Re: RFS: hexec (second try)

On Tuesday 02 December 2008 22:46:47 Alexander Block wrote: Hello, > hexec - a tool to intercept/hook and change program calls > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexec > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > - dget http://mentor

Re: Processing (#433270), no upstream tarball, other questions

On Sunday 07 December 2008 19:21:26 Eric Lavarde wrote: > > BTW, code duplication isn't liked in Debian, so it is probably best to > > package whatever it is you found separately and then make processing > > depend on that. > > Agree, many Java projects package their sources with the libraries the

Re: RFS: replaceit

On Tuesday 09 December 2008 17:27:28 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am seeking a sponsor for my updated package replaceit (George Danchev > kindly sponsored previously). This upload: > > * fixes bug 506767, and also > * migrated into a git repository with pu

Re: Someone to 'proofread' a .deb please

On Friday 12 December 2008 01:16:00 Paul Gevers wrote: > >> So how to complain about packages that don't want to change the > >> policy? I filed a bug at upstream [1] but it was a wontfix. > > > > Why? What was the excuse? You'll need to persuade upstream that it is > > not acceptable. How you do t

Re: RFS: gxemul segfault bugfix

On Thursday 18 December 2008 17:21:22 Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Jonathan Wiltshire (18/12/2008): > > No problem by me :-) > > Uploaded as is. Thanks to both of you for taking care of that. I don't mind other sponsors uploading packages I've sponsored, in fact I welcome that provided the Debian

Re: RFS: libexplain

On Wednesday 24 December 2008 13:44:39 Peter Miller wrote: > Dear Mentors, Hello Peter, > Package: libexplain > Version: 0.4 > Upstream Author: (myself) Peter Miller > URL: http://libexplain.sourceforge.net/ > License: GPLv3 or later > > "The libexplain project provides a library which may be use

Re: RFS: libexplain

On Wednesday 24 December 2008 17:40:42 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday 2008 December 24 08:19:27 George Danchev wrote: > > strerror_r(3) (which is > > GNU-specific, ok) > > SUSv3 introduced strerror_r as well, as part of the "Thread Safe Functions" >

Re: advise needed for library packaging

On Monday 29 December 2008 02:01:56 Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Martin Godisch wrote: > > I'm not doing library packaging all day and I'm a bit unsure about the > > new sleuthkit upstream release. It would be nice if some of you could > > have a look at sleuthkit 3.0.0 here

Re: advise needed for library packaging

On Tuesday 30 December 2008 04:04:55 Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:12 AM, George Danchev wrote: > > Why is libfoo-X-dev better than libfooX-dev, where 'X' is being some sort > > of API version discriminator ? > > Both of those are the same, I

Re: advise needed for library packaging

On Tuesday 30 December 2008 00:07:34 Neil Williams wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:12:24 +0200 > > George Danchev wrote: > > > http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html > > > http://bugs.debian.org/libpkg-guide > > > > > >

Re: RFS: cppcheck, new upstream version 1.27

On Tuesday 30 December 2008 23:27:28 Reijo Tomperi wrote: Hi and Happy New Year to all, > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cppcheck/cppcheck_1.27-2.dsc Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution. P.S. I'm still not ready yet with my(our) list of findings/wishlists around cppcheck itse

Re: RFS: gxemul (new upstream)

On Saturday 03 January 2009 05:37:30 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi George (and others) Hi, > gxemul/0.4.7-1 is a new upstream, and I've also taken the opportunity to > fix some minor lintian warnings and improve the packaging. It's now > lintian clean including info tags and builds nicely in a c

Re: RFS: gxemul (new upstream)

On Saturday 03 January 2009 12:54:01 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > * README.Debian could be dropped, it talks about gxemul-doc, while > > control:gxemul has it listed in recommends, which will do the job. > > Ok, dropped it. It would be even better to downgrad that to Suggests: gxemul-doc, since i

Re: RFS: libpam-paperauth

On Tuesday 06 January 2009 16:03:45 Luke Faraone wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Matt Arnold wrote: > > I am the original ITPer of this package and for the benefit of > > - -mentors I had to drop it due to lack of time. I am glad that someone > > has picked this up. However your package

Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)

On Friday 09 January 2009 07:38:48 Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire > > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > >> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't > >> have to remember to use debuild -v...).

Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)

On Friday 09 January 2009 10:13:26 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:33AM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my > > > internets are slow ATM. > > > > whohas 0.22-1 uploaded. &

Re: Subject: RFS: hotwire-irbd (updated package)

On Monday 12 January 2009 15:35:26 Nima Talebi wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.1-1 > of my package "hotwire-irbd". Hi, Here are some comments: * I don't think you need python-all-dbg in build-depends, do you ? * There is a forgotten dangling symlink

Re: Subject: RFS: hotwire-irbd (updated package)

On Monday 12 January 2009 17:45:08 George Danchev wrote: > On Monday 12 January 2009 15:35:26 Nima Talebi wrote: > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.1-1 > > of my package "hotwire-irbd". > > Hi, > > Her

Re: RFS: mandos (updated package)

On Thursday 15 January 2009 07:36:08 Teddy Hogeborn wrote: Hi, > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mandos/mandos_1.0.4-1.dsc Fixing bugs is always nice idea and in fact your new version brings notable improvements compared to the version in sid. However, while checking your new pack

Re: RFS: mandos (updated package)

On Saturday 17 January 2009 04:46:01 Teddy Hogeborn wrote: > Dear mentors, Hi, > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.5-1 > of my package "mandos". > > It builds these binary packages: > mandos - a server giving encrypted passwords to Mandos clients > mandos-client - do unattend

Re: RFS: ng-spice-rework (new package)

On Sunday 18 January 2009 11:43:33 Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: > Dear mentors, Hi Gudjon, > The package is more or less lintian clean :) What does that mean? You better describe what the problem is and find ways to deal with it properly. Uploading a *new* package with already known flaws, is no

Re: Added requirement for translation of debconf templates

On Sunday 18 January 2009 19:24:05 Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:37:20 +0100 > > Olivier Berger wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Le dimanche 18 janvier 2009 à 12:24 +, Neil Williams a écrit : > > > ... I'm now going to require, for any package > > > using debconf that requires sponsorshi

Re: Closing bugs, incrementing release number, and uploads to mentors.debian.net

Quoting Sandro Tosi : On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:59, Ben Finney wrote: * When fixing bugs that prevented a previous release (e.g. one made to mentors.debian.net) from making it into Debian (e.g. because the sponsor requires further changes), recommended practice is to increment the release

Bypassing mentors http/ftp area durng sponsorship (was: Re: Introducing spurious revisions ... )

On Wednesday 21 January 2009 00:46:22 Martin Meredith wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:09:17PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > * Martin Meredith [Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:05:11 +]: > > > > Hey Martin, > > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:29:10PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > > * history: I

Re: RFS: mpg123-el (updated package)

Quoting Sandro Tosi : On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:10, LI Daobing (李道兵) wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: debian/watch - what about adding one? all other issues fixed except this one. uscan only works when every release has a different file name. but mpg123-el alway

[uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)

On Monday 26 January 2009 20:55:09 Raphael Geissert wrote: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-2.dsc > > Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone > installing the package? > > Also, some typos in README.Debian: > Intrebid > wih > upsrea

Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)

On Monday 26 January 2009 22:24:12 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: --cut-- > > Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and > > could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush > > or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates > > description

Re: Autoupdate of java application downloads external libraries

On Thursday 29 January 2009 15:22:06 Alexander Block wrote: > Hello mentors, Hi, > I'm currently packaging the application jDownloader which requires very > frequent updates. The mainstream devs have solved the updating with an > auto-update feature that checks for new versions of the core part a

Re: RFS: rsplib

On Friday 30 January 2009 08:08:43 Thomas Dreibholz wrote: > Dear mentors, Hi, > We are looking for a sponsor for our package "rsplib". RSPLIB is the Open > Source implementation (GPLv3) of the IETF's standard for Reliable Server > Pooling (RSerPool), which is described in RFC 5351 to RFC 5356. I

Re: RFS: avl

On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:58:10 Loïc Fejoz wrote: > Dear mentors and debian-science, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avl". ... > dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/avl/avl_3.27-1.dsc Hi, This is an interesting package I've never seen before, although even being

Re: RFS: cppcheck, new upstream version 1.28

Quoting Reijo Tomperi : Reijo Tomperi wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cppcheck". * Package name: cppcheck Version : 1.25-1 Upstream Authors: Daniel Marjamäki Reijo Tomperi * URL : http://cppcheck.wiki.sourceforge.net/

[uploaded] Re: RFS: cppcheck, new upstream version 1.28 - 2nd try

On Monday 02 February 2009 22:40:26 you wrote: --cut-- > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cppcheck/cppcheck_1.28-2.dsc FYI: cppcheck 1.28-2 uploaded. Thanks for your work. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: libwww0 dependency problem on new architecture

On Sunday 28 August 2005 00:31, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:15:36PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > While trying to bootstrap debian sarge for a new architecture*, I'm > > having some problems while building the w3c-libwww package. > > > > In short, the regular sarge a

Re: debian-mentors FAQ updated

On Friday 09 September 2005 15:01, Matthew Palmer wrote: --cut-- > The FAQ is at: http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html a minor typo at: "How do I effectively keep track of my packaging changes? At the basic level, it's a good idea to keep an archive of the completed source p

Re: PowerPC build issue

On Saturday 10 September 2005 13:12, Ghe Rivero wrote: > Hi everyone, Hi, > one of my packages compiles properly on every platform instead on > powerpc. > The problem is: > > dh_installdocs -X.deps -X.dirstamp > find: paths must precede expression > Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...

Re: RFC: firebird2-1.5.2

On Monday 29 August 2005 15:02, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > Hi, Mentors, > > First, an introduction. > > firebird2 packages need a recompile due to C++ ABI transition (#317314). > Current version is 1.5.1-4. Its codebase has problems compiling both > with gcc-3.4 and 4.0 > > I've decided to package 1.5.

Re: uscan, get-orig-source, and making upstream tarball DFSG-free

On Thursday 15 September 2005 05:44, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:43:10AM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > > Hi, > > > > [ Hmmm, looks like my mailer ate my message... :-( ] > > > > For a package of mine, I need to remove a non-free file from every > > upstream tarball. Doing it

Re: uscan, get-orig-source, and making upstream tarball DFSG-free

On Thursday 15 September 2005 18:43, Justin Pryzby wrote: --cut-- > > > What I did, in an unofficial package, is to include a > > > debian/rules:get-orig-source target which simply calls a script, > > > created in ./debian/ by the .diff.gz. A prerequisite for that rule is > > > "permissions", whic

Re: packages size versus files under dpkg control

On Thursday 15 September 2005 20:33, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: --cut-- > > I see nothing in Policy 6, Policy 10, or FHS which > > answers the question, so either I am just not seeing it > > or I am looking in the wrong place. If W.B. or others > > wish to comment, I would be interested in what the

Re: packages size versus files under dpkg control

On Thursday 15 September 2005 22:52, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:37:27PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:33:20PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:30:30PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > > > W. Borgert wrote:

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Saturday 29 April 2006 06:50, Russ Allbery wrote: > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: --snip-- > > I think ./debian/copyright is relevant, and for saods9 I have made > > mention in both places. I feel that it should be a machine readable > > copy, too, even if the comments are extra-des

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Saturday 29 April 2006 21:34, Russ Allbery wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just to mention that when the get-orig-source target fetches the tarball > > it must be checked every-single time to prevent silently (intentionaly > > or not) chan

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Saturday 29 April 2006 22:06, Russ Allbery wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Saturday 29 April 2006 21:34, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> After I've done one upload with a particular upstream source, I usually > >> just pull the upstre

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:05, Russ Allbery wrote: --snip-- > One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target 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

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Sunday 30 April 2006 12:41, Bart Martens wrote: > 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-p > > >ractices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz > > > http://www.debian

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Sunday 30 April 2006 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote: --cut-- > No, I would instead say: > > * Repackaging must be documented in debian/copyright, and if the >repackaging means that anything a user may expect to be present is >missing, that must be documented in README.Debian. > > * A get-or

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Sunday 30 April 2006 21:37, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target > > > > Do you insist on a get-orig-source target while sponsoring? It's > > cu

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Monday 01 May 2006 00:11, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:06:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > Nobody says that get-orig-source must be only used for repackaging > > purposes. I think it is fine to have such target just getting the > > upstream sourc

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Monday 01 May 2006 05:24, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:01:43AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > [...] > > > Right. These are all good reasons to start hacking around ;-) but now I > > can think of some troubles for autobuilder in case of upstream sites

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Monday 01 May 2006 22:05, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 01 May 2006, George Danchev wrote: > > 1) Since debian/copyright already contains the upstream URL I would > > add also the hashes against it in a machine parsable way: > > > > It was downloaded from ftp://ft

Re: How to include information about a source package ?

On Tuesday 02 May 2006 00:24, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 01 May 2006, George Danchev wrote: > > On Monday 01 May 2006 22:05, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 May 2006, George Danchev wrote: > > > > 1) Since debian/copyright already contains the upstream UR

Re: Somebody please put peless in a debian repository!

On Sunday 11 June 2006 06:38, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:20:34PM -0500, Paul Elliott a écrit : > > All the debian style files can be found at: > > > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/peless/ubuntu.510/ > > Dear Paul, > > I had a quick look at your package. Here are some immediate c

Re: Somebody please put peless in a debian repository!

On Sunday 11 June 2006 10:13, George Danchev wrote: --cut-- > > - Some of the build-dependancies are superfluous, as they depend on each > > others. Simplifying them will reduce the possibility of errors. For > > instance, on my system, I could not install libboost-filesyst

Re: Somebody please put peless in a debian repository!

On Monday 12 June 2006 15:35, Robert Collins wrote: > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 08:12 -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > During the xlibs-dev transition, I learned that listing full > > build-dependencies (not just the minimal set) is recommended, though I > > don't know how widely accepted or followed th

Re: How can I help Debian best?

On Tuesday 13 June 2006 19:05, Christian Hütter wrote: > Hello Bas, > > thank you very much for your kind and informative reply. > > > I think Debian can be a benefit for the free software community by being > > as complete as possible (in terms of free software) > > That is a very good point I did

Re: I can translate

On Tuesday 13 June 2006 22:27, DusteD wrote: > Hi, i would like to help the debian project if > there is any need for a english > danish translator. > Where do i go from here ? Hello there, You can help with the translations of Debian Installer, Debian documentation and the Debian web p

sch -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

Hello -mentors, The bug #335278 is relatively easy, but has been neglected for quite long time. I sent a patch to bts and contacted maintainer, but got no feedback after being waiting for a reasonable timeframe. Thus, I prepared a non-DD NMU: ftp://ftp.uni-sofia.bg/debian-addons-bg/di

Re: RFS: gtkradiant

On Sunday 25 June 2006 17:11, Frits Daalmans wrote: > From: Frits Daalmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org > Subject: RFS: gtkradiant > > Dear mentors, Hi, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gtkradiant". > > * Package name: gtkradiant > Version :

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Tuesday 27 June 2006 21:32, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > Hi! > > * George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060620 11:43]: > > The bug #335278 is relatively easy, but has been neglected for quite > > long time. I sent a patch to bts and contacted maintainer, but got

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 01:58, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > Let's start with something simple: > - According to the header, the script "match" was [EMAIL PROTECTED] > It has no explicit license, but is so easy and short, that I don't > think one could claim copyright for that (the german word f

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:10, Frank Küster wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems that Northrop Grumman's corporate mail server does not remember the > > guy in question: > > > >  - Transcript of session follows - > >

Re: Perl and/or Python projects (was:Hi ,)

On Friday 30 June 2006 10:33, Deepak Kumar Tripathi wrote: > Dear All, > > I am looking for an Debian "Perl or Python" project .But I am not > understanding that from where I will start and how I will start. > I am not new in Debian . > > Can any body tell me that how will I start contribution i

Re: RFS: gtkradiant

On Thursday 29 June 2006 21:50, Frits Daalmans wrote: --cut-- > Thank you for your time! Welcome ;-) > Lintian is now happy and I've done an upload to version 1.5.0-3 > to mentors.debian.net Well, yet another one for fun, I missed to spot at the first place: linda -i ../gtkradiant_1.5.0-3_i386.

Re: RFS: The bobcat library

On Friday 30 June 2006 13:54, Frank B. Brokken wrote: > Dear list / Debian Sponsors, Hello Frank, I couldn't sponsor your work (still in NMq;-), but here are some minor comments you might find useful. Also check your other packages against these considerations. > I'm looking for a s

Re: RFS: The bobcat library

On Friday 30 June 2006 16:30, George Danchev wrote: > On Friday 30 June 2006 13:54, Frank B. Brokken wrote: > > Dear list / Debian Sponsors, > > Hello Frank, --cut-- ... and while we are at it: debian/control - I failed to see anything i386-specific for Package: libbobcat1,

Re: RFS: qemu-launcher - GTK+ front-end to QEMU computer emulator

On Friday 30 June 2006 17:01, Linas Žvirblis wrote: > Dear mentors and Debian users, Hello Linas, > I am looking for *testers* and a sponsor for my package "qemu-launcher". Looks good. Btw, you do not need to build-depend on perl, since debhelper will drag it for you anyway. Also add a watch fi

Re: Request-For-Sponsorship (xfardic)

On Friday 30 June 2006 20:43, Florent Rougon wrote: > Often, changelog entries explain why certain technical packaging > decisions were made (for instance, Build-Depend on "foo >= $version" > because of $reason). These entries are definitely useful, even if they > happened before the first release

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Saturday 01 July 2006 08:41, Joe Smith wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > >> /** > >> * 'Alleged RC4' Source Code picked up from the news." > >> * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L. All

Re: RFS - kwin-style-dekorator -- window decoration for kde using png images

On Saturday 01 July 2006 20:49, Sune Vuorela wrote: --cut-- > > It can be found on http://mirror.pusling.com/dekorator > > > > Thanks in advance. > > ..no comments? Looks correct... a couple of extra things you may want to correct anyway: - since nothing goes to usr/{s}bin you don't need the debia

Re: Procedure for adopting a package?

On Sunday 02 July 2006 23:53, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: --cut-- > > From the bug reports you've filed against calcurse it's clear to me that > > you probably are the perfect person to maintain it, so in the final > > analysis I have no issue with you becoming the maintainer. But like I > > s

Re: RFS: gtkradiant

On Tuesday 04 July 2006 14:05, Frits Daalmans wrote: --cut-- > Hello George, Hello, > thanks for the feedback. I put the modules and plugins in > /usr/lib/games/gtkradiant/ now. (version 1.5.0-4) You are correct. For games /usr/lib/games hierarchy is used in addition to the /usr/share/games. >

Re: RFS: sshbackup

On Tuesday 04 July 2006 20:54, Joona Kiiski wrote: > Hello, > > I've just finished building my first debian package "sshbackup". > sshbackup is small perl script I originally wrote for myself to assist > in backup process. When I got more interested about debian, I decided > that it was a good exer

Re: RFS: sshbackup

On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:45, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.04.2035 +0200]: > > However I noticed that you ship a configuration file with your package > > and I guess you want your users to be able to preserve their own >

Re: Empty files in pbuilder chroot

On Thursday 06 July 2006 18:13, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Hello, Hello, > I'm trying to set up pbuilder, but I end up with empty files (0 size, > access rights set to a-rwx). In particular, cc is empty. When running > pbuilder build, ldconfig complains about many libraries that are also > empty. >

Academic Free License (was: Re: RFS: The bobcat library, stealth and bisonc++)

On Friday 07 July 2006 18:11, Frank B. Brokken wrote: > Hi List, Hello Lists, Frank, -legal, Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at: http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php this will serve as a future reference as well > On June 30th, I sent in RFS's for my two programs Ste

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

Hello, Yet another attempt to find a sponsor for the shc package. Fixes several RC-bugs as described by Frank Lichtenheld in #335278 buglog. Changes read: shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Non-maintainer upload. * New upstream release. (Closes: #338451) * Clear out shc.c ARC4 i

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Thursday 13 July 2006 23:22, Nigel Jones wrote: > From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to > fix RC bugs? Not new upstream releases? > > Just 2 cents This new upstream release (3.8.6) resolves both: rc4 implementation bugs and license issues. If I go for backportin

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Friday 14 July 2006 03:52, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:22:25AM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote: > > >From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to > > > > fix RC bugs? Not new upstream releases? > > > > O

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Friday 14 July 2006 10:08, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:34:20AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > > > shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low > > > > > > ^^^ > > > > > > This is the wrong version number for an NM

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Friday 14 July 2006 14:49, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:31:22PM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > > That also should be catched and warned, since an NMU done by a > > > maintaner makes no sense. > > > > It's not very common, but it does: the NMU is prepared by another > > non-D

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Saturday 15 July 2006 03:48, Russ Allbery wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Friday 14 July 2006 10:08, Bas Wijnen wrote: > >> They could check that non-NMU uploads must not say "Non maintainer > >> upload" in the changelog.

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Saturday 15 July 2006 15:14, Ricardo Mones wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:49:10 +0200 > > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So it is very well possible (but probably not a > > good idea) to perform real NMU as a maintainer. A lintian/linda check > > wouldn't give a false positive there

Re: RFS: quilt-el

On Sunday 16 July 2006 21:06, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > Hi mentors, > > At Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:25:03 +0900, > > Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > Hi mentors, > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the "quilt-el" package. > > > > * Package name: quilt-el > > Version : 0.4-hg20060425-1 > > Ups

Re: library files in package

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 17:26, Steven Hill wrote: > Is there a way to include library files in a package and have them > installed automatically in /usr/lib, Yes, you can have binary package installing files whereever you want, but you must comply with what Filesystem Hierarchy Standard says a

pbuilder outside & inside chroot hook scripts

Hello, Situation background: I have two packages which are not available in debian archive. The first one is a library, the second one depends on. The library package builds in pbuilder just fine, but when I try to build the second one I run in unsatisfied build-depends since the library packa

Re: pbuilder outside & inside chroot hook scripts

On Monday 24 July 2006 12:34, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Improvement?: I think the wishlist described in #316547 has its merits, > > since one should be able to feed self-healing pbuilder image with needed > > build-depends at least. The external (outside chroot hook script will be > > used to re-ind

Re: mini-dinstall, repository signing and apt-get authentication

On Tuesday 25 July 2006 21:20, Neil Williams wrote: --cut-- > That's what I used to use but this method can't be used with > mini-dinstall. It looks like your repository is a single subdirectory > whereas mine uses multiple subdirectories for the multiple > architectures. Each one, apparently, need

Re: RFS: sitebar (updated package)

On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:41, James Westby wrote: > On (29/07/06 14:14), Kevin Coyner wrote: > > Please note that at mentors.debian.net it does throw off a lintian > > warning: > > > > W: sitebar source: build-depends-without-arch-dep > > Build-Depends: debhelper (>=5.0), po-debconf > > I hav

Re: Sponsor for 'hotkeyd' using the input event device

On Sunday 30 July 2006 01:51, Christopher Zimmermann wrote: > Hi! Hi, > I wrote a small daemon in perl which listens for keystrokes on > the /dev/input/event[0123] input event devices and executes small > commands or even complex scripts when certain keys are pressed. > > I know that there are al

Re: RFS: pmplib - create music databases used by portable media players

On Sunday 30 July 2006 23:50, Martin Ellis wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 00:30, Martin Ellis wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pmplib". > > > > * Package name: pmplib > > > > Upstream Authors : > > Nyaochi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Martin Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Where to host a native package as a non-DD

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 22:31, Neil Williams wrote: Hi, > I'm in the NM process. I have a number of packages hosted at SourceForge > that are platform & distribution independent, two of which are already > in Debian. I now have a simple package that should (I think) be a Debian > native packa

Re: RFS: jabbin

On Sunday 06 August 2006 07:40, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jabbin". > > * Package name: jabbin > Version : 2.0beta2-2 > Upstream Author : Stefano Grini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/Jabbin Team > > * URL : http://jabbin

Re: RFS: lisaac

On Friday 18 August 2006 12:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > RFS: lisaac > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lisaac", Or at least an opinion > about the packaging. Thank you. CeCILL FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE looks free to me, but you must include its full text in debian/cop

Re: RFS: jabbin

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:33, Andrew Donnellan wrote: --cut-- > > If it really does need a proper random seed, then you should not be > > getting rid of the compilation error. It may compile correctly, but it > > will not work as intended. > > I do wonder what it needs the proper random seed fo

Re: RFS: queuegraph (take two)

On Thursday 31 August 2006 11:34, martin f krafft wrote: > Hi Conall, > > also sprach Conall O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.31.1003 +0200]: > > queuegraph - a RRDtool frontend for Postfix queue-statistics > > The package is lintian clean. > > Some more comments: > debian/copyright: you don

Re: RFS: queuegraph (take two)

On Thursday 31 August 2006 14:48, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.31.1114 +0200]: > > I grabbed some of your packages[1], but failed to see any text you > > claim any copyright over your packaging. I'm just curious if ther

Re: Openssl/gnutls linking

On Friday 01 September 2006 07:13, Patrick Ruckstuhl wrote: > Hi, Hello, > my packages aria2 (can be found on http://mentors.debian.net) was > rejected because it links against openssl. aria2 can either link > against gnutls or openssl and I thought I had everything set up that > it links against

RFS: bobcat (updated package) - fixes FTBFS on 64-bit arch's

2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Maintainer note: Our current sponsor (listed in CC:) seems to be out of time, so if somebody uploads tha package please keep her CC to let her know about that. Thanks. Kind regards George Danchev -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB

Re: Homepage in debian/control (was: RFS: queuegraph (take two))

On Friday 01 September 2006 15:31, Sam Morris wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:23:20 +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote: > > On 31/08/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> also sprach Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.31.1639 +0200]: > >> > Please no, as tools will start to use X-Homep

Re: upstream tarball repackaging from bz2 to gz

On Sunday 03 September 2006 17:10, 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. > > 1. Should I still follow the section on "best practices f

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >