from:"Bart Martens"

Re: debian/copyright file

2007-12-28 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 14:56 +, Robin Cornelius wrote:
> My main questions are :-
> 
> 1) is it necessary to repeat the license text every time, for example :-
> 
> Files:  libopenjpeg/j2k.c
> libopenjpeg/j2k.h
> libopenjpeg/openjpeg.h
> Copyright: © 2002-2007, Communications and Remote Sensing Laboratory, 
> Universite catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium
> © 2002-2007, Professor Benoit Macq
> © 2001-2003, David Janssens
> © 2002-2003, Yannick Verschueren
> © 2003-2007, Francois-Olivier Devaux and Antonin Descampe
> © 2005, Herve Drolon, FreeImage Team
> © 2006-2007, Parvatha Elangovan
> License: BSD-2
>  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without .
> .. Full Text ..
> 
> Would it be allowable to just state "BSD-2" for each of the cases then 
> define the full text at one point in the file?
> 

In free text format, mentioning "see above" is OK.  The structured
format should allow mentioning large parts only once.

> 
> 
> There are a couple of files that do NOT have copyright, these were 
> created by a US government contractor and therefor :-
> 
> Copyright: It is the policy of NLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine)
> (and U.S. government) to not assert copyright.
> License: other
>  A non-exclusive copy of this code has been contributed to the Open JPEG 
> project.
>  Except for copyright, inclusion of the code within Open JPEG for 
> distribution and use
>  can be bound by the Open JPEG open-source license and disclaimer, 
> expressed elsewhere.
> 
> Is this a problem at all, not having asserted copyright?
> 

It is not OK to mention in debian/copyright that the software "can be
bound" by a license "expressed elsewhere".

> 
> Finally many files have the same set of authors and copyright years, but 
> then there is a file with an extra contributor here or there, should 
> each of these files be listed separately with its own list of copyright 
> holders? To me this seems the *correct* way to do things and each file 
> that does not fall under the Files: * catch all list should have its own 
> entry in the debian/copyright file.  Or can i just add the extra 
> contributors to the initial  Files: *  Copyright:  xxx yy zzz
> List even though those extra contributors do not have copyright over all 
> the files included in that search, files have same license however. 
> (Seems incorrect to me)
> This is much less of a problem if the license text does not need to be 
> repeated each time.
> 

In free text format it is, in my opinion, OK to mention "the files in
the directories ... are copyrighted by a combination of some of the
following copyright holders: ... and are licensed under the terms
of ...".

> 
> Just wanted to check the *correct* way to do do things.

That is obviously very good.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dupload

2007-12-30 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 11:52 +0100, Jean-Christian BEDIER wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Nowadays i decide to upload my package.
> 
> I don't have any problem with lintian, all is ok.
> 
> I create this tool myself, but when i try to uplaod this package, i
> need a .changes file and i don't know what can i put in this file
> because it's the first version of my tool, moreover i don't find
> information about the changes files :/ 
> 
> Maybe someone can give me some advice?

See "man dupload".

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Requests for sponsors to upload NMUs

2008-03-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:37 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rcalc/rcalc_0.5.0-1.3.dsc

http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rcalc/news/20080303T143226Z.html

This NMU seems to introduce more changes than allowed via NMU.  So I
agree with Neil Williams on his call to debian-mentors to follow the NMU
rules.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Requests for sponsors to upload NMUs

2008-03-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 21:31 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> I agree with William, 

I'm glad that you agree with Neil Williams.

> I need to watch my Ps and Qs.  However, in this 
> case voc is MIA.  

I don't think that Sam is MIA.

> So ideally I suppose what I should do is orphan the 
> package and make it a QA upload.

No, I don't think so.

Depending on your time and interest, I would suggest to limit the
changes in the NMU to only changes that are allowed in an NMU, or to
talk to the maintainer to agree on some other approach.

Regards,

Bart Martens

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Requests for sponsors to upload NMUs

2008-03-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 14:57 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:37 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >  > > > 
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rcalc/rcalc_0.5.0-1.3.dsc
> >
> >  http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rcalc/news/20080303T143226Z.html
> >
> >  This NMU seems to introduce more changes than allowed via NMU.  So I
> >  agree with Neil Williams on his call to debian-mentors to follow the NMU
> >  rules.
> 
> That NMU was approved by the maintainer IIRC.

In that case I would suggest to mention this in debian/changelog:

   * Non-maintainer upload with permission from the maintainer.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Becoming a new contributor

2008-08-27 Thread Bart Martens

[moving to debian-mentors]

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 12:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have never done any development in Debian before, and I would like
> to contribute a single program. 

Great, welcome !  Which "single program" ?

> How should I go about this?
> 
> I have already looked through the Debian website and found things like
> these:
> 
> "The first important point to make is that you do not need to be an
> official Debian developer in order to help improving Debian. In fact,
> you should already have a track record of earlier contributions to
> Debian before you apply for the New Maintainer process."
> 
> "As a non-developer you can:
> - maintain packages through a sponsor"
> 
> Great. How?
> 

Depends on which "single program" you want to contribute to.

Also, the mailing list debian-mentors is the best place to ask questions
on how to get started with contributing to Debian.

> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Becoming a new contributor

2008-08-27 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 15:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The program is a slideshow-type photo viewer. 

Does this program have a homepage on the internet where it can be
downloaded ?

> It is all original work, 

Is it your work ?

Have you registered a "request for package" (RFP) as described on this
page ?
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l2

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC/RFS music123 package

2006-04-18 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:36:00AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Maxime Robache wrote:
> >I'm looking for comments and for a sponsor concerning the music123
> >package I just adopted.
> 
> 1. As it's a maintainer upload, the version number should be 15, not 14.3
>-- the latter is used for source NMUs.

That is true for the revision id for non-native packages.  With native
packages it is allowed to use 14.3.  Your change is very small, so a
minor version number increase is good.

To make the lintian warnings changelog-should-mention-nmu and
source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number disappear, make sure that your
name and e-mail address are identical in debian/control and in
debian/changelog.  For example, replace "ROBACHE" by "Robache" in
debian/control.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

2006-04-29 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:52:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If I were sponsoring a -1 release of a package in which the maintainer
> repackaged the upstream source, which is what I was originally
> addressing, I would read the implementation of that target, read the
> information in debian/copyright about why they repackaged the source,

A description of why and how the source was repackaged, should go in
"README.Debian-source or a similar file".  Copyright and distribution
license(s) information should go in debian/copyright.  I don't think
that other information belongs in debian/copyright.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile

> run the target, and
> compare the results of the target with the .orig.tar.gz that they were
> using.  That would replace the normal sponsoring check of downloading the
> upstream tarball and checking with cmp that it is identical to the
> .orig.tar.gz.

The sponsor should compare the upstream .tar.gz and the .orig.tar.gz
with md5sum.  If the MD5 checksum differs, then the sponsor should
unpack both files and compare with "diff -ruN" or something like that.
Each difference should be documented in "README.Debian-source or a
similar file".  The get-orig-source may be convenient to do less typing
and to quickly understand how the .orig.tar.gz was created, but
basically, the sponsor should still verify in detail whether each
difference is appropriate.

> In all cases, I don't see much purpose in having a separate
> README.Debian-source document.

Well, it was a choice made in the past.  In my opinion it was a good
choice.  But feel free to discuss this again, and have the Debian
Reference changed about this.

> Maybe if the repackaging were so complex
> so as to not be representable in a debian/rules get-orig-source target.

Repackaging upstream sources should be exceptional.  Also, verifying a
repackaged .orig.tar.gz needs full attention anyway, so doing the
repackaging manually to verify is good anyway.

I guess that such get-orig-source target is still interesting because it
encourages to describe very precise how the .orig.tar.gz was created.
Its existence could be mentioned in "README.Debian-source or a similar
file".

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

2006-04-30 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
> 
> I think Policy implies something different:
> 
> In addition, the copyright file must say where the upstream sources
> (if any) were obtained.
> 
> Explaining how the .orig.tar.gz file was derived is part of explaining
> where the upstream sources were obtained to me.  I can see how others
> would read it differently, but that's the way it read to me the first time
> I read Policy.
> 
> Policy says nothing about a README.Debian-source so far as I know.

I agree that this interpretation is very reasonable.  With this
interpretation, the debian-policy and the developers-reference seem to
contradict on where to describe how the .orig.tar.gz was repackaged.

> One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target

Do you insist on a get-orig-source target while sponsoring? It's
currently optional according to the debian-policy.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules

> as part of the
> review is that it ensures that the derivation of the .orig.tar.gz file is
> automated and reproducible, making it easier and quicker to package the
> *next* upstream release of the software.

The next upstream .tar.gz may be completely different.  Trying the
get-orig-source target on a new .tar.gz without first having a look
inside that new .tar.gz before, can make a mess.

Also, repackaging a .orig.tar.gz should be avoided.  It is better to
encourage the upstream author to make the repackaging unnecessary before
the next upstream .tar.gz is released.  That is, of course, not always
possible.

> >> In all cases, I don't see much purpose in having a separate
> >> README.Debian-source document.
> 
> > Well, it was a choice made in the past.  In my opinion it was a good
> > choice.  But feel free to discuss this again, and have the Debian
> > Reference changed about this.
> 
> Well, discussing it is exactly what I'm doing right now.  :)

I love a good discussion. :)

> Obviously if
> I can't convince anyone here, there's no point in filing a bug against the
> Developer's Reference for a change that has no consensus.

Filing such a bug and starting a discussion on other mailing lists
(debian-devel?) could make more people participate in the discussion.
Maybe the consensus becomes what you want, I don't know that now.  But I
guess that some parts of what we're discussing now may already have been
discussed in the past years, so doing some googling before may be wise.

> >> Maybe if the repackaging were so complex so as to not be representable
> >> in a debian/rules get-orig-source target.
> 
> > Repackaging upstream sources should be exceptional.  Also, verifying a
> > repackaged .orig.tar.gz needs full attention anyway, so doing the
> > repackaging manually to verify is good anyway.
> 
> I find automated processes more reliable than manual processes.  If it's
> an exceptional case that requires careful review, it's even *more*
> important to automate where possible so that humans don't miss things by
> accident

A sponsor should not trust a get-orig-source target written by the
sponsoree (is that correct english?).  The sponsor should redo the
repackaging of the .orig.tar.gz step by step to verify whether each step
is appropriate.

> and can review the information-dense representation (the
> automation) as opposed to the information-diffuse representation (the
> results of the automation).

Wow, I had to read that a few times. :)

So, with all aspects discussed so far, I still think that
README.Debian-source was a good choice, and that it's OK that the
get-orig-source target is optional.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)

2006-05-05 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One can certainly argue both sides of this, but on this point in
> > particular, ftp-masters actually made a ruling and asked people to remove
> > the commented-out lines.
> >
> > See  down near the bottom
> > near debian/rules.
> 
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. The dh_* calls are
> there for later upgrade of the package and retaining the order of the
> items is not the same as this pages' suggestion:
> 
> "Edit them, test your package and then delete the whole bunch
> of commands that are commented out, make it hard to read and
> do not help. If you later need anything: Type dh_[TAB][TAB] to
> see whats available."
> 
> Who can remember the correct order of dh_* calls later on? 
> 
> This recommendation looks like from 70's where optimizing C-code was
> the status quo and not the readablity, maintainebility.
> 
> Having dh_* calls there help possible follower maintainer (if package
> is orpaned), who may not be as skilled as the originala maintainer.
> 
> Please lift of the sentences from REJECT-FAQ.html if there are currently
> included in rejection criterias. 
> 
> Jari

I'm surprised.  I didn't know that packages may be rejected for
commented dh_ lines in debian/rules.  I have always left the commented
dh_ lines, and I never had any rejections for this.

Maybe the solution is to integrate the reject-faq into debian-policy,
and have these rules checked by lintian (and linda)?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-debian-rules

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the readability of debian/rules with
the commented dh_ lines, and I agree with Jari Aalto that leaving the
commented dh_ lines can be useful, so I would vote "allow" if a
discussion would be held for this.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?

2006-05-30 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:22PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> This email is motivated by an effective current issue, as detailed below, but
> I'm seeing myself in similar situations quite often.
> 
> There is a package, which isn't officially orphaned, but the maintainer is
> neither responding to bug reports nor to mails to her @d.o address. Even 
> though
> there is a patch provided with the bug report or I do have one myself, I'm
> seeing no way of how to fix the bug and get the package back on track.
> 
> For the curious, my motivation currently stems from #328244. We are using
> brickos and gcc-h8300-hms at our site for teaching purposes, so we had to 
> patch
> the gcc-h8300-hms package and provide it in our local repository, but this 
> isn't
> the way Debian works, is it!?

If you want to fix the package only once, then a "non-maintainer upload"
(NMU) may be the way to go.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-nmu

If you are interested in keeping the package up-to-date regularly, then
you may want to offer co-maintainership to the current maintainer.

 -- Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Tue, 30 May 2006 20:17:37 +0200


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?

2006-05-30 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from
> sponsoring NMUs.  Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken
> one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the uploader, not with the
> sponsoree.

Does that mean that your opinion is that sponsored NMU's should be
forbidden? I would regret that.  It's not bad that someone in the NM
queue also does NMU's to help fixing other packages.  And I don't see a
problem with responsability if the sponsor is aware of that
responsability.  But maybe I'm missing something?

 -- Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Tue, 30 May 2006 22:02:12 +0200

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: sponsored NMU's to be forbidden (Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?)

2006-05-31 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:03:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
> > You sure do have a point here.  But that seems to apply to both DD's and
> 
> It would appply to those who can upload (i.e. DDs right now).
> 
> > non-DD's.  I still don't see why a sponsored NMU would be bad.
> 
> It is not that sponsored NMUs are bad, it is that they are about the same as
> a normal NMU (the difference being who proposed the fix...).  Unless you are
> talking about some DD which considers sponsoring to be "upload in blind
> faith", in which case please tell us who is doing that so we can see to
> getting his upload rights revoked.

Let's say that person A proposes a fix by uploading a patch to a bug
report.  Person B is the maintainer of the package but has temporarily
no time to package the patch.  Person C is a non-DD and packages an
NMU-package using that patch, and follows the documented NMU procedure
as if he/she were a DD except the upload.  Person D sponsors the
NMU-package of person C by thoroughly verifying C's work and uploads the
package as-is, thus without repackaging it as if it's D's package.

I personally see no problem with this.  I would not forbid this.

I'm aware that person C is mentioned in the changelog of the package,
and not person D.  I don't see a problem with that.  Note that person B
can be a non-DD too, so there we have non-DD's in changelogs too.

I'm interested in some consensus about this, because I'm in the NM
queue, and I sometimes do NMU's via my sponsor.  I want to know wether
continuing that is appropriate or not.

Some parts of the documentation describe how to create an NMU package.
Those parts apply to person C.  The documentation how to do the upload
itself obviously apply to person D.

Obviously, if person D has blind faith in person C, and simply uploads
the NMU package without verification, that would be bad sponsoring.  But
that would be a discussion about appropriate sponsoring, not about the
appropriateness of sponsored NMU's.

 -- Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed, 31 May 2006 18:56:08 +0200

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

connect-proxy is already in Debian (Re: look for a package)

2006-05-31 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:36:06PM +0200, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
> Hi,
> Would you know if a package of this software exists:
> http://zippo.taiyo.co.jp/~gotoh/ssh/connect.html
> 
> I looked into the orphaned and so on but did not find.
> It exists for some other distributions:
> http://gentoo-portage.com/net-misc/connect (Gentoo)
> http://dag.wieers.com/packages/connect/ (Fedora)
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/breezy/net/connect (Ubuntu)
> 
> If there is no Debian package, I am going to build one from the Ubuntu
> one. Probably with you help.

This is already in Debian.
http://packages.debian.org/connect-proxy
http://packages.qa.debian.org/connect-proxy

 -- Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:37:22 +0200


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How can I help Debian best?

2006-06-13 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Christian Hütter wrote:
> I've the wish to contribute to Debian. However, from all the stuff
> needed to be done I would be best at coding, I guess.
...
> Now I'm completely unsure what to do in order to help Debian as good as
> I can:
> (a) "Just" writing free software and hope that it is good and attractive
> enouth to be included in Debian when it is needed and ready.
> (b) Write free software according to the Debian guidelines and (try to)
> find a Debian Maintainer who is willing (and has the time) to audit and
> upload the software.
> (c) (Trying to) become a Debian Maintainer, building and packaging the
> software on my own on basis of the ideals, needs and policy of the
> Debian project (and thus *for* Debian and only implicitly for the free
> software community).

All of the above. :)  Just start contributing the way you want now, and
see later what you want to do later.  Get familiar with how the project
works by reading the docs and mailing lists.

> Being aware that you can't give me the absolute answer to my question,
> and because I really would like the idea to (try to) become a Debian
> Developer (guessing that my dedication would increase quite a bit), I
> would especially be interested in the answer to the question how much
> time it takes to work really "Debian conform", that is, how much time
> (the average) developers spend reading new guidelines etc., or better:
> how much time is left for the actual development if you stay informed
> about all the policy changes etc.?

Becoming a DD can be a looong and discouraging process.  Don't make it
your goal.  The goal should be to enjoy learning from Debian while
contributing.  The time you spend on Debian is completely free.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: s390 build box?

2006-07-18 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 11:37 -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Please see:
> 
>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=378375
> 
> I would like to test this bug fix on a s390 box before uploading it. Except
> I don't have access to an s390 box. :-/ I asked Bastian if he would be
> willing to test this before I get my sponsor to upload, but he hasn't
> replied.
> 
> What's the Debian way of handling this? I know that if I upload the new
> package to unstable, it will at least be no worse than the previous version,
> but it also seems like a waste of time to upload it if it just has more
> problems under the s390 arch. Should I continue attempting to find an s390
> box, is there something somebody out there can do to help, or should I just
> have my new packages uploaded and hope for the best?

Maybe this page helps:
http://www.debian.org/ports/s390/




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please tell if you found a sponsor

2006-08-26 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 18:59 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Dear package maintainers...
> 
> a sponsor of Debian packages today sent an email to the mentors.debian.net 
> support email address and I would like to forward the suggestion here. 
> Please tell us if you found a sponsor. I often found myself downloading 
> and testing packages from mentors.debian.net and found out too late that 
> someone else already sponsored the upload.

I suggest that:

- the maintainer logs on the ITA/ITP that he/she's has prepared a
package for review and upload, and is looking for a sponsor,
- the sponsor logs on the ITA/ITP that he/she's reviewing the package.

That should reduce duplicate effort.

> 
> In my observation there are now many more sponsors than there were two 
> years ago. So it is more likely that a package gets looked at by multiple 
> sponsors. And all but one may be disappointed. So if you asked here on the 
> mailing list please send a followup if a sponsor uploaded your package. 
> Same for other channels where you asked for sponsorship (IRC, 
> sponsors.debian.net, ...).
> 
> If your package was uploaded to mentors.debian.net please remove the 
> package immediately after you have successfully been sponsored. We already 
> plan to detect uploads automatically and tag a package "sponsored". But 
> that's not yet done. So please keep your requests up to date.

Yes, automating things is good.  This could be done very similar to
cleaning "experimental" when a newer package is uploaded to "unstable".
That should reduce errors and reduce overhead manual work.

>  Thanks.
> 
> Cheers
>  Christoph
> 
> P.S.: I will try to change the subject of RFS here to "[uploaded]" if I
>   sponsor an upload. So others can see a package has been dealt with.
>   Perhaps others can do that, too, so we can see which packages still
>   need sponsorship at a glance.

I think that mailing lists are not a good medium for long-term follow-up
sponsoring efforts.  The ITA/ITP report is better, in my opinion.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: upstream tarball repackaging from bz2 to gz

2006-09-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 10:10 -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> The upstream tarball for a package I maintain is in .tar.bz2 format.
> I've been downloading it and recompressing it into .tar.gz format.
> This seems like a very common situation.

Yes very common.

> 
> 1.  Should I still follow the section on "best practices for
> .orig.tar.gz files" in the Developer's Reference, and include a
> README.Debian-source file

Technically it's a repackaged .orig.tar.gz so yes.  On the other hand
many upstream websites don't list MD5 checksums so a download would be
needed to verify that the .orig.tar.gz is identical to the
upstream .tar.gz anyway.  And if you're downloading anyway, then using
md5sum or using diff -r to see that things are identical costs about the
same effort.  I think that the best purpose of README.Debian-source is
to document things that are not obvious.  In any case, it helps to just
follow the interpretation of your sponsor and the ftpmaster. :)

> and a get-orig-source target in
> debian/rules?

Not mandatory, I think.

> 
> 2.  Should I automate the bunzip2 & gzip in the debian/watch file?

I think that having a debian/watch file that makes the latest upstream
(stable) version listed on the debian webpages is already very good.

> 
> (I don't think I can justify asking upstream to publish a more
> wasteful version of the same bits on his website just to suit Debian.)

That is of course very true.  Maybe the long term solution is that
Debian supports the .bz2 format.

Hope this helps,

Bart Martens
(non-DD)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

re: RFS: gstm -- gnome ssh tunnel manager (updated package)

2006-09-18 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Thierry,

I'm interested in sponsoring your package gstm 1.2-3.  I will review
your package and contact you via e-mail.  (I'm still in the NM queue,
but my AM requests me to prepare a sponsored package as part of my NM
procedure.)

Regards,

Bart Martens


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: binary files in diff

2006-11-08 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 21:01 +0100, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I need to add a binary file (a png icon) to my package. What is the best
> way to do this, since the "normal" .diff generation does not support
> this ?

The "sharutils" package contains uuencode and uudecode.  You can
uuencode the icon, make your package depend on "sharutils", and uudecode
the icon in debian/rules.  For an example, see the "einstein" package.

However I don't know if it's the "best" way.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: What is "disparity error" ?

2006-11-19 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:18 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Recently I received following messages after a DD uploaded package for
> me:
> 
> There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
> override file for the following file(s):
> 
> edb_1.21-15_all.deb: package says section is utils, override says misc.
> 
> Either the package or the override file is incorrect.  If you think
> the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package
> so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload.  If you feel the
> override is incorrect then please reply to this mail and explain why.
> 
> This didn't find "utils" anywhere:
> 
> $ egrep -n 'utils|misc' debian/* 

Version 1.21-15 has this:

$ grep -riI utils *
debian/control:Section: utils
$ 

> 
> What "override" file is referred here? 

Something where only people more important than me have access to. :)

> What is the needed correction?

I suggest that you change "Section: utils" to "Section: misc" in your
debian/control.

> 
> Jari
> 
> 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

upstream author requests inclusion in debian (Re: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org)

2006-11-22 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 20:27 +0600, Oleg Puchinin wrote:
> Hi !
> I build my first debian package and want to add it in debian
> (unstable, of course).
> Can help my anybody ?
> Project:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/silentbob
> (lyrics, all other docs in package).
> In short - ctags/cscope/ctree etc. alternative.
> 
> Oleg.
> Sorry for everything, I am "first year highschool student".

Hi Oleg,

I see that you are the upstream author of this software.  I guess that
you want your software included in Debian.

The first thing to do, is to submit a "request for packaging" or an
"intent to package", depending on whether you want to do the Debian
packaging yourself.  How is described here:
http://www.us.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l2

After that, in case you want to do the Debian packaging yourself, then
you should publish your package somewhere online and post a link to it
here on debian-mentors, requesting a review.

Enjoy!

Bart Martens

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Package is not moved to "Being Worked on" section

2006-12-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 20:56 +0530, Suresh Rajashekara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I raised an ITP for the package "intro-linux" (bug number #310762
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=310762) on 30th Nov.
> I got a copy of the mail from the debian bug tracking system as well.
> The mail said that a copy of the ITP will be sent to debian-devel
> also.
> 
> But till now, no copy of that mail has been seen on debian-devel list
> and the package is still in the "Requested Packages" section. It has
> not yet moved to "Packages being worked on" section.
> 
> Whats wrong? Please suggest.

Try sending these commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED] :

retitle 310762 ITP: intro-linux -- A guide introducing to GNU/Linux
owner 310762 !
stop




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: Legends: The Game

2007-01-13 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 09:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> If you seek to simply "get the
> package into Debian" and then abandon it, there is no reason for Debian
> to include it in the first place.

No, then there is a reason for someone else to maintain the Debian
package. :)  If Tim would abandon it.  But I doubt that he would.

For what it's worth, I have suggested Tim via private e-mail to clarify
the copyright and the distribution license, and to register a request
for packaging (RFP).  After that I might consider where to go from
there.  But, anyone, feel free to help Tim without consulting me,
because I don't "own" an ITP for Legends.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: "changelog has a useless empty line" (was: Re: RFS: speedometer)

2007-01-14 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 02:40 +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Saturday 13 January 2007 23:59, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > http://cante.net/~jaalto/tmp/debian/speedometer/speedometer_2.4-1.dsc
> 
> >   * changelog has a useless empty line at the end of the file.
> 
> The dh_make template includes that empty line - no wonder almost all RFS's 
> you 
> comment on have that deficiency, if it is one.

I don't see the problem about the extra newline character at the end of
debian/changelog.  Maybe I'm overlooking something here?

> 
> In addition, can't it be said that the final blank line is part of the format 
> of a changelog.Debian entry?
> 
> >8-
> $package ($version) $distribution; urgency=$urgency
> 
>  * $change[0]
>  * $change[1]
>  * ...
> 
>  -- $Maintainer <$maintainer_address>  $date
> 
> 8<
> 
> There is always a blank line after the maintainer line before the following 
> (chronologically previous) entry.
> 

Creative thinking. :)

On the other hand, it is normal that sponsors have different opinions on
packaging style and quality.  Removing that extra newline character is
no big deal, so if that makes the sponsor happy...



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Tone-of-voice used by sponsors

2007-01-14 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 15:39 +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote:
> Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > if you insist on keeping the useless stuff, i consider the package as to
> > ugly according to my mesures of beauty, and hence i'm not sponsoring it.
> 
> I think it would be better if you toned down this
> do-as-I-say-or-I-wont-sponsor-you attitude.  As others have mentioned,
> some of the nitpicking is really your personal preferences, and not
> really something that makes a new Developer much better at the tasks
> involved in maintaining a package.

Let's not make a problem of this.  It is normal that sponsors have
different opinions.

For example, if/when I become DD and start sponsoring, I intend to
insist on getting errors or debian-policy violations fixed, and suggest
some nice-to-have's for future updates.  I intend to give the packager
as much room for his/her own decisions/style/taste as possibly allowed
by debian-policy.  That is, in my opinion, the only way that can
encourage a new packager to do more and more contributions.  (It worked
for me, thanks to my excellent sponsor Anibal.)

On the other hand, the sponsor is completely free to choose which
packages he wants to sponsor.  And it is good that sponsors encourage
new packagers to have an eye for the little things too.  Let's not shoot
Daniel for being just a bit more strict than other sponsors, and be
happy that he sponsors so many packages.  And keep in mind that the
tone-of-voice in e-mails is always more harsh when read than when
written. :)

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Choice between ubuntu or brand new package

2007-03-02 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:31:43 + David Newgas wrote:
> > > Debian.  It is currently already in Ubuntu
> > > (http://packages.ubuntu.com/kzenexplorer). I created a brand new Debian
> > > package (lintian clean except for lack of a man page) before noticing it
> > > was in Ubuntu.  Which is preferred, a new package or using the Ubuntu
> > > one?  And if the latter, is it simply done by using the Ubuntu
> > > orig.tar.gz/diff.gz/dsc ?

Do what's most efficient for your time.

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 20:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You aren't likely to find any useful conventional wisdom about which to
> > prefer; it will always depend on the individual package.  The same applies
> > for any package which you might adopt from a third party.

Yes, I fully agree with that.

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 18:44 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Isn't having the same package in Debian (unstable) and Ubuntu (unstable) the  
> prefered status?

It's individual choice.

I've added a few packages to Debian that were already in Ubuntu.  As far
as I remember (not sure) I always started from the Ubuntu package.  The
reason why I did that was that it was more efficient.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

copyright and license problems (Re: Legends The Game, new debian package)

2007-03-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 23:26 +0100, olaf wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I have created a new debian package for legends.
> (I use debian, so I could  maintain the package)
> Aditionally I ve included a manpage, a menu-entry and scripts in /usr/bin to 
> execute the binaries in the directory /usr/share/games/legends/ .
> Its still only hosted on http://hosted.filefront.com/0laf , but i ll try to 
> upload it to mentors.debian.net.
> 
> bye
> olaf

Hi Olaf,

Some time ago I was interested in packaging "Legends The Game" myself.
That was for the same upstream version.  I contacted the upstream author
about copyright+license problems.

This is a part of the e-mail I wrote on 2007-01-21:

  == begin quote ==
  But there are still some things to fix before it can be
  distributed with Debian.

  The file legends_linux-0.4.1.42.run contains a few shared libraries
  copyrighted by other authors and distributed with different licenses,
  but this copyright and licenses information is missing in
  legends_linux-0.4.1.42.run.  I can work around that by removing the
  shared libraries that are already in Debian.

  The game uses both libSDL-1.2.so.0 and libSDL-1.3.so.0.  But
  libSDL-1.3.so.0 is not yet in Debian.  The game seems to work with a
  symlink from libSDL-1.2.so.0 to libSDL-1.3.so.0.  Of course, that's a
  very ugly trick.  The game produces warnings about X11_KeyToUnicode, and
  maybe the game can crash where it tries to use 1.3 functions.  Can you
  modify the game to use libSDL-1.2.so.0 only?

  After removing the shared libraries mentioned above, I scanned the
  remaining binaries for "copyright" notices.  Here are some:

  Based on Torque - Copyright (c) 2001 GarageGames.Com
  Copyright (c) 2001 GarageGames.Com
  Copyright (c) Dragon's Eye Entertainment
  Portions Copyright (c) 2001 by Sierra Online, Inc.

  That means that the copyright notice in legends_release/linux.txt is not
  correct.  The "Legends Development team" must not claim copyright of the
  whole software if some parts are copyrighted by others.

  I also scanned the binaries for licenses.  One example:

  The use of the Garagegames.com software product ("Software") is governed
  by a license agreement (the "Agreement"). You must read and agree to the
  license agreement terms BEFORE installing the Software to your hard
  drive or using the Software in any way. (...) Licensor grants Licensee a
  limited non-exclusive and non-transferable license (...) Licensee may
  not publicly distribute, release, publish and/or transmit any Games
  created hereunder or otherwise exploit the Software. (...) The license
  fee is the current price indicated on the GarageGames website.

  So the "Legends Development team" probably does not have the right to
  give Debian permission to redistribute Legends.
  == end quote ==

The upstream author gave the impression to be interested in solving
these issues, but I haven't heard back from him since 2007-01-27.  I
gave up because in one of the replies the upstream author said about the
copyright and license I found in the binaries:

  We are allowed to do what we are doing, I am sure  - those texts
  are all old.

So I doubt that Debian can redistribute this version of "Legends The
Game" in this state, not even in the non-free section.

As far as I know, there's no ITP, so you're free to go ahead without
consulting me (but you're welcome to contact me if I can help).

Regards,

Bart Martens

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Legends The Game, new debian package

2007-03-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 08:20 +0100, olaf wrote:
> On Saturday 03 March 2007 00:44, Michael Koch wrote:
> > And starters for games are located in /usr/games and not /usr/bin.
> >
> Thanks for your replies. Would it be allowed to put the binaries 
> in /usr/lib/legends and create links to /usr/share/legends where the 
> data-packages are? 

I would install /usr/lib/legends/LinLegends and add /usr/games/legends
which is a wrapper containing this:

  #!/bin/sh
  cd /usr/lib/legends
  exec /usr/lib/legends/LinLegends "$@"

I would put the data files in ~/.legends/ because the game downloads any
missing files automatically anyway, and because the downloaded data
files may have more various copyright and license issues I'd rather not
investigate.  So I'd not ship the data files with Debian.

But, I would first solve the copyright and license issues in the game,
see my previous e-mail.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Legends The Game, new debian package

2007-03-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 17:53 +0100, olaf wrote:
> So u mean I should remove all data that is normally included in legends?
> (file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/data.unf
> file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/interiors.unf
> file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/missions.unf
> file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/scripts.unf
> file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/sounds.unf
> file:///usr/share/games/legends/legends/voices.unf)

No, I would keep those in the package, and install them here:

/usr/lib/legends/common/client.unf
/usr/lib/legends/common/edit.unf
/usr/lib/legends/common/server.unf
/usr/lib/legends/common/ui.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/interiors.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/data.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/missions.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/scripts.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/sounds.unf
/usr/lib/legends/legends/voices.unf
/usr/lib/legends/show/scripts.unf
/usr/lib/legends/show/ui.unf

I meant other, user contributed data files from various sources.

> For users with slow internet connection that would be quite bad...

True.

> > But, I would first solve the copyright and license issues in the game,
> > see my previous e-mail.
> Ok, I already posted your first email (hope u dont mind...) in the 
> legends-forum. Hope one of the devs could help.

I don't mind.

> Thanks for helping 

My pleasure.

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Legends The Game, new debian package

2007-03-03 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 17:19 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Another question: Are shared libraries basically allowed?
> > Legends uses following shared libraries which i ve placed in 
> > /usr/lib/legends 
> > too : 
> > /usr/local/share/games/legends/libogg.so.0
> > /usr/local/share/games/legends/libopenal.so
> > /usr/local/share/games/legends/libSDL-1.2.so.0
> > /usr/local/share/games/legends/libSDL-1.3.so.0
> > /usr/local/share/games/legends/libvorbis.so.0
> > 
> This will certainly get your package rejected by the ftp-masters.  All
> of those libraries exist in their own packages on Debian, you need to
> link against those.  Embedding libraries like that has been a great
> source of headaches to the security team, hence the policy.

Olaf,

Related to what Roberto wrote above about the shared libraries, here is
how I would create the .orig.tar.gz :

sh legends_linux-0.4.1.42.run --noexec --keep --nox11 \
 --target legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libSDL-1.2.so.0
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libSDL-1.3.so.0
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libogg.so.0
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libvorbis.so.0
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libopenal.so
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/OPENAL32.DLL
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/ReadMe_legals.txt
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/runlegends
rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/install.sh
tar czf legends.tgz legends-0.4.1.42
rm -rf legends-0.4.1.42

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Legends The Game, new debian package

2007-03-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 12:15 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> - -=| Bart Martens,  4.03.2007 01:11 |=-
> > Related to what Roberto wrote above about the shared libraries, here is
> > how I would create the .orig.tar.gz :
> > 
> > sh legends_linux-0.4.1.42.run --noexec --keep --nox11 \
> >  --target legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libSDL-1.2.so.0
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libSDL-1.3.so.0
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libogg.so.0
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libvorbis.so.0
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/libopenal.so
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/OPENAL32.DLL
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/ReadMe_legals.txt
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/runlegends
> > rm legends-0.4.1.42/legends_release/install.sh
> > tar czf legends.tgz legends-0.4.1.42
> 
> Shouldn't the source package name reflect that it has been re-packaged?
> Something like "legends-0.4.1.42.ds.1" ?

It should be documented in debian/README.Debian-source or some similar
file.  I don't think it's mandatory to give the .orig.tar.gz a special
name.

> On the other hand, isn't it sufficient to only remove these in the clean
> target (thus making them disappear from the .deb), avoiding repackaging
> the source tarball ?

I think that in this case it is better to cut out the useless
components, so that the debian/copyright can be kept more simple, and
also that the .orig.tar.gz is smaller.  But I think that this is to be
evaluated per package.  For some packages it could be OK to not
repackage the .orig.tar.gz.

> 
> Please don't take this as a nitpicking, I am trying to understand if I
> miss something.

No problem at all.  Me too I'm trying to understand if I miss something.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to put a license (question) in preinst/debconf

2007-03-16 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 14:37 +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Daniel,

> 
> I have a package for a software, that is provided under an academic
> license - free for non-profit organisations and academic use, not free
> for profit organisations. 

> So I want to put a debconf template into
> preinst, so the user MUST accept the license, before he installs the
> package (and of course: to install the package). 

It is good that you want to inform users about a non-free license.  But
I'm not sure whether debconf questions are the best choice.

Keep in mind that for noninteractive installations no debconf questions
are shown.  Then the default answer is used.  If the default is "yes,
accept license", then this can lead to users unknowningly accepting a
non-free license.  If the default is "no, refuse license", then this can
lead to an unwanted refusal of the license.  Which brings us to the next
aspect:

If the non-free license is refused, then the debian packager must make a
choice between failing to install both the debian package and the
non-free software itself, or failing to install only the non-free
software while succeeding the installation of the debian package.  The
former can lead to users complaining about an interrupted noninteractive
installation.  The latter can lead to users complaining about a "broken"
debian package because the software "doesn't work".

> What is the better
> alternative: (a) putting the whole license into the debconf template, so
> the user can read the whole license OR (b) just leave a pointer where to
> find the license and only ask, if the user accepts the license 

That depends on which version of the license applies.  If the non-free
software is entirely shipped with the debian package, then the applying
license must be shipped with the debian package, and that version is to
be presented to the user.  If the non-free software is downloaded from
the internet at debian package installation time, then a pointer to the
online license must be used because that version then applies.

> (AFAIK
> flashplugin-nonfree uses this way).

Not anymore.  The flashplugin-nonfree package now has a warning in the
package description instead.  See the bug reports for details.

> 
> What would you choose and why?

I don't know what's best for your package, because I haven't seen your
package yet. :)  Maybe my explanations above help you to make your own
choices.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to put a license (question) in preinst/debconf

2007-03-16 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:56 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What would you choose and why?
> 
> You could also write a wrapper script around the binary so that the
> user can see the license when they first run the program. This gets
> around the dpkg and debconf issues.

Installing the software this way might imply having accepted the license
already, depending on what's in the license text.

But, it's a good idea! Next time I package non-free software, I'll
verify the license whether the license allows this kind of packaging.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: libconfig-general-perl new release.

2007-03-19 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 21:04 +0100, Francesco Cecconi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking a sponsor for update a new version of libconfig-general-perl.
> 
> Package Name: libconfig-general-perl
> Short description: Generic Configuration Module
> Release: 2.32-1
> 
> lintian clean!
> 
> Sources:
> 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libconfig-general-perl/

OK, I'll sponsor this package.  I'll contact you via private e-mail.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

about "RFS libqt-perl" and "RFS libtie-cache-perl"

2007-03-20 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:11 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> Hi Bart,

Hi Deepak,

> 
> Romain has halped me to packaging libqt .

Yes.

> but i am asking sponser for
> libtie-cache-perl.Not for libqt-perl .

RFS means "request for sponsorship".

> 
> 
> if you are interested then you can look at libqt aslo.

Have you processed all comments from Romain and Gunnar?

> 
> i have fixed all the thing whatever you have suggested .
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libtie-cache-perl

You have not yet fixed all the things I have suggested.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: sigit (updated package)

2007-04-02 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:56 +0100, Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.2-2
> of my package "sigit". My sponsor has been unresponsive for a couple
> of weeks, so I guess she is too busy at the time being.
> It builds these binary packages:
> sigit  - A small utility to change signatures randomly
> The upload will fix bug #414543.
> The package is lintian clean.
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sigit
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
> contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sigit/sigit_0.3.2-2.dsc
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> Kind regards
>  Rasmus Bøg Hansen

Hi Rasmus,

I will review this package and send you my comments via private e-mail.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: staying in stable but compiling for sid

2007-04-13 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 17:33 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Hi all
> I want to run software only from Stable (ie Etch) when I am doing
> non-debian related work. However, when I am doing debian related work
> (ex :- fixing some bugs in the BTS) I want to work in unstable (ex :-
> compile packages for sid). Is this kind of think possible?
> 
> The easiest idea is to run two machines one with unstable and one with
> stable. But I dont have the luxury of running two machines.
> 
> I also thought of installing 2 Debian versions on the same machine and
> sharing the /home directory. But I am skeptical about compatibility of rc
> files across different versions. (Ex:- vim 7's rc files may not work with
> vim 6's rc files etc.,)
> 
> Is there any other elegant solution? I have heard about chroot, pbuilder
> etc., Will they be of any help in this scenario?

Yes, this is what you are looking for.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-tips.en.html#s-chroot
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-checkit.en.html#s-pbuilder



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: drapes

2007-04-15 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 12:10 +, Francesco Namuri wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "drapes".

I'll have a look.  I'll contact you via private e-mail.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

possible inactive adopter (Re: RFS: tilda)

2007-04-16 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 17:46 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tobias Richter ha scritto:
> 
> > Exactly like you he has version 0.09.4-1 ready for sponsoring:
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't know it.
> I wrote many mails to Zak Elep when I propose myself has co-maintainer,
> if necessary, but I didn't get any answer.

I think that Zak Elep is not active, because I did not get any answer to
my e-mails related to sponsoring another package.

> 
> Anyway I'm glad to tell Nico Golde to sponsoring him.

Nico, did you get answer from Zak Elep ?

> My bigger desire is that tilda 0.09.4-1 could be enter in debian as soon
> as possible.

That is of course very good.  Maybe a compromise could be that you take
over the ITA now, and that you join efforts with Zak Elep when/if he
expresses interest to comaintain.  Anyone object for some reason?

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: wavbreaker

2007-04-20 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 23:27 +0200, Thomas Perl wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wavbreaker".
> * Package name: wavbreaker
>   Version : 0.7.9-1
> The ITP for the original wavbreaker is here:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=282456

Have you agreed with the owner of the ITP to take over the ITP?

> 
> This is a patched version of the original 0.7 release by Timothy D. Robinson 

http://huli.org/wavbreaker/
http://thpinfo.com/2006/wavbreaker/

Have you agreed with Timothy to take over upstream development?

> that fixes usability issues, adds a .desktop file, manpages and i18n support.

Are these changes large enough to fork?

Maybe Timothy's version 0.7 can be packaged in Debian as 0.7-1, with
your improvements added in the .diff.gz file.  Maybe Timothy is
interested in copying some improvements into his work.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: wavbreaker

2007-04-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 11:10 +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> |--==> Bart Martens writes:
> 
>   BM> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 23:27 +0200, Thomas Perl wrote:
>   >>I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wavbreaker".
>   >>* Package name: wavbreaker
>   >>Version : 0.7.9-1
>   >>The ITP for the original wavbreaker is here:
>   >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=282456
> 
>   BM> Have you agreed with the owner of the ITP to take over the ITP?
> 
> Thanks for having contacted me, I opened that ITP a long time ago, and
> I add the package ready, but never uploaded it as it was considered a
> duplicate of wavsplit. Anyway I still think that wavbreaker is a
> different beast, as it has a GUI.
> 
> If you have started working on wavbreaker again please go on, 

So the owner of the ITP agrees that you take over the ITP.

> if you
> need a sponsor for the uplaod I would be glad to do that. 

So you could ask Free Ekanayaka to sponsor your package.

> It would
> also suggest the package to be included in Debian Multimedia project,
> as it is listed as one of the packages to work on:
> 
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging
> 
> Practically this means setting the Maintainer to 
> 
> Debian Multimedia Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> and including the actual maintainers in Uploaders. We are also using
> SVN to track the package sources and be able to collaborate working on
> them (exspecially for mentored packages):
> 
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/demudi/
> 
> This would help the package to gain more visibility and attention, all
> upload notices and bug reports are forwarded to the debian-multimedia
> mailing list, and people can see what's going on (pretty much as with
> debian-boot or debian-kernel).

These seem valid but optional suggestions, so feel free to choose.

> 
>   >>
>   >>This is a patched version of the original 0.7 release by Timothy D. 
> Robinson 
> 
>   BM> http://huli.org/wavbreaker/
>   BM> http://thpinfo.com/2006/wavbreaker/
> 
>   BM> Have you agreed with Timothy to take over upstream development?
> 
>   >>that fixes usability issues, adds a .desktop file, manpages and i18n 
> support.
> 
>   BM> Are these changes large enough to fork?
> 
>   BM> Maybe Timothy's version 0.7 can be packaged in Debian as 0.7-1, with
>   BM> your improvements added in the .diff.gz file.  Maybe Timothy is
>   BM> interested in copying some improvements into his work.
> 
> I agree that would be probably a good idea. 

Are you willing to do this Thomas?

> If you can please keep
> also the patch file(s) in debian/patches, instead of merging them in
> the diff.gz. This helps merging them back if new versions of the
> original wavbreaker get released (it's probably unlikely, but you
> never know).

These are valid but optional suggestions, so feel free to choose.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

same sponsor or not

2007-04-27 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Michelle,

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 19:16 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> And then I had ask on  for a sponsor of the Packages:
> (...)
> but there are two DD, which told me, I should ask you for sponsoring
> because you have already sponsored "xmem".

I think that the packager is free to choose whether or not to ask the
same sponsor again.  I'm not saying that I would want to get rid of
you. :)

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian

2007-05-01 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Package Maintainers (DD's and non-DD's),

Now that Etch is released to stable, many package maintainers have
already updated their packages to the newest upstream releases.  That is
of course very good.

However, some packages have no working debian/watch file, and then it is
not always easily seen whether there are newer upstream releases
available for these packages.  I suggest to add/update debian/watch with
your next updates of your packages.  Non-DD's are welcome to ask help
for that on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org .  Hint: test the
debian/watch file with "uscan --report-status".

Another approach for identifying packages to be updated in Debian to
newer upstream releases is by comparing Debian with Ubuntu.  Here is a
list of packages that are newer in Ubuntu than in Debian, grouped by
maintainer:
http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html

I call these package maintainers to update these packages in Debian
soon.  The corresponding package in Ubuntu might help you to solve
tricky new things, and this might be an opportunity to join efforts with
the Ubuntu maintainer to reduce duplicate effort. Non-DD's are welcome
to request a sponsor on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org .

Sponsors might want to watch these pages to select packages to sponsor:
http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/needssponsor.html
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist

More information on the Utnubu subproject can be found here:
http://wiki.debian.org/Utnubu

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian

2007-05-01 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 03:58 -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 May 2007 03:21, Bart Martens wrote:
> > However, some packages have no working debian/watch file, and then it is
> > not always easily seen whether there are newer upstream releases
> > available for these packages.  I suggest to add/update debian/watch with
> > your next updates of your packages.  Non-DD's are welcome to ask help
> > for that on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org .  Hint: test the
> > debian/watch file with "uscan --report-status".
> 
> I was wondering if there is a way to make uscan disregard what seem like 
> newer 
> versions, but are beta. The following illustrates the problem.

Yes, see "uversionmangle" in "man uscan".




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)

2007-05-01 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:49 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-01 11:21]:
> > Another approach for identifying packages to be updated in Debian to
> > newer upstream releases is by comparing Debian with Ubuntu.  Here is a
> > list of packages that are newer in Ubuntu than in Debian, grouped by
> > maintainer:
> > http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html
> 
> The first package in your list shows that you're not handling epochs
> properly.  1.0~rc1-13 vs 2:1.0~rc1-0ubuntu9.  Debian isn't out of date
> here.  You need to ignore epochs.

The handling of epochs is correct, but some packages have different
epochs in Debian and Ubuntu for the same upstream version.

I have updated the list to hide packages with identical upstream version
numbers but with different epochs.  This might hide some real positives
but most likely hides more false positives.

So thanks for the feedback; this is useful.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new here

2007-05-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 18:17 +0200, Nahuel ANGELINETTI wrote:
> What should I do when I choosed a package which interest me ?

Fix any bugs, update the package to the newest debian-policy, package
newer upstream releases, ... and enjoy stepping in the wonderful world
of Debian packaging! :)

Note that you will need to read some documentation about packaging and
about Debian procedures; it's too time consuming to guide you through
all steps in detail via debian-mentors.  The documentation is very
complete, so if you read the documents with your full attention, you
should find your way to what to do.

> Another question, does it more needed packages up for adoption or
> orphaned packages ?

You are completely free to choose what interests you most.  For a new
maintainer, it might be easier to adopt a simple orphaned package, add a
small fix (for example, add a manpage), and get it uploaded in Debian
via a sponsor.  Now you might ask, what's a sponsor? Well, that's
documented too. :)  Reading is gd. :)

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

already being sponsored (Re: RFS: nautilus-image-converter)

2007-05-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 18:08 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> (changing subject and cc'ing to Debian Mentors 
> )

I'll answer this via private e-mail.




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

already being sponsored (Re: RFS: nautilus-image-converter)

2007-05-04 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 19:09 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> David Paleino ha scritto:
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nautilus-image-converter".
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> 
> The package now correctly builds in a clean pbuilder chroot environment.
> Please, feel free to comment on this.

I'll answer this via private e-mail.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

sponsor (Re: RFS: gnofract4d)

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 01:18 +0200, francesco namuri wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnofract4d".
> 
>   Package name: gnofract4d
>   Version : 3.3-1
>   Upstream Author : Tim Whidbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   URL : http://gnofract4d.sourceforge.net/download.html
>   License : BSD
>   Section : graphics
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> gnofract4d - a fractal images creator
> 
> The package is lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 420507
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnofract4d
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnofract4d/gnofract4d_3.3-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

I'll sponsor this package.  I will contact the packager via private
e-mail.




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

request for sponsoring = RFS, intent to sponsor = ITS ?

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Mentors,

Is there some agreed abbreviation that can be used in the subject of
messages posted on debian-mentors to indicate that a mentor intends to
sponsor a package? If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: request for sponsoring = RFS, intent to sponsor = ITS ?

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 05:48 -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:20:10PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
> 
> Would a 'review without ITS' be done by a simple reply to the RFS
> without a subject marking?
> 

Yes, I wasn't clear about that, but that is part of what I meant.

ITS would only be used for an "intent to sponsor", all the way,
including upload in Debian.  ITS would not be used for occasional review
comments.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 17:43 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> I've successfully packaged "nanoweb".
> There already is a bug open [3], but if you read over there, there are (were)
> some copyright issues. In fact, the program itself is released under GPLv2 
> (and
> later), while it is based on PHP, which is release under "The PHP License" [4]
> and, as regards the "Zend Component", "The Zend Engine License" [5].
> 
> Now, as Steve Langasek pointed out in that bug report:
> 
> "PHP is GPL-incompatible. You cannot distribute GPL software together with
> GPL-incompatible software that it depends on without a license exemption from
> the copyright holder of the GPL software."
> 
> What do you think about this? 

I think that Steve is usually right about such things. :)

> Should I file an ITP (the package is ready)?

No, don't file a new ITP, but retitle the existing RFP if you intend to
work on packaging this software.
http://bugs.debian.org/172781

> Should I contact debian-legal (I'll look in their archives before)?

That could be a good idea to get advice.

At first sight, the first step you could try, is to contact the
copyright holder of the part licensed with the GPL and ask for the
exception(exemption?) Steve mentioned.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 13:22 -0300, Alex Queiroz wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> On 5/6/07, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
> >
> > > In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
> > > utterly abominable, an example of total programming putrifaction.  I
> > > expect this code to be so inherently unmaintainable that its very
> > > presence would warrant an RC bug.  As a DD and as a user of PHP, I
> > > would ask that this package not be uploaded to Debian.
> >
> 
>  This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages 
> now?
> 
> -- 
> -alex

It is perfectly allright that Neil gives his opinion about whether this
software fits in Debian or not.  This is not censoring.  Moreover, it
seems that Neil did the effort of reading the available information
about this software to give David a more complete advice.  This feels
like excellent use of the debian-mentors list.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Copyright issues GPL-PHP license

2007-05-06 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 20:20 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> 2007/5/6, Stefan Fritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sonntag, 6. Mai 2007, Alex Queiroz wrote:
> > >  This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming
> > > languages now?
> >
> > No, but it is already a lot of work to provide security support for
> > the php apps in Debian. Ubuntu's popcon shows an installed user base
> > for nanoweb of only 23, compared to e.g. 441 for lighttpd. I don't
> > think it makes sense to spend time for security support (and php apps
> > tend to have many issues) for so few users.
> 
> I agree on this. I didn't look Ubuntu's popcon before, sorry.

I have now added Ubuntu popcon information in the report you used; try
holding the mouse over the Ubuntu version number.
http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/missing.html



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: bugreport, debian, ubuntu

2007-05-17 Thread Bart Martens

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 04:01 -0500, Paul Elliott wrote:
> As some of you may have guessed from some of my confused emails the last few 
> days
> I am the author of peless, and I have been trying to get peless into debian.
> I am not an experienced debian person.
> 
> I have been trying to get all my control, rules, changelog, ect, files into 
> shape
> so the peless will package, so then I can hand it off to an experienced debian
> packager who I hope to talk into putting peless into debian.
> 
> To this end, I have been using ubuntu 7.04 as a developement environment.
> Is that wrong? 

You can use Ubuntu, build the package with pbuilder configured to use
Debian Sid, and test the package in a Debian Testing chroot.

> If so, it could be a problem for me, because I have dialup
> and it would take a long time to download a distribution dvd. 

What I said above requires some bandwidth.

> I had
> this ubuntu CD, (they seem to be everywhere), so I just started to use
> it. Everyone tells me that ubuntu is a form of debian.

Ubuntu is based on Debian.

> 
> Anyway, today I thought I had all my files OK, and I could build a package,
> so I thought to try to submit a "RFP".

Do you only want the "peless" software packaged included Debian? Or do
you want to become the official Debian package maintainer?

> 
> I did a "bugreport --email [EMAIL PROTECTED] wnpp"
> but it never asked me to "Choose the request type:" like it
> says in this web page:
> http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
> finnaly when it began saying it was going to send the report off
> to an ubuntu mailing list, I aborted it.
> 
> Is there a way to file a RFP from ubuntu? What am I doing wrong?

Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject "RFP: peless --
short package description" and with this in the body:

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

Followed by some information about the software.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITS (Re: RFS: libasterisk-agi-perl)

2007-05-19 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 17:40 -0600, Rene Mayorga wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libasterisk-agi-perl".
> 
> * Package name: libasterisk-agi-perl
>   Version : 0.09-1
>   Upstream Author : James Golovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~jamesgol/asterisk-perl-0.09/
> * License : Artistic License
>   Section : perl
> 
> Description  :
>   Asterisk::AGI is a collections of modules that provides an easy way to 
> write
>   Asterisk AGI scripts using Perl
> 
> 
> The package is lintian and linda clean.
> 
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 424956
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libasterisk-agi-perl
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
> contrib non-free
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libasterisk-agi-perl/libasterisk-agi-perl_0.09-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

I intend to sponsor this package.  I will contact the packager via
private e-mail.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

ITS (Re: RFS: crank (updated package))

2007-05-20 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 00:50 -0400, Manuel Garcia wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.1.4-4
> of my package "crank".
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> crank  - A classical CRypto ANalysis toolKit
> 
> The package is lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 352532
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crank
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
>   main contrib non-free
> - dget
>   http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crank/crank_0.1.4-4.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

I intend to sponsor this package.  I will contact Manuel via e-mail.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: inactive maintenance

2007-06-17 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:10 +0400, Al Nikolov wrote:
> Hello, mentors
>  
> I'm wondering if there is a practice to force package to be orphaned in a
> case of chronic lack of maintenance?

Yes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-mia-qa




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITS (Re: RFS: libsvg-perl)

2007-06-18 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 09:47 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libsvg-perl".

I'll sponsor this package.  I'll contact David via private e-mail.

> 
> * Package name: libsvg-perl
>   Version : 2.33-1
>   Upstream Author : Ronan Oger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~ronan/SVG-2.33/
> * License : GNU GPL, Artistic (same as Perl)
>   Section : perl
> 
> It builds this binary package:
> libsvg-perl - perl module to generate SVG images
> 
> The package is lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix this bug: 429387
> 
> Moreover, this bug is blocking the ITP for libsvg-graph-perl, #429163
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libsvg-perl
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian
> unstable main contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libsvg-perl/libsvg-perl_2.33-1.dsc
> 
> Before asking for upload, I need some help on this package. The
> Makefile.PL present upstream generates some man pages, which lintian
> complains about. In particular, those manpages are generated from
> ISO-8859-1 files, while on my system I have UTF-8. Therefore I
> substituted the "missing characters" with the proper groff escapes
> (lintian suggested looking at 'man groff_char'). The problem is that
> the resulting man pages actually _show_ the escapes, not the resulting
> characters (i.e. show \[sc] instead of §). Is there anything I can do
> about this?
> 
> Besides this, I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Kind regards
>  David Paleino
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cancel (Re: ITS (Re: RFS: libsvg-perl))

2007-06-18 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 10:19 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 09:47 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libsvg-perl".
> 
> I'll sponsor this package.  I'll contact David via private e-mail.

Correction.  There was already an ITP owned by someone else, so I'm not
sponsoring David's package.




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: libtie-cache-perl (updated package)

2007-07-09 Thread Bart Martens

Hi list, I'm already sponsoring this package.  I'll answer to the
packager via private e-mail.

Hi Deepak, no need to post a RFS on debian-mentors if you already have a
sponsor.  Unless you want to get rid of me. :)


On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 18:27 +, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.17-3
> of my package "libtie-cache-perl".
> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> libtie-cache-perl - LRU Cache in Memory
> 
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
> 
> The upload would fix these bugs: 279807
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libtie-cache-perl
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
> contrib non-free
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libtie-cache-perl/libtie-cache-perl_0.17-3.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Kind regards
>  Deepak Tripathi
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RFS libnet-smtp-server-perl debnest debian-builder (was: Re: RFS: libtie-cache-perl (updated package))

2007-07-14 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 19:54 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Hi list, I'm already sponsoring this package.  I'll answer to the
> packager via private e-mail.
> 
> Hi Deepak, no need to post a RFS on debian-mentors if you already have a
> sponsor.  Unless you want to get rid of me. :)

I meant to say "no need to post an RFS on debian-mentors for a package
you already have a sponsor for, because that might cause duplicate
sponsoring efforts".

Please send RFS messages for additional packages to debian-mentors, not
to me.

I send a cc to debian-mentors now so that candidate sponsors notice your
ITA's and available packages at mentors.
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Change in my sponsorship requirements

2007-07-15 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 10:33 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> I think it is easier for everyone if every change
> during sponsorship gets a new Debian version, so if you need me to
> sponsor packages, each upload to mentors.debian.net must use a new
> Debian version.

That makes debian/changelog written by newbie packagers needlessly long.

> This doesn't affect any other sponsor, it's just a change in how I
> prefer to sponsor.

True, it doesn't affect other sponsors.

I would regret that this would be enforced at mentors (I know, you did
not suggest that).  I prefer only one added block in debian/changelog
per upload to Debian, although I allow multiple blocks if the packager
wants that.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Change in my sponsorship requirements

2007-07-15 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 11:45 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I make use of
> the new ~ character in version strings. Even more my own packages,
> I'll release
> 
>   1.0-1~unreleased.1
>   1.0-1~unreleased.2
>   1.0-1~unreleased.3
> 
> until it's final and I can release 1.0-1, for which I merge the
> previous changelog entries. This is more work and requires more
> recompiles, but it does the job without cluttering the changelog.

That is a good approach, in my opinion.

To make this approach more complete, the packager requesting a sponsor
could package the software initially with this version and revision:

   1.0~rfs.1-1~rfs.1

After each review the revision number is incremented:

   1.0~rfs.1-1~rfs.2
   1.0~rfs.1-1~rfs.3
   1.0~rfs.1-1~rfs.4

When the .orig.tar.gz needs repackaging, then this happens:

   1.0~rfs.2-1~rfs.1
   1.0~rfs.3-1~rfs.1

And when it's finally allright, then the package (containing a
debian/README.Debian-source) can still get this version and revision
when uploaded to Debian:

   1.0-1

Or is this "over the top"? Maybe it needlessly complicates things for
newbie packagers...

Non-DD's are also welcome to comment !

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Change in my sponsorship requirements

2007-07-15 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:02 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:23:48 +0200
> Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 10:33 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > I think it is easier for everyone if every change
> > > during sponsorship gets a new Debian version, so if you need me to
> > > sponsor packages, each upload to mentors.debian.net must use a new
> > > Debian version.
> > 
> > That makes debian/changelog written by newbie packagers needlessly
> > long.
> 
> Why is the length of the changelog of concern?

Readability and relevance for the uploaded package.

> 
> If the same items are detailed overall, it is only three extra lines
> per change - one for the version line, one blank, one timestamp.

Something like this ?

packagename (0.1.0-8) unstable; urgency=low

  * Updated debian/watch to recognize both ".tar.gz" and ".tar.bz2",
now revealing the real latest upstream release.

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 12 May 2007 23:52:26 +0200

packagename (0.1.0-7) unstable; urgency=low

  * Updated debian/watch to replace any "-(rc\d+)$" by "~$1".

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 12 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

packagename (0.1.0-6) unstable; urgency=low

  * Updated debian/watch to replace "-rc4" by "~rc4".

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 11 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

packagename (0.1.0-5) unstable; urgency=low

  * Fixed debian/watch again.  Now tested with "uscan --report-status".

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 10 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

packagename (0.1.0-4) unstable; urgency=low

  * Fixed debian/watch.

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 08 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200

packagename (0.1.0-3) unstable; urgency=low

  * Added debian/watch.

 -- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sun, 06 May 2007 21:52:26 +0200


It's not a huge problem, but it's not so nice to have all beginners
mistakes logged forever for the whole world to see.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Change in my sponsorship requirements

2007-07-15 Thread Bart Martens

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 16:47 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2007, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:02 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> --cut--
> > Something like this ?
> >
> > packagename (0.1.0-8) unstable; urgency=low
> >
> >   * Updated debian/watch to recognize both ".tar.gz" and ".tar.bz2",
> > now revealing the real latest upstream release.
> --cut-history--
> > It's not a huge problem, but it's not so nice to have all beginners
> > mistakes logged forever for the whole world to see.
> 
> Then you are trying to cheat the world behind the scene, right ? ... in the 
> name of PR ? If that is the real history, let be it. 

No, it's not about "cheat" and "pr" and changing "the real history", but
for me it's about what I wrote in my previous messages and about some
very reasonable (numbered) part Colin wrote.

> 
> OTOH, as a sponsee, I won't work with sponsors who force me to edit the past 
> in the name of spurious beautification ;-)

No, this debate is not about forcing to summarize debian/changelog, but
about forcing to preserve everything in debian/changelog during the
entire sponsoring process.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

uploaded (Re: RFS: pmidi)

2007-07-17 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:42 +0200, Francesco Namuri wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pmidi".
> 
> I've adopted it, the only change I've made is the change to cdbs packaging.

Uploaded.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: List of (un)sponsored packages on Mentors (approximate)

2007-07-23 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 09:30 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Also, the list is a HTML page, with every package having a link. The
> > link points to the RFS message in the Debian Mentors archive.
> >
> > See it at:
> > http://www.ee.iitm.ac.in/~ee03b091/Mentors/output.html
> 
> I fear there are some false positives.  For example, dblatex is listed,
> the RFS refers to version 0.1.8, but etch has 0.2-2.

Here's also a list of packages needing a sponsor.
http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/needssponsor.html

This list shows only packages
- sitting at Mentors,
- with a newer version at Mentors than in Debian unstable,
- with an ITP or ITA.

So this list does not include packages with RFS messages on
debian-mentors.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

takeover (Re: RFS: gscan2pdf (updated package))

2007-08-29 Thread Bart Martens

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 07:03 +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.16-1
> of my package "gscan2pdf".

Have you agreed with John Goerzen that you take over maintenance of this
package?
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gscan2pdf.html


> 
> It builds these binary packages:
> gscan2pdf  - A GUI to produce PDFs from scanned documents
> 
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
> 
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gscan2pdf
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gscan2pdf/gscan2pdf_0.9.16-1.dsc
> 
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> Kind regards
>   Jeffrey Ratcliffe
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: takeover (Re: RFS: gscan2pdf (updated package))

2007-08-29 Thread Bart Martens

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 07:24 +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote:
> On 30/08/2007, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you agreed with John Goerzen that you take over maintenance of this
> > package?
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gscan2pdf.html
> 
> He hasn't replied to my emails, which I thought was strange, but as I
> am upstream...

If the Debian maintainer does not reply to your e-mails, then the
procedure described here might help:
http://www.us.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-mia-qa

> 
> Regards
> 
> Jeff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: takeover (Re: RFS: gscan2pdf (updated package))

2007-08-29 Thread Bart Martens

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:39 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:24:13AM +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
> > On 30/08/2007, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Have you agreed with John Goerzen that you take over maintenance of this
> > > package?
> > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gscan2pdf.html
> > 
> > He hasn't replied to my emails, which I thought was strange, but as I
> > am upstream...
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Maybe it would help to be more formal and send a message on debian-devel
> (CCed to the maintainer of course) with a title like "Intend to hijack
> gscan2pdf". This is what I did when I hijacked seaview, and it worked
> like a charm.

Is such approach compatible with the procedure about "dealing with
inactive and/or unreachable maintainers"?
http://www.us.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-mia-qa

> 
> Have a nice day, and thanks for your efforts !
> 
> -- 
> Charles Plessy
> http://charles.plessy.org
> Wako, Saitama, Japan
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITR: gnomermind - failed review

2007-10-09 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:54 -0400, Chess Griffin wrote:
> My intent here was to help with a very old package and learn some
> things along the way, 

Sure, go ahead.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: prboom (updated package)

2007-10-30 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Marco,

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 07:24 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Marco Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-31 01:33:21 CET]:
> > About prboom, it's working well with my updates (that I cannot submit to 
> > svn),

I've read that you accept that your svn commit access has been revoked,
so I guess that there were good reasons.  I have not verified that, but
all involved parties seem to agree on this.

If this package is being maintained in svn, then the best way to get
your changes included, is by submitting patches in the bug tracking
system.

> 
> > that installs the .desktop file that I've added to it weeks ago. I also have
> > removed debian/menu from it, because there is prboom.menu added by Jon 
> > Downland,
> > I think..

See above, I suggest that you submit a patch to the bug tracking system.

> 
> > What I need to do to have svn access again? I promise I'll be more careful 
> > about
> > everything I change and add it to changelog when the change deserves that.

Regain trust by submitting well tested patches in the bug tracking
system, is probably a good start.

The good thing is that you seem to be motivated to contribute to Debian,
and it really OK to make some mistakes while learning.  I still remember
the horrible mistakes I've made myself, and fortunately I had good
sponsors with lots of patience. :)

Hope this helps,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

automatically parseable debian/copyright

2007-11-28 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:44 +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> I'd suggest that the copyright file
> should be redone and done so it can be parsed automatically:
> 
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat

Hi Paul,

As far as I know, it has not yet been decided that the debian/copyright
files must be formatted as described on the wiki page quoted above.  Or
did I miss some decision ?

Regards,

Bart Martens

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: automatically parseable debian/copyright

2007-11-28 Thread Bart Martens

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:44 +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> I'd suggest that the copyright file
> should be redone and done so it can be parsed automatically:
> 
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 18:21 +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 6:15 PM, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > As far as I know, it has not yet been decided that the debian/copyright
> > files must be formatted as described on the wiki page quoted above.  Or
> > did I miss some decision ?
> 
> You didn't miss anything. 

Good, thanks for confirming that.

> It is a good idea that I felt like
> suggesting in this instance since there were a few files with
> differing copyright info.

I can imagine that some package in particular might be an interesting
case to try the proposed format for debian/copyright.  But I think that
debian-mentors is not the best place for that.  It is, in my opinion,
better that all sponsors on debian-mentors stick to current policies and
practices.

Regards,

Bart Martens



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

burp FTBFS (was: Re: Problems with build)

2012-05-18 Thread Bart Martens

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:00:57PM +, Bas van den Dikkenberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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 see that on https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=burp
so where are the build logs for the two platforms you mentioned ?

And can you confirm that we're talking about burp 1.3.4-2 ?

Regards,

Bart Martens


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120518172647.ga28...@master.debian.org

Bug#670375: RFS: chromaprint/0.6-2 -- Minor fixes

2012-05-19 Thread Bart Martens

Simon,

I cannot find this copyright notice anywhere in the upstream source code.

  Copyright: 2010-2013 LukÃ¡Å¡ LalinskÃ½ 

Why put it in debian/copyright ?

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519093749.ga14...@master.debian.org

Bug#671701: RFS: autofs

2012-05-19 Thread Bart Martens

Hi William,

You wrote on 671436:
> Now working with Dmitry Smirnov on RFS #671701
> will work together on this package in the future.

Please remove this package from mentors:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/autofs5

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519105956.gb14...@master.debian.org

Bug#659082: RFS: nestopia/1.40g+dfsg-1 [NEW] -- accurate emulator of the Nintendo Entertainment System

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Stephen,

I don't see the package at mentors.  What happened ?

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522052154.ga21...@master.debian.org

Bug#659915: RFS: radlib/2.11.3-1 [ITP] -- rapid application development library

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hello Bas,

I don't see the package at mentors.  What happened ?

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

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522052823.gc21...@master.debian.org

Bug#669599: RFS: python-django-evolution/0.6.7-1 [ITP] -- Schema evolution for the Django web framework

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Dmitry,

I don't see the package at mentors.  What happened ?

http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-django-evolution
http://mentors.debian.net/package/django-evolution

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522052611.gb21...@master.debian.org

Bug#672133: RFS: webacula/5.5.1-1 [ITP]

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Alexander,

I don't see the package at mentors.  What happened ?

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

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522053439.gd21...@master.debian.org

Bug#660955: RFS: gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg/4.6.2-1 [ITP] -- documentation for GCC 4.6

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Samuel,

Why do you use suffix "~naesten4" on your package at mentors ?

http://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522060650.gg21...@master.debian.org

Bug#659805: package marked "needs sponsor = no" at mentors

2012-05-21 Thread Bart Martens

Hello,

The package at mentors is marked "needs sponsor = no" on this page:
http://mentors.debian.net/packages/index

You may want to change that to "needs sponsor = yes" since you are obviously
looking for a sponsor via this RFS.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522063512.ga30...@master.debian.org

termit : hijack or adoption with permission

2012-05-23 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Thomas (Koch),

Did you get permission from Tomas Fasth to adopt the package ?
http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/termit.html
http://mentors.debian.net/package/termit

Regards,

Bart Martens


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120523161547.ga23...@master.debian.org

Re: Bug#672981: RFS: eiskaltdcpp/2.2.6-5 (updated) -- Direct Connect and Advanced Direct Connect client

2012-05-24 Thread Bart Martens

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:25:22PM +0300, Boris Pek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Week passed without any reply.
> 
> And I am still looking for a sponsor for the package.

Boris,

No need to send reminders to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org .  The package is
still on these lists, so it won't be forgotten:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=sponsorship-requests
http://mentors.debian.net/packages/index

Also, I see that "week passed" is not entirely true.  The package at mentors
was updated today:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/eiskaltdcpp
Uploaded:   2012-05-24 16:05
Uploaded:   2012-05-24 15:04

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120524183625.ga26...@master.debian.org

Bug#674477: RFS: frogatto{-data}/1.2+dfsg-1.1 [NMU] -- 2D platformer game starring a quixotic frog

2012-05-26 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Vincent,

I'm not sure whether an entry on the "Low Threshold NMU" list makes it OK to
package a newer upstream release via NMU.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526090827.ga10...@master.debian.org

Bug#670212: RFS: pentobi/1.2-1

2012-05-26 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Dean,

Why not pentobi 2.0 ?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pentobi/files/

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526135720.ga32...@master.debian.org

Bug#665354: RFS: viennacl/1.2.1-1

2012-05-26 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Michael,

Why not 1.3.0 ?
http://viennacl.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/viennacl/files/

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526155308.gb17...@master.debian.org

Re: RFS: new powertop version

2012-05-26 Thread Bart Martens

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 06:00:26PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of the package powertop, which 
> closes several bugs (e.g. bug #672555). I do this since there was no reaction 
> from the maintainer regarding my patches which fix bug #672555 and would like 
> to see the new version of powertop in Debian.

Version 2.0 was released on 5 May 2012 and it was announced on the upstream
website on 10 May 2012.  Bug 672555 was submitted on 11 May 2012.  Isn't it a
bit soon to push this new upstream release via NMU ?

Also, I'm not sure about new upstream releases via NMU.  Have you offered to
co-maintain ?

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526171907.ga15...@master.debian.org

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-27 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Jonathan,

The information in debian/copyright is not complete.  One example is that
Edward B. Hamrick is the copyright holder of inflate.c and the license differs
from the one in LICENSE.

The package contains material that must not be distributed.  One example is
that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license contains a license which
"specifically excludes the right to re-distribute".

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528041654.ga...@master.debian.org

Bug#673096: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which "specifically excludes the right to re-distribute"

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable.

The package contains material that must not be distributed.  One example is
that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license which "specifically excludes
the right to re-distribute".



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528085807.gc26...@master.debian.org

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Jonathan,

Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at
2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of
re-distribution.  http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet

Note that you can still package figlet for Debian, if you want that, but then
the license problem must be solved before figlet can re-enter Debian.

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528090527.ga1...@master.debian.org

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens

Hi Jonathan,

This seems an easy solution for figlet 2.2.4-1 :
ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT

Regards,

Bart Martens



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528100608.ga17...@master.debian.org

Re: how often should ask for upload?

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:55:16PM -0300, gustavo panizzo  wrote:
> hi
> 
> after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i
> prepare new revisions of it

I have no general answer to that, but I see that bug 674339 should be fixed as
soon as possible.

> and ask to potential sponsors to upload it
> to the archive? 

Your package at mentors is marked "needs a sponsor = yes", so you're OK at the
moment about asking for a sponsor.

> 
> should i wait until the pkg has a many bugs?

Some bugs are more important/urgent than others.

> or each bug deserves an upload?

I don't think so, no.

Did you receive a notification for the comment that was added on this page ?
http://mentors.debian.net/package/vavoom

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528161022.gc20...@master.debian.org

Re: RFS: new powertop version

2012-05-29 Thread Bart Martens

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:15:01AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Julian Wollrath  writes:
> 
> > I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but 
> > since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes 
> > were 
> > needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also 
> > needed so that it would be machine readable according to the specifications 
> > in 
> > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/.
> 
> This kind of change (changing the copyright file format) is not usually
> acceptable in an NMU, unless cleared with the maintainer.

I just want to add that I very much agree with that changing the copyright file
format does not belong in an NMU.

> Although many
> maintainers consider the use of the machine readable format to be a best
> practice,

I'm not one of those maintainers.  I prefer the old plain text format.

> it does not have the force of policy,

I'm happy with that.

> and the absence of
> machine readable formatting of debian/copyright is at most wishlist bug,
> i.e. something that the submitter might like, but the maintainer might
> or might not agree is an improvement.

I have so far not seen any benefit from the "machine readable formatting".
Actually, I think that developing tools to extract all copyright and license
information from the upstream software would be a better investment of time
than the time spent by those many packagers hand-coding that "machine readable
format".

> 
> Note that while it is not especially likely, it is possible to introduce
> release critical bugs (violations of policy "must"s) by editing of
> debian/copyright.

I agree.  It is better to simply quote the exact texts from the upstream
software.

>  For more information, see section 12.5 of Debian
> policy.
> 
> Pretty much the same thing holds for changing packaging formats from 1.0
> to 3.0 (quilt), which you did not do here, but is a common beginner
> mistake in NMUs.

I also agree that changing this aspect does not belong in an NMU.

> 
> Thanks for your efforts, and don't get too discouraged, more experienced
> contributors make similar mistakes.

That is unfortunately very true.  I also learn while sponsoring packages from
beginning package maintainers.

Regards,

Bart Martens

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120529190628.ga21...@master.debian.org

1 2 3 4 5 >

1 - 100 of 403 matches

Mail list logo