Becoming the upstream maintainer of a package
I'm the current maintainer for xtrlock and it was abandoned upstream years ago (1996?). I have an updated package where I rewrote the build system since the old one used Imake and some flags that no longer were relevant. I fixed a few minor other issues in the source as well. Someone mentioned I might as well declare myself upstream since I've already rewrote parts of it (build) and because it's a pretty small code base. I'm just wondering how I might go about declaring myself its upstream maintainer and updating the package accordingly. My assumption is that I should note the change in the changelog and upgrade the version from 2.0-9 to 2.01. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: php-date bugfix
I have a new version of php-date (1.4.2-2) that needs sponsored to close #247535. The files are at http://linux.nullcode.org/debian/php-date-1.4.2/ If someone could sponsor the upload I would appreciate it. - Chris signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: hearts - a KDE card game
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 06:29:54PM +0200, Frederik Dannemare wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I'm looking for a sponsor for hearts, since my sponsor of another > package of mine is currently burdened with other work. > > Name: hearts > License: GPL > Upstream site: http://hearts.luispedro.org/ > My package: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~frda/debian/hearts/ > Hearts seems like too generic of a name for the package. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:16, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi people > > I have created a package of Raster3D. > It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ > > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. > > Words from the author: > > I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the > Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to > use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions > must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in > non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to > feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not > want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't > really. This violates section 3 of the DFSG if I understand him correctly. > > I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have > changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and > compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for > the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. > > I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for > publication, that they should be properly cited. Possibly a violation of section 6. > > The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is > the UW's pine license: > ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html Ack, comparisions to Pine's license can't be good. > > I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if > I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that > except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for > scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. > > *END* > > Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of > proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, > triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, > Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer > algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary > programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering > descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, > bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures > composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with > highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits > of color information per pixel. > > Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html > > My package is lintiand and linda clean. The newest standards version is 3.6.1, your package is using 3.6.0. You probably want to update that in debian/control. > I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. > Judging by what you've said in the mail, I doubt Raster3D could go in anything but non-free. It would help considerably to get an actual license with the package (though there could be one, the server is slow and I don't have time to download the files to examine them). > Someone to sponsor me? > > Thank you very much > Nelson > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc > 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= > =wdOg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ITA: mpg321
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:35, Stephan Beyer wrote: > I hope I don't look like a hijacker and I hope I'm not that monkey > with a tin tool because I didn't wait for a reply :) > You definitely need to wait for a reply for at least a week, then generally try one last time to contact him. Hijacking it after 1 day isn't responsible and is sometimes considered rude, not everyone has access to email 24x7. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How to get rid of an epoch?
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 16:38, Amaya wrote: > I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases. > Then I stumble upon this: > > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in unstable >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in testing >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > > For some reason (the changelog doesn't help much), the previous > maintainer used an epoch at some point and I would like to get rid of > it. What's the best way to do it? > If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path. ie: say they have 1:1.6-1 and you remove the epoch in future uploads. That epoch will keep it a higher version than your new uploads and prevent upgrades without the sysadmin doing it manually. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for a sponsor: Limewire 4.0.6
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 13:29, james wrote: > Hello, > I have already built limewire 4.0.6 from the previous verision's > makefile and would like to maintain. I am looking for a sponsor as I am > new to development. It generally helps to link to the packages you've created so that potential sponsors can take a look. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for a sponsor: unace-nonfree 2.20
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 20:20, Dirk Prösdorf wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the unrar-nonfree. s/unrar/unace/ > The Debian packages can > you find on http://www.proesdorf.de/uploads/unace-nonfree/. > > Some infos about this package. There is a free version of unace in > Debian but this version 1.2b don't support newer ACE archives (the same > like unrar and unrar-nonfree). The upstream company only supports the > decompressing of newer archives with a static linked binary. So I've > build a Debian packages from this binary. I find it peculiar that your .orig.tar.gz doesn't contain anything but the two files, but I checked upstream and they indeed only distributed those two. Odd of them not to place at least a license document with it. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Becoming the upstream maintainer of a package
I'm the current maintainer for xtrlock and it was abandoned upstream years ago (1996?). I have an updated package where I rewrote the build system since the old one used Imake and some flags that no longer were relevant. I fixed a few minor other issues in the source as well. Someone mentioned I might as well declare myself upstream since I've already rewrote parts of it (build) and because it's a pretty small code base. I'm just wondering how I might go about declaring myself its upstream maintainer and updating the package accordingly. My assumption is that I should note the change in the changelog and upgrade the version from 2.0-9 to 2.01. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: php-date bugfix
I have a new version of php-date (1.4.2-2) that needs sponsored to close #247535. The files are at http://linux.nullcode.org/debian/php-date-1.4.2/ If someone could sponsor the upload I would appreciate it. - Chris signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: hearts - a KDE card game
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 06:29:54PM +0200, Frederik Dannemare wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I'm looking for a sponsor for hearts, since my sponsor of another > package of mine is currently burdened with other work. > > Name: hearts > License: GPL > Upstream site: http://hearts.luispedro.org/ > My package: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~frda/debian/hearts/ > Hearts seems like too generic of a name for the package. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:16, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi people > > I have created a package of Raster3D. > It's available at http://biolinux.df.ibilce.unesp.br/naoliv/raster3d/ > > There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he > allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. > > Words from the author: > > I have never attached a formal license document or statement to the > Raster3D code. My position has always been that anyone is free to > use or modify the code in any way they like, but that modified versions > must not be redistributed. Binary redistribution is also OK in > non-commercial formats. The bottom line is that I do not want anyone to > feel that they have had to pay something to get Raster3D, and I do not > want them to be running something that claims to be Raster3D but isn't > really. This violates section 3 of the DFSG if I understand him correctly. > > I used to ask that the code not be redistributed at all, but I have > changed my mind about that. I currently provide rpms for Mandrake and > compatible rpm-based distros, and have also given permission for > the Darwin project to distribute a packaged version for the Mac. > > I also ask that if the programs are used to generate figures for > publication, that they should be properly cited. Possibly a violation of section 6. > > The closest formal Open Source licensing document that I know of is > the UW's pine license: > ~http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html Ack, comparisions to Pine's license can't be good. > > I am *not* saying that the pine license covers Raster3D; just that if > I were to write up a formal license it would look something like that > except there are no trademark issues for Raster3D and I ask for > scientific citation rather that trademark or attachment of legal notice. > > *END* > > Raster3D is a set of tools for generating high quality raster images of > proteins or other molecules. The core program renders spheres, > triangles, cylinders, and quadric surfaces with specular highlighting, > Phong shading, and shadowing. It uses an efficient software Z-buffer > algorithm which is independent of any graphics hardware. Ancillary > programs process atomic coordinates from PDB files into rendering > descriptions for pictures composed of ribbons, space-filling atoms, > bonds, ball+stick, etc. Raster3D can also be used to render pictures > composed in other programs such as Molscript in glorious 3D with > highlights, shadowing, etc. Output is to pixel image files with 24 bits > of color information per pixel. > > Homepage is: http://www.bmsc.washington.edu/raster3d/raster3d.html > > My package is lintiand and linda clean. The newest standards version is 3.6.1, your package is using 3.6.0. You probably want to update that in debian/control. > I also created a manpage for the program rings3d included on it. > Judging by what you've said in the mail, I doubt Raster3D could go in anything but non-free. It would help considerably to get an actual license with the package (though there could be one, the server is slow and I don't have time to download the files to examine them). > Someone to sponsor me? > > Thank you very much > Nelson > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFBKnrQAQwuptkwlkQRAvt9AJ9wcg3d4P6BS5YTbNmZ+kyFWhxZlwCfdhXc > 4D6M5+TTdCRwGU91CubcRZA= > =wdOg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ITA: mpg321
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:35, Stephan Beyer wrote: > I hope I don't look like a hijacker and I hope I'm not that monkey > with a tin tool because I didn't wait for a reply :) > You definitely need to wait for a reply for at least a week, then generally try one last time to contact him. Hijacking it after 1 day isn't responsible and is sometimes considered rude, not everyone has access to email 24x7. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How to get rid of an epoch?
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 16:38, Amaya wrote: > I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases. > Then I stumble upon this: > > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in unstable >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in testing >= new >version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable. > > For some reason (the changelog doesn't help much), the previous > maintainer used an epoch at some point and I would like to get rid of > it. What's the best way to do it? > If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path. ie: say they have 1:1.6-1 and you remove the epoch in future uploads. That epoch will keep it a higher version than your new uploads and prevent upgrades without the sysadmin doing it manually. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for a sponsor: Limewire 4.0.6
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 13:29, james wrote: > Hello, > I have already built limewire 4.0.6 from the previous verision's > makefile and would like to maintain. I am looking for a sponsor as I am > new to development. It generally helps to link to the packages you've created so that potential sponsors can take a look. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking for a sponsor: unace-nonfree 2.20
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 20:20, Dirk Prösdorf wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the unrar-nonfree. s/unrar/unace/ > The Debian packages can > you find on http://www.proesdorf.de/uploads/unace-nonfree/. > > Some infos about this package. There is a free version of unace in > Debian but this version 1.2b don't support newer ACE archives (the same > like unrar and unrar-nonfree). The upstream company only supports the > decompressing of newer archives with a static linked binary. So I've > build a Debian packages from this binary. I find it peculiar that your .orig.tar.gz doesn't contain anything but the two files, but I checked upstream and they indeed only distributed those two. Odd of them not to place at least a license document with it. -- Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 72021847 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20B2 CB34 8AA5 05BC A90C 2CDD 2768 D4B4 2B93 424B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
