RFS: winff

ool/main/w/winff - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/winff_0.42-1.dsc I would be glad if someone would check uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Paul Gevers signature.asc Desc

Re: RFS: winff

binQKv2VFUoQG.bin Description: PGP/MIME version identification encrypted.asc Description: OpenPGP encrypted message

Re: RFS: winff

e package is again available on mentors: - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/winff_0.42-1.dsc Paul George Danchev wrote: > On Monday 30 June 2008, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Dear mentors, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "winff&

Re: RFS: winff

/winff_0.42-1.dsc With kind regards, Paul Paul Gevers wrote: Thanks for the quick review. - No need to build-depend on fpc-source or you have a strong reason doing so ? Removed: done. - Need to depend on ffmpeg since AFAICS it is being called by winff runtime. Huh, I am pretty sure I see

Re: RFS: winff

ound on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable > main contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/winff_0.42-1.dsc With kind regards Pa

Re: RFS: winff

(This has not been changed.) With kind regards, Paul Paul Gevers wrote: > winff - video and audio batch converter using ffmpeg > WinFF is a graphical user interface for FFmpeg. It will convert > almost any video file that FFmpeg will convert. WinFF does multiple > files in mult

Re: RFS: winff

Thanks for the review. Comments below. Vincent Bernat wrote: > Hi Paul! > > There are only very minor problems with your package: > - You don't need to include README.Debian in debian/docs. This is >included automatically. Removed from debian/docs. Done. > - You don't need debian/pos

RFC: QA vs NMU on ssystem - 3D solar system simulator

Hello mentors, I like some comments on the following: I made some small changes to an orphaned package (ssystem), to fix a bug (#482936) and to fix some lintian errors/warnings. I understand that this should be a QA upload because QA is maintainer, but I might be wrong and that this should be a N

Re: pbuilder and debhelper: Test suite run before dependencies satisfied

You can tell pbuilder to include extra packages in the environment by setting the EXTRAPACKAGES variable. In my .pbuilderrc I have something like: PBUILDERSATISFYDEPENDSCMD="/usr/lib/pbuilder/pbuilder-satisfydepends-gdebi" case "$TEST" in ffmpeg) # For testing of WinFF EXTRAPACKAGES="f

Re: Need advice about my first package

Hi Laurent, Laurent Guignard wrote: > Hi mentors, > Is it possible to have an advice about my first package without submit a > RFS ? IIRC that's where a RFC is for? But I have the impression that you could just file a RFS and say that it is your first package. There are friendly people over here.

Re: RFS: kio-ftps-kde4

> Can I simply update the package after the modifications or do I have to > increment the revision number and add related informations in the changelog > file ? Depending on the sponsor, but most sponsors at the moment appreciate the possibility to use debdiff to see the changes you made, so bum

RFS: winff (updated package)

found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/winff_0.43-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this p

Re: RFS: winff (updated package)

>> * Package name: winff >> Version : 0.43-1 >> Upstream Author : Matthew Weatherford >> * URL : http://winff.org/ >> * License : GPL3 >> Section : graphics >> >> The package appears to be lintian clean. > > You must be using different lintian version:

Re: RFS: winff (updated package)

I just sent this mail with the wrong address, apologies if it arrives double. >> * Package name: winff >> Version : 0.43-1 >> Upstream Author : Matthew Weatherford >> * URL : http://winff.org/ >> * License : GPL3 >> Section : graphics >> >> The package

Re: RFS: winff (updated package)

I found a sponsor. Thanks. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RFS: nedit (QA updated package)

ntors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nedit/nedit_5.5-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Paul Gevers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Someone to 'proofread' a .deb please

>> It is simply unacceptable to have the debian/ directory in the upstream >> source. 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. Also other literature about why not to ship debian/ [2]. Paul [1] http://mantis.freepa

Re: Someone to 'proofread' a .deb please

>> 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 that is up to you - one of the main skills > of a maintainer is p

Re: maximal or minimal deletion when creating dfsg tarball?

> It has been suggested by a respected reviewer that while I am removing the > unsourced binaries, I remove ALL of the "convenience copies of code". That > way > the unused code would not confuse anyone. > > I thought, that when creating a dfsg tarball, one should remove only the > files > wi

Re: Migrating doc directory to a symlink

Hi Ben and mentors, On 10-05-12 01:22, Ben Finney wrote: > Policy dictates, and ‘dpkg’ obeys, that this change is not respected. > The result is that the existing directory remains, and is no longer > populated in the new release. > > > The package installs a duplicate documentation directory co

Re: d/copyright for mrtg-ping-probe (ITA)

> One of things I decided to do as part of adopting the > mrtg-ping-probe package was to rewrite debian/copyright for DEP-5. Thanks for taking care. > The first thing I noticed when I was doing that is that while the > original debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual > source CO

hardening with non-C compilers

Hi all, I am currently working on including the last necessary changes into my package Winff before the freeze. Although I already saw quite some traffic about hardening, it seemed (to me) to relate to C compilers. Of course I was wrong, but I have no clue where to start to figure out how to get a

Re: Bug#673457: RFS: psi-plus-i18n/0.15.5333.2-1 [ITP] -- translation files for Psi+

On 06-06-12 13:15, Boris Pek wrote: > Is here any interested in translations for Debian? Yes, but for nearly all packages, they are in the source of the package themselves. So even if the translations are in a separate binary package, the source is still the same as the main package. So, did you c

Bug#676991: RFS: pyhoca-gui/0.2.0.0-3 [ITP #655603] -- Graphical X2Go Client System Tray Applet

> I'm slightly surprised by these package-contains-broken-symlink lintian > warnings, as the package seems to have correct depends, so I've asked the > lintian maintainers about it. Please keep an eye on these warnings and > probably remove the overrides one day :) This is probably related to b

Re: copyright

> I don’t specify every file in package witch file is written bye who right ? That is exactly the purpose of that file. So, no, you are wrong on this. Policy [1] says: "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information" Paul [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-p

plug-ins in /usr/local/share don't find include files in ../include

Hi all, This morning I filed bug 681558 [1] against my co-maintained package cacti. When I was filing it, I was under the impression that the solution would be simple, creating a soft-link from /usr/local/share/cacti/include -> /usr/share/cacti/site/include. Before I starting implementing it I dec

plug-ins in /usr/local/share/cacti need symlinks to /usr/share [was] plug-ins in /usr/local/share don't find include files in ../include

Ping [additional info as well] [and please CC 681...@bugs.debian.org]. On 14-07-12 18:04, Paul Gevers wrote: > This morning I filed bug 681558 [1] against my co-maintained package > cacti. When I was filing it, I was under the impression that the > solution would be simple, creating a

Re: libtool cannot create a file in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ within pbuilder environment

> `/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcupsfilters.so.1.0.0': Permission denied You don't have permissions, obviously. This is because pbuilder runs under the pbuilder user, not under root. > drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Aug 27 18:30 /usr/lib > drwxr-xr-x 14 root root 24576 Aug 27 18:30 /usr/lib/x86_64

Re: Bug #647552 - Where to start

> I'm looking for a bit of advice on where to start with resolving my > first Debian bug [1]. Right now, I'm wondering how I can get a > version-controlled copy of the source code for gcc 4.6/4.7 that was used > to build these packages. Ideally, I'd like to use SCM tools to generate > diffs, or bac

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

Hi David, I won't sponsor this, but some remarks: When you submit a bug and want to send it to others to review, please use the X-Debbugs-CC header [0]. This can be done easily by submitting bugs with reportbug. On 10-11-12 06:33, David Smith wrote: > I've prepared an NMU for liferea (versioned

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

On 10-11-12 09:46, David Smith wrote: >> Why did you update libtool-dont-rearange-as-needed patch without >> any functional change? > > While inspecting / testing if it was still needed, I may have > inadvertently updated the date on the file. No changes in the file, > I have restored the origin

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

Hi David, As I am already spending quite some time on giving you feedback, I am considering sponsoring you (my first time). However, as I have never used this package, I need to learn it a little first. And I am not very knowledgeable with C, so figuring out the patches is time-consuming. On 16-1

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

>> +++ liferea-1.8.6/debian/changelog 2012-11-11 22:07:08.0 +0800 >> + * Replaced build-depends on transitional package libwebkit-dev with >> +libwebkitgtk-dev. (Closes: #677749) > > Not an important bug, so I suggest you remove it from your nmu if you > target Wheezy as you do. H

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

David, Any progress on this? I am willing to look into a new version from you, but I haven't seen one. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

On 15-12-12 13:15, David Smith wrote: > I've attached a new NMU diff. Let me know if it looks good and I'll go > ahead and do an upload. Looks good so far. I will continue to read it, but please upload to mentors as well. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#692975: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1

Hi David, I think we are nearly there. It seems upstream decided to use a slightly different patch than you currently use for bug 692272. Could you comment on the differences? http://sourceforge.net/p/liferea/code/ci/a167cec01b086302854ec4908ad92210b438c3e0/tree/src/itemlist.c?diff=13b09aee14252

Re: RFS: fpc/2.6.0-7

Abou, On 17-12-12 14:36, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "fpc". > > This upload is fixing an important bugs#686038 to allow translating user > targeted question upon installation. If nobody beats me to it, I will probably be able to look at it this weekend. (A

RFS: nedit (updated package)

upstream (patch 20_ChangeFlagsLinuxMakefile) * Updated debian/rules to use dh_install * Removed doc/README.FAQ (not relevant) * Build man pages from pod source to change name of NC in Nedit-NC (patch 50_ChangeNCinMan) * Created debian/nedit.desktop file and install it -- Paul Gevers Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:

Re: RFS: nedit (updated package)

number plain xxx-1 please let me know. Paul Paul Gevers wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:5.6~cvs20081118-1 > of my package "nedit" which I am adopting. Because upstream is slowly > working to a maintenance release, I decided t

Re: RFS: nedit (updated package)

>> Laurent Guignard found a bug in my packaging (failed to build twice in a >> row). > > Looks to me like the bug is still there; in binary-arch you: > > mv source/nc source/nedit-nc > > But in debian/rules clean you don't delete source/nedit-nc, which is > problematic because make clean doesn't

Re: Directories left on upgrade, files not removed on upgrade?

> Preparing to replace docbook-xsl-doc-html 1.73.2.dfsg.1-5 (using > docbook-xsl-doc-html_1.74.2-1_all.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement docbook-xsl-doc-html ... > dpkg: warning - unable to delete old directory > `/usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl/doc/slides': Directory not empty > dpkg: warning - unable

Re: RFS: nedit (updated package)

~cvs20081118-3.dsc If somebody is willing to sponsor it, but wants the version number plain xxx-1 please let me know. Paul Paul Gevers wrote: >>> Laurent Guignard found a bug in my packaging (failed to build twice in a >>> row). >> Looks to me like the bug is still there; in b

Re: no-symbols-control-file

Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: > >> X: slv2: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/lv2_jack_host succesfully >> successfully >> X: slv2: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/lv2_simple_jack_host succesfully >> successfully > > These two you need to tell upstr

How to give lesstif2 some attention?

Hi mentors, Recently I have invested quite some time to prepare a debdif for lesstif2 [0] to help the maintainer. Lesstif, which had low threshold NMU preference set, did not have a regular update in 1.5 years and definitely could use some attention. In my debdif I solved the following debian bugs

RFS: lesstif2 (updated package) [Was: Re: How to give lesstif2 some attention?]

debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lesstif2 - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lesstif2/lesstif2_0.95.0-2.2.dsc I would be glad if someone would give feedback or upl

Re: On the quest for automated QA checks

> Well, more tests could be included (suggestions), but something along > the lines of the package "elida" would be nice to have (disclaimer: I > still don't have used this package). I think most tests could be included in Lintian. Please file a wishlist bug against Lintian. Paul signature.asc

Re: RFS: lesstif2 (updated package)

> This is a big package with a high popcon count, do you have the time > for such a large task? On your own? Is there any upstream activity? I have the intention to try. And of course all help is appreciated, but I would say that any improvement over inactivity is good. I really think this cleanin

Re: RFS: lesstif2 (updated package)

>> I hope somebody is able to give me more feedback (or ultimately upload >> the package). > > uploaded. Thanks, but no comments? Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug 510765 won't appear as closed

Rodrigo Gallardo wrote: > Can someone help me understand why 510765 keeps on appearing on > liferea's bug page? > > It's been closed in all the relevant versions, and the little graph on > the left shows nothing but green boxes, but everything (the bts, the > pts, my qa page) show liferea as havin

icon/icon-generic in mime options

Hello all, Probably a stupid question, but anyway, I have a question regarding mime support. In my package I use the icon-generic field, but this field has only be included in shared-mime-info version 0.40. Should I ask debian-devel if it is ok to pre-depend on shared-mime-info (>= 0.40) or is thi

Re: Menu entries not appearing

>> I'm doing something wrong with the menu entry? Maybe you want to use dh_installmenu in your rules. If I am correct it takes care of everything, including the postint etc. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Adopting package

No, you should have renamed bug number 547032 instead. Paul Jaromír Mikeš wrote: > Hello mentors, > > I send email for adopting lash package, but I am not sure if I did it right. > > I've got confirmation message with this link: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=548432 > > Is

Re: RFS: fhist (updated package)

IANADD Walter Franzini wrote: > > W: fhist source: newer-standards-version 3.8.3 (current is 3.8.2) > P: fhist: no-upstream-changelog > N: 23 tags overridden (3 warnings, 20 info) > ---

Re: RFS: python-coverage 3.0.1-1

> Good idea, thanks. I've never looked into how that's done. Where should > I begin reading about it? > > Once I learn how to make a ‘foo-dbg’ package, I can do that in the next > release (see below). In my packages it is as easy as changing the dh_strip rule into: dh_strip --dbg-package=-dbg An

RFS: lesstif2 AND Questions about collab-maint

knowledging past NMUs. Thanks to Aaron M. Ucko and Paul Gevers, who now co-maintains this package (Closes: #396199, #479779, #503361, #314440, Closes: #43640, #87745, #356017, #496081, #330057, #439186). * debian/control: + Add Paul Gevers to the uploaders list. + Update Vcs

Re: RFS: lesstif2 AND Questions about collab-maint

Hi mentors, Paul Gevers wrote: > I am looking for a thourough check of my packaging and preferably a > sponsor for the new version 1:0.95.2-1 of my package "lesstif2" [0]. > This new upstream version is only the incorporation of a lot of patches > already incorporated in

Re: How to write emacs dependency ?

Craig Small wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:51:01PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2009-11-11 16:43 +0100, Christoph Egger wrote: >>> Depends: emacs21 | emacs22 | emacs23 | xemacs21, >>> gnus | emacs22 | emacs23 | xemacs21 >> This does not give you any guarantee that somebody trying to run

Re: Building pdf from odt files noninteractively?

Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > Felipe Sateler wrote: >> I have a source package that has pdf documentation, which is generated >> with openoffice.org. Is it possible to generate said pdf without user >> interacion (that is, for autobuilding in the buildds)? Or maybe I can >> just ship the also-includ

Re: RFS: lesstif2

Charles Plessy wrote: > do not hesitate to ping the maintainers of packages that depend on lesstif for > this task. Aaron M. Ucko was so kind to sponsor lesstif2. As the maintainer of a dependent package he rather keeps lesstif2 in the archive. :) Hopefully, I can get some long standing bugs out

Re: RFS: bashare

> I removed extra files (see lintian log) but I'm in dubt about debian > native warning: actually bashare *is* a debian native package also in > upstream. Your package is not debian native, your website says: Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse, etc. packages > Another question is about manpages: Is

Re: RFS: bashare

> That means:" It's easy to install on Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse, > etc." > But, on the right size of that page you can see two links: > - one for debs > - one for the tarball That doesn't matter. Debian native means that the package only makes sense on Debian (and derived) systems. Usually

Re: Joining Debian

> Putting my money where my mouth is: done. > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq > > Thanks again for putting it all together! I hope the footer suffices as > an expression of that gratitude! :) Great. While I was browsing throu it, I notice the following issues (I don't thing I know the de

Re: RFS: trimage

> I have: > /trimage_1.0.2.orig.tar.gz (containing the whole source but not debian/) > /trimage_1.0.2.diff.tar.gz (containing just debian/) > /trimage-1.0.2/ (from which I build, containing both) > > Yet the empty-debian-diff error persists. What am I doing wrong? Oops and of course the should NO

Re: RFS: trimage

> I have: > /trimage_1.0.2.orig.tar.gz (containing the whole source but not debian/) > /trimage_1.0.2.diff.tar.gz (containing just debian/) > /trimage-1.0.2/ (from which I build, containing both) > > Yet the empty-debian-diff error persists. What am I doing wrong? Of course it should be /trimage_

Re: RFS: trimage

[Sorry for the dub, I forgot to reply to list.] >> For instance my winff package looks like: >> ~/winff >> ~/winff/winff-1.2.0/ >> ~/winff/winff_1.2.0-2.debian.tar.gz >> ~/winff/winff_1.2.0.orig.tar.gz >> >> I didn't create the debian tar manually, but let the package builder >> create it (in my c

mounting cdrom by ordinary program

Hi all, With upstream of daisy-player (ITP: #595292) I am working on getting a Daisy player for Daisy talking books into good shape. I am having concerns about the current "hack" of upstream to ensure the program is able to read from a cd. The upstream source contains one udev rule to create a dai

Re: Trying to package Meganizer

[Not sure if you are on the list, CC'ing just in case you aren't.] On 10/08/10 19:40, Joachim Langenbach wrote: > We use Amazon API to get media information, therefore I compile my amazon > keys > into the binary. So to keep that working is the question, does debian > recompile the packages au

Re: RFS: minidlna

Hi, [I cc'd you just in case you are not subscribed to this list.] http://www.emdebian.org/support.html On 10/15/10 10:23, Benoît Knecht wrote: > minidlna - lightweight DLNA/UPnP-AV server targeted at embedded systems As you target embedded systems, maybe you should contact the emdebian projec

Re: RFS: fritzing

[Please don't top post. Debian e-mail list prefer in-line and bottom posts.] I haven't looked at the package bug I try to help by commenting on your question > 1) What is an ITP bug? why I must to open it to close after? An ITP bug is an Intent To Package bug against WNPP pseudo package in the D

Re: RFS: fritzing

> 6) I like the control.in and debian/rules magic to have different > dependencies between debian and ubuntu. I haven't seen that before, > and it prevents a diff between the two. I like it too, therefore I had a very quick look at the package. I believe your package must build without internet co

Re: RFS: hotot

> * instead of overriding dh_installman, you could just as well have a > line "debian/hotot.1" in the debian/manpages file (it wouldn't work > that easily with the Changelog, as you'd have to move it eg. to > debian/upstream_changelog/changelog so it can be added to debian/docs > without re

RFS: daisy-player

player - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/daisy-player/daisy-player_5.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Paul Gevers signature.asc Descr

Re: RFS: daisy-player

>> daisy-player - player for DAISY Digital Talking Books >> daisy-player-dbg - daisy-player debugging symbols > > Is there some media available that people could test this with? I had a > quick look at the daisy web site, but nothing jumped out at me. Unfortunately, the media that I know of is no

Re: RFS: failmalloc

> --- a/debian/failmalloc.install > +++ b/debian/failmalloc.install > @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ > debian/scripts/failmallocusr/bin > -debian/tmp/usr/lib/libfailmalloc.so > +usr/lib/lib*.a > +usr/lib/lib*.so > +usr/lib/*.la Wasn't removal of unused *.la files a release goal? I.e. for new packages, AFAIU

Re: RFS: daisy-player

Thanks for the review. On 12/10/10 14:13, Benoît Knecht wrote: > - In debian/copyright, you need a standalone License section for the >GPL-2+, and the short name for the GPL version 2 is GPL-2 (see >http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135). Easily fixed (in git)

Re: RFS: logtop a realtime log line rate analyzer

> Each time I run dpkg-buildpackage, it automatically creates a > patches/debian-changes-x.x-x > So I think i don't use the right tool to rebuild my package ? I think you are. The point is that your package creates these changes while building. Either you should create the proper patch (I guess yo

Re: RFS: ffmpeg-gui

Hi Marco, On 12/19/10 20:57, Marco Bavagnoli wrote: > Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] > * URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] > * License : [fill in] You forgot to fill the fields... > ffmpeg-gui - frontend for ffmpeg For potential sponsors, co

Re: Building Mono package using cli-common-dev

> In Build-Depends-Indep I put cli-common-dev (and, of course, other > needed packages), but when I try to build package, I get this error: Should this not be Build-Depends. I seem to recall a recent discussion on this list about build-demons not installing Build-Depends-Indep packages, because th

Re: RFS: daisy-player

On 12/11/10 15:45, Benoît Knecht wrote: >> I will upload a new version, but as I understand it (please tell me if I >> am wrong) upstream needs to fix his license header before I can do that >> with any hope for uploading. > > I'd say yes, although in this case the file seems to have a valid free

Re: RFS: fmodapi4.26

Hi Johey, On 01/10/11 14:28, Johey Shmit wrote: > Hopefully this permits uploading to non-free! Have you asked debian-le...@l.d.o for advice? Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RFS: daisy-player (next try, new upstream version)

/pkg-a11y/daisy-player.git I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Paul Gevers [1] http://www.daisy.org/samples signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: daisy-player (next try, new upstream version)

Hi Samuel and other readers, Thanks for your review. I was away for a week so it took me some time to respond. Upstream released several newer versions taking most comments into account. I comment below on earlier issues for completeness. On 01/30/11 17:15, Samuel Thibault wrote: > - daisy-playe

Re: RFS: daisy-player (next try, new upstream version)

Thanks for testing the package. > I've got another problem. When trying to run daisy-player after > installation on Debian/testing, I get: > > (C)2003-2011 J. Lemmens > Daisy-player - Version 6.1.1 > A parser to play Daisy CD's with Linux > play FAIL formats: no handler for file extension `mp3' >

CFLAGS in d/rules (and Debian policy) [Was: Re: RFS: mpg321 (updated package, 2nd try)]

> - The CFLAGS in d/rules overrides flags set by dpkg-buildflags, which >makes it more difficult to rebuild the package with different default >flags (see man dpkg-buildflags). I see that the example in the Debian policy on build options [1] also overrides the flags set by dpkg-buildflags

Re: pbuilder and ${shlibs:Depends}

> My Debian package uses ${shlibs:Depends} in its Depends field. > > However, in a pbuilder environment not all dependencies are installed, > and hence ${shlibs:Depends} does not expand to *all* real dependencies. I believe that this variable will only resolve libraries which you depend on (and y

Re: pbuilder and ${shlibs:Depends}

>>> Add the missing dependencies manually AND use the variable. (At least >>> this is what I do in all my packages. >> >> Thank you very much! This is really all I needed to know. > > Unfortunately this is wrong, at least for ELF binaries. Usually if you > don't have all the dependencies that you

Re: RFS: denyhosts

I am not a DD, so I can not sponsor, but I have some comments. > I have filed an ITA for the Orphaned denyhosts package and am in need of > a sponsor. Great. I use this package as well, so I like it that there is a maintainer again. > I have created a first package to update the maintainer for t

Re: RFS: denyhosts

Hi > Thanks for the comments. Your welcome. > I have reviewed the available patches from the > BTS and included them in my package. I will continue to work on the > other open bugs for this package. Also, I have fixed the lintian issues > on this package. Just a very quick view: please consider

Re: RFS: nautilus-image-manipulator

> I have used pbuilder, and it seems to me that all needed build > dependencies are correctly addressed. < snip > > That's due to the Lintian version I have on my Ubuntu 10.04 > workstation, which is not the most recent (2.3.4ubuntu2). What are the > consequences of not running the latest version

Re: RFS: nautilus-image-manipulator

Hi > When running with pbuilder on my Ubuntu machine it uses the same > version of lintian, so I get the same warning message. I will thus > install Debian to use pbuilder from that. I also run with pbuilder (mind you, I build with pdebuild) but if the target in your changelog is unstable, "pbu

Re: RFS: cutmp3

Hi Ankit, As I wrote the RFP for this package, I want to give you a review. On 04/20/11 11:17, Ankit Gupta wrote: > * Package name: cutmp3 > Version : 2.0.2 > Upstream Author : Jochen Puchalla > > > * URL : http://www.puchalla-online.d

Re: Stripping non-free/unnecessary files out of orig.tar.gz

On 06/12/11 19:13, Anton Martchukov wrote: > Hello All. > > In my package (opencpn) there are couple of binary files > without source code/with unfree license that is required > only for OS X and Windows builds (those are some dlls and > redistributable files). > > Upstream does like to keep the

Re: RFS: eviacam

Hi Cesar, Although I am no Debian Developer and can thus not sponsor your package, I will have a look at your package somewhere soon. As suggested by Paul Wise, cc'd the accessibility list (I am part of that team) to let them know as well. Paul On 20-07-11 17:46, Cesar Mauri wrote: > Dear mento

Re: RFS: eviacam

As promised, here is my review. > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "eviacam". > > * Package name: eviacam > Version : 1.5.2 > Upstream Author : Cesar Mauri > * URL : http://viacam.org > * License : GPL Version 3 or higher according to your copyright

Re: RFS: Sitplus -- Free software framework for ludic-therapeutic activities

Hi Luis, On 07/27/11 16:46, Luis Rivas wrote: > Hi! > > I'm looking for a sponsor for a brand new package: it would be great > if someone could take a look at it and even upload it for me. Here is > the info: > > Name: sitplus > Version: 1.0.0 > License: GPL-3.0+, CC-BY-NC-SA > Description: Sitp

Re: RFS: lesstif2

Hi Michael, Thanks for your interest in lesstif. As I made the last couple of rounds of changes and are listed as one of the maintainers, I would have appreciated it when you had included me in your cc and maybe even have communicated about your intentions before contacting the mentors list. That

Re: RFS: lesstif2

Hi Michael, [This e-mail is not as coherent as I intended, I hope you catch what I mean. Don't hesitate to ask clarification.] > On the surface, the diff between the embeded library in lesstif and > the standalone libxpm seem rather large. However, if you dig into it, > you'll notice that 95% of

Re: RFS: lesstif2

> One issue that I see with your changes, although I don't know enough > about libraries to tell know if I am right, is that you reduced the > symbols (as lesstif doesn't have them after your change). Interestingly, an other discussion on this list [1], mentions the Debian policy (8.1) where it is

Re: RFS: lesstif2

> Actually what I was saying is that the libxpm within the lesstif > package has remained stagnant for many years while the separate > libxpm has evolved, so those are in that package. You can see > this progression in the libxpm repo [0]. Ah, sorry, I completely misunderstood. The way you say it

Re: Plans for rails & wheezy (Was: RFS: ruby-activemodel)

On 08/28/11 06:57, karim memon wrote: > So please don't upload. Ruby is API mess even without multiple rails > versions. > So do i need to stop working on this package? and what about the ITP, > what should it be retitled to? I don't know anything about Ruby or Rails (except that they exi

  1   2   3   >