>
> [...] (lots of further info on packagekit)
>
> Well, I am a DD and in principle could sponsor such a package, but I
just
> lack
> all the know how needed to properly evaluate gnome-related packages.
And,
> as I
> already wrote in another reponse to an RFS some minutes ago, it seems
that
> nob
Hi Matthias,
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> >> Dear mentors,
> >>
> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
> >> This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Ashees
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
>> This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already
>> and
>> s
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
> This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and
> should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems
> regardi
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and
should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems
regarding packaging.
I work closely with upstream and hope to find someone intereste
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.8-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.8-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:39:55 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
>
>> The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem
to
>> reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation)
>
> I mean stuff like indicati
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem to
> reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation)
I mean stuff like indicating that the text is CC-BY-SA and listing the
copyright informatio
Something left to do?
Regards
Matthias
---
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- d
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:12:37 +0530, Praveen A wrote:
> 2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. :
>> I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due
to
>> legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the
>> debian-multimedia
>> repositories which, while good, are not offic
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:26:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
>
>> new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information
from
>> Fedora)
>
> Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Packag
Praveen A writes:
> I was reading through the wiki and found this,
> * Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents.
> This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent
> encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So I
> think, th
2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. :
> I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due to
> legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the debian-multimedia
> repositories which, while good, are not official.
apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg
apt-cache show libmad0 f
In , Praveen A
wrote:
>I was reading through the wiki and found this,
>
>* Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents.
>
>This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent
>encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So I
>think, th
2010/8/31 Paul Wise :
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from
>> Fedora)
>
> Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound
> and so on
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from
> Fedora)
Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound
and so on
Also, what was the license for th
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> somone (pabs?) wrote:
> > Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?
> They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this
> directory we only have documentation of PK.
As best I understand the Linux File H
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:12:18 +0200, David Bremner wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
>> somone (pabs?) wrote:
>> > Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?
>> They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this
>> directory we onl
Hi again!
With the latest upload I fixed everything which was criticized on the
packaging: The copyright is clear, it does not FTBFS on pbuilder, the
mozilla package has been renamed to browser-plugin, we don't need the dirty
hack to remove the source file anymore and new wiki pages have been
creat
Hi!
>>
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc
>
> A review as promised...
>
> The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
> debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document the
> license situation. It is possible to h
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> The package FTBFS in pbuilder:
I should have said that this seems to be because one of the patches
touches configure.ac. You need to build-dep on dh-autoreconf and add
the appropriate --with argument to dh.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.or
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc
A review as promised...
The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document th
Hi!
I found a way to make the creation of the patch a little less annoying.
You just need to run "debuild -S -sa" twice, if a patch is created, and the
script will remove the patch and cleanup the sources automatically. This
keeps the debian/patches directory clean.
---
Hi again!
>> I already do this, but the problem is that the script changes files, it
>> does not only create new ones.
>> So I'm completely unable to restore all files.
>
> No, not *completely*. You can move the files that get modified, build
> everything
> and move them back in the clean target.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Matthias.
On 08/27/2010 01:18 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> I already do this, but the problem is that the script changes files, it
> does not only create new ones.
> So I'm completely unable to restore all files.
No, not *completely*. You can mo
Matthias Klumpp writes:
> Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable
> the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format?
> PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is
> not undone in make distclean, so debhelpe
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:37:18 +0200, David Paleino
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to
disable
>> the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb
>> format?
>> PackageKit updat
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:50:34 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt
wrote:
> Matthias Klumpp writes:
>
>> Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to
disable
>> the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb
>> format?
>> PackageKit updates the documentation and other
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable
> the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format?
> PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is
> not und
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:12:47 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
>
> I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done.
>
> I don't have time to do ongoing sponsors
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done.
I don't have time to do ongoing sponsorship but I will attempt to
review the package this weekend.
--
bye,
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "packagekit".
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds these binary package
36 matches
Mail list logo
