The multimail package is more or less orphaned upstream (although the website still exist), as it no longer really have a market. If anyone is interested to take over maintainership of the Debian package, it would be very welcome, otherwise I can probably try to keep the packaging of the current version up-to-date.
retitle 693230 ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for Blue Wave, QWK, OMEN and SOUP owner 693230 jame@rocasa.us thanks I had not been aware until today that the MultiMail package had been put up for adoption: since I like to ensure that packages like this stay in Debian, I plan to adopt it.
Hi Peter! Another package I'm working on adopting is the one for MultiMail. In particular, I'm working on resolving the current Lintian warnings on the package. While reviewing what might be needed to resolve the two copyright related ones, I noticed that there is no copyright information noted in debian/copyright specifically for the debian directory files. That would be the same as for the application itself?
Hi! The debian/rules file is based on the debhelper sample, so it is licensed under the same terms as it. I don't think any of the other files are at all copyrightable.
I've thought about also making the MultiMail packaging available in the collab-maint project at Alioth but it is currently available as follows in the 'debian' branch: Vcs-Git: git://github.com/ftnapps/multimail.git Vcs-Browser: http://github.com/ftnapps/multimail Robert James Clay jame@rocasa.us
I was offline for awhile but am now back; but I also just moved and am still in the process of getting set back up again for development work. Packaging work will continue as that process gets resolved.
retitle 693230 O: multimail -- Offline reader for BW, QWK,OMEN and SOUP noowner 693230 tag 693230 - pending thanks Hi, A long time ago, you expressed interest in adopting multimail. Unfortunately, it seems that it did not happen. In Debian, we try not to keep ITA bugs open for a too long time, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from adopting the package. This is an automatic email to change the status of multimail back from ITA (Intent to Adopt) to O (Orphaned), as this bug hasn't seen any activity during the last 10 months. If you are still interested in adopting multimail, please send a mail to <control@bugs.debian.org> with: retitle 693230 ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for BW, QWK,OMEN and SOUP owner 693230 ! thanks It is also a good idea to document your progress on this ITA from time to time, by mailing <693230@bugs.debian.org>. If you need guidance on how to adopt this package, please reply to this email, and/or contact the debian-mentors@lists.debian.org mailing list. Thank you for your interest in Debian,
owner 693230 Robert James Clay <jame@rocasa.us> thanks As a reminder; ongoing work on the ITA can be seen at https://github.com/ftnapps/multimail. And note that the one last issue I'm working on this Lintian Warning that is coming up on test builds: W: multimail: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/mm Robert James Clay jame@rocasa.us
Hi! Please consider multimail to be orphaned as of today.
retitle 693230 ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for BW, QWK,OMEN and SOUP thanks Currently pending resolution of Lintian warning, found in a test build on Jessie: W: multimail: hardening-no-relro usr/bin/mm Robert James Clay jame@rocasa.us rjclay@gmail.com
All, Debian 8 has been released and Debian Testing (now 'stretch') has been unfrozen. Will be continuing with the ITA. RJ Clay jame@rocasa.us
All, Could not get the package to build with MultiMail v0.49, even when attempting to use updated patches. So instead have created snapshots of the current v0.50 code from the authors git repository to work with, the most recent being the one from yesterday, 22 September 2015. Note that the authors git repository is at the SourceForge project [1], and which is also mirrored at GitHub [2]. Note also that with the current upstream code and an patched upstream Makefile, the 'hardening' related Lintian issues are no longer present. And although I'm considering moving the main packaging repository to Alioth, it is currently at: https://github.com/ftnapps/pkg-multimail So what is left is any further QA work that may be needed, and to see if the recent work that the author has completed might lead to a version v0.50 release in the near future. Robert James Clay jame@rocasa.us [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/multimail/code/ci/master/tree/ [2] https://github.com/wmcbrine/MultiMail
There has been no response from the author about a v0.50 release of MultiMail, so will proceed with the completion of the ITA by packaging the v0.50 snapshot as of 22 September 2015. Robert James Clay jame@rocasa.us
Forward to ITP bug...---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA] Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016, 06:08:55 PM Thanks! That came out since my multimail package on mentors was put online at the mentors site. The package doesn't have any reverse depends; so no, it doesn't really need an explicit "-dbg" package anymore. The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean? I plan to further discuss other aspects of it with him, yes... I have provided him with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented... I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep it explicitly noted... As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related lintian errors. "overrides"? You mean, in d/rules? I sometimes have relevant info in d/watch file comments, but yes in this case there's really no need for them... RJ Clay jame@rocasa.us-----------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016, 05:54:29 AM
From: Tobias Frost <tobi@frost.de>
To: 806572@bugs.debian.org
Hi Robert,
(btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails)
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay <jame@rocasa.us> wrote:
are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
available) a link to more information.
since oldstable)
it explicitly noted...
OK
lintian errors.
With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.
You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:
#!/usr/bin/make -f
%:
dh $@
Why:
- the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
know that they have to look on changelog.gz
- dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
maybwe 10k.
- dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
figured out by dh_auto_install.
d/copyright:
- The license is actually GPL-3+
- I saw a file with, 1996-1997 Kolossvary Tamas, (d/copyright: 1997
missing)
- John Zero 1996-1997
- Toth Istwan seems also to have contributed 1997
- Ingo Brueckl is missing
- The color files have certain authors, they should be added.
- Are the years for your contribution right? It says 2013-16 but there
is no changelog entry from after 2009 (beside the latest one)
- bluewave.h... Well, that scares me. Because the license terms say
read "THE BLUE WAVE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION".
However, this document does not say that bluewave.h can be distributed,
just that you are allowed to use the structs.
Beside that (lets assume the header is covered), there is only right of
use, that does not neccessarily include the right for distribution and
the right for modification. (Please ask on debian-legal)
More General:
Your changelog is quite verbose, that is good, but you do not need to
overdo it -- for example is would be enough to say "Add homepage" or
"New Maintainer". (as said, not wrong, no need to change, just maybe
something to reduce effort on your side)
However, there are some changes where the "why has this changed" is not
obvious. In this case you should spend a few words on the why, because
the "what" is self-explained by the diff of the package.
Example here is the line about the Makefile: The reader will not have
an idea why this has been changed, which is very impportant purpose of
a changelog.
-----------------------------------------
Hi Tobias!
I'll be discussing that with the author, but in the mean time will see about
updating the patch headers more appropriately.
According to my notes, I was still seeing hardening related errors, after
changing the debhelper version to 9. I'll investigate that again.
I'll be looking into how it might be reduced to that, although there is at
least one thing I'd want to keep...
And those already familiar with the application (but not necessarily Debian)
would expect to see the HISTORY file, so I'd rather keep that. (It only adds a
sym link after all...)
And not really needed any longer, when the dbgsym package is being used.
I'll take care of that
I'll check into that as well, as I don't recall why I explicitly still had
that set.
I'll investigate the issues you raised regarding the debian/copyright file
and resolve as necessary.
RJ Clay
jame@rocasa.us
Hi Robert! [ anticipation of work that will be done... ] How's going with this? Several weeks passed and we haven't heard back from you, this is just a gentle ping :)
Hi Mattia! I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so haven't been able to work on this as much as I'd like... Should I perhaps temporarily close the RFS bug and reopen it when I have an updated version of the package done and uploaded to mentors? (Note that the next package update will also include a new snapshot.) And I appreciate that! RJ Clay jame@rocasa.us
life sometimes gets in the middle of this, yeah... Also consider that mentors.d.n deletes packages which haven't seen updates in a good while, and a script turns the ITPs without activities in 6 months to RFS. If you are going to pause the work for, say, more than 2 months, I'd find closing this RFS and getting it off the queue a kind and gentle action, otherwise feel free to keep it open, is not that annoying :) Thanks for replying and making us aware of the current state!
Hi Robert! Givent that I received no follow up on this, I'm closing this RFS ticket. Feel free to either open a new one once you start again working on this, or continue directly with Tobi in the ITA bug, or anything you like.
Dear Customer, Your item has arrived at January 26, but our courier was not able to deliver the parcel. Download postal receipt attached to e-mail! With anticipation, Eduardo White, USPS Senior Delivery Manager.
Dear Customer, Your item has arrived at April 06, but our courier was not able to deliver the parcel. Review the document that is attached to this e-mail! Warm regards, Manuel Carter, UPS Chief Support Manager.
retitle 693230 ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for BW, QWK,OMEN and SOUP
owner 693230 Robert James Clay <jame@rocasa.us>
Thanks
Debian v9 ("Stretch") has been released and no one else has picked
this up since last year, so I will take a look at it again.
The last snapshot I was working with was from 20150922. Reviewing both of the current upstream git repositories[1][2], there have been updates since then (including earlier this year) so will need to create a new snapshot and then work with that. (But also plan to ask upstream about if there will be an actual release any time soon.)
Hi! anyone can update the package to the latest 0.51 version? thanks!
Hi people! I'm working on version 0.52 https://github.com/ftoledo/pkg-multimail I upload to mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail I see that the package is orphaned, i can adopt it, but i'm not DD, how to can i help and procced to upload to unstable? Thanks!
[ dropping #806572 as that bug is closed and archived ] Hi, https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#howto-o Bart Martens already changed the metadata of #693230 to match your intentions. The next step for you would be to seek a sponsor to review and upload your package. I'm generally happy to do that, however since this would be your first package in Debian I'd like to understand what is your knowledge of things like the BTS, what you followed (if anything) to work with the packaging, etc. The fact that mentors.d.n is all green on your package is a good sign, but also I see you are not closing this bug report (#693230) with your upload, so something is missing. I'll be happy to review your package once you answer the above; for more details on my usual workflow and requirements, see https://people.debian.org/~mattia/sponsoring.html
Hi People, i'm back (sorry i very busy with work/study) =| very good, thanks! I'm not DD but i have some skill on packaging for Debian (not all, but some to help me to work) :) I was working on several packages (see pkg-* projects on github): https://github.com/ftoledo Also, i'm working on Huayra GNU/Linux a Debian derivated distro: https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census/Huayra https://github.com/HuayraLinux/ https://huayra.conectarigualdad.gob.ar We have several customs packages and repositories too. i update the mentors package, now lintian says:------------------------------------------------------------------ – Package closes a ITA bug wnpp: #693230 (normal): ITA: multimail -- Offline reader for BW, QWK,OMEN and SOUP ------------------------------------------------------------------ Is this enough, or should I add something else? I'm reading your requeriments, i hope to meet them and get the package upload. I am very grateful for your help! Saludos!
FYI: I just upload to mentors with some fixes again: https://mentors.debian.net/package/multimail Thanks! PS: I have several beers on my freezer waiting for sponsor =)
Hi Fernando, Are you still willing to maintain the package? If not so, please reset to orphan state. As your mentors upload is gone, this short review addresses your GitHub version. d/changelog =========== Please merge all three changelog entries that have not appeared in Debian yet into one. Especially drop "Non-maintainer upload", "New snapshot from upstream" and one of the "New maintainer" entries in the process. d/upstream/metadata =================== I do not see that you are the upstream maintainer, so please do not claim that. d/compat ======== Do not use the deprecated v11 debhelper compat. d/control ========= Please use debhelper-compat so that you can drop the compat file. d/copyright =========== I think the licenses are complete. But please add missing copyright statements from University of Washington and Peter Krefting. Thanks, Bastian