4.9.0.4).  It was
> working nicely with version 4.9.0.3.  I just get:
For the reference:

opts="uversionmangle=s/_/./" \
  ftp://ftp.ebi.edu.au/pub/software/MEME/index.html .*/meme_([\d\._]+)\.tar\.gz


> $ uscan --verbose --force-download
> ...
>  3.5.1/meme_3.5.1.tar.gz
>  3.5.0/meme_3.5.0.tar.gz
> Newest version on remote site is 4.9.0.4, local version is 4.9.0.3
>  => Forcing download as requested
> -- Downloading updated package meme_4.9.0_4.tar.gz
> uscan warning: In directory ., downloading
>   ftp://ftp.ebi.edu.au/pub/software/MEME/index.html4.9.0/meme_4.9.0_4.tar.gz 
> failed: 404 Can't chdir to index.html4.9.0
This is more or less expected, as the uscan(1) manpage says that the
format with a separate downloads list page is HTTP-only. It's unexpected
that it is able to report the latest version though.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Packaging virtual machine images .ova?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 03:57:57AM +, adrelanos wrote:
> Many users having trouble downloading the (rather big) images. (Download
> corruption, network breakdown...)

[...]

> If it could be installed with a "apt-get install whonix", that would be
> much better than manually downloading.
Not really. How would that be different?
There are also other problems, but if you want to make a package that will
not be part of Debian, you can make a very simple one that just takes a
file and installs it into some location,.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Packaging virtual machine images .ova?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 06:30:27AM +, adrelanos wrote:
> >> Many users having trouble downloading the (rather big) images.
> >> (Download
> >> corruption, network breakdown...)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> If it could be installed with a "apt-get install whonix", that would
> >> be
> >> much better than manually downloading.
> > Not really. How would that be different?
>
> Integrated hash sum verification, no corrupted downloads, no need to
> import my gpg key, resume download supported.
Hash sum verification is easy these days with tools in coreutils. wget and
many other tools support resumed downloads. Unless you want to put this
package into Debian, and you won't be able to, you still need to ask
users to import your key.

> > There are also other problems,
>
> Such as?
Installing a package is very different from downloading a file: you need
root rights, the file is installed in a fixed location, you cannot remove
the package without the file disappearing, removing the file will cause
package checking tools like debsums to report a removed file.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Packaging virtual machine images .ova?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 01:16:43PM +, adrelanos wrote:
> > Hash sum verification is easy these days [...]
> 
> For whom?
> 
> Certainly not for the average mortal user.
If they cannot run one console command, how can they use ISOs?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#702628: RFS: pidgin-audacious/2.0.0-3 [RC, QA]

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

  Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pidgin-audacious"

 * Package name: pidgin-audacious
   Version : 2.0.0-3
   Upstream Author : Yoshiki Yazawa 
 * URL : http://www.honeyplanet.jp/download.html
 * License : GPL-2+
   Section : net

  It builds those binary packages:

pidgin-audacious - pidgin integration with Audacious

  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/pidgin-audacious


  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pidgin-audacious/pidgin-audacious_2.0.0-3.dsc

  Changes since the last upload:

  * QA upload.
  * Link with -laudclient2 instead of -laudcore -laudgui (Closes: #702609).
  * Use dh-autoreconf instead of autotools-dev to be able to regenerate
configure.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: install rule in Makefile

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 07:15:40PM +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> This is just for copying files from debian/tmp to debian/package in the
> case where you have multiple binary packages. 
"From debhelper compatibility level 7 on, dh_install will fall back to
looking in debian/tmp for files, if it doesn't find them in the current
directory"

This is not the only (or the main) mode of operation. dh_install can be
used to copy files from the build dir to the package dir.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature