Bug#862940: marked as done (RFS: slick-greeter/1.0.3-1 ITP)
Your message dated Thu, 25 May 2017 04:22:54 +0200
with message-id <20170525022254.k4s6blegpmqcirnd@angband.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#862940: RFS: slick-greeter/1.0.3-1 ITP
has caused the Debian Bug report #862940,
regarding RFS: slick-greeter/1.0.3-1 ITP
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
862940: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=862940
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "slick-greeter"
* Package name : slick-greeter
Version : 1.0.3-1
Upstream Author : Clement Lefebvre <root@linuxmint.com>
* URL : https://github.com/linuxmint/slick-greeter/
* License : GPL-3+
Section : x11
It builds those binary packages:
slick-greeter - Slick-looking LightDM greeter
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/slick-greeter
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/slick-greeter/slick-greeter_1.0.3-1.dsc
Notes:
Slick-Greeter has been created by Linux Mint as their primary LightDM
greeter for their distro. It is being promoted as a distro-agnostic
greeter. I am aware it is available in several non-Debian based
distro's.
Given the limited number of LightDM based greeters available in Debian
I believe this is a good complement for Debian with a long-term
upstream viability.
Packaging issues.
Linux Mint do not PGP sign their packages. The upstream tarball
contains their Debian package specific to their Distro. I asked the
question whether they would separate distro specific packaging from
the source but this was declined
-https://github.com/linuxmint/slick-greeter/issues/22
As such to build this package I am prepared to maintain the Debian
package under our distro GithHub organisation Ubuntu Budgie
To build this I have had to-do the following:
uscan to autodownload the upstream tarball via the debian/watch in
this Debian package
Unpack the published upstream tarball.
Remove the upstream Debian folder and its contents
Copy back from the published UbuntuBudgie slick-greeter debian branch
the Debian package.
This Debian package contains one patch - this is to replace the
upstream specific font dependency with what I consider a good font
available in Debian and all Debian based distros (font-cantarell)
I'm aware of the release state of Stretch; this package is therefore
not appropriate for Stretch.
Please let me know if experimental is perhaps more appropriate than
unstable given the status of Stretch.
I can confirm that the necessary build dependency differences between
Ubuntu and Debian have been met here i.e. builds successfully both on
Debian and Ubuntu without needing separate distro packages.
Have run check-all-the-things on the source and adjusted the
debian/copyright accordingly. Doesnt appear to be any other changes
required as a result of the check-all-the-things output.
Also ran lintian -i -I on the built changes and this returned no issues.
Changes since the last upload:
* Initial release. (Closes: #862934)
Regards,
David Mohammed
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:59:15PM +0100, foss.freedom wrote:
> > * the fonts looks ugly. I see you want to use fonts-cantarell but don't
> > actually depend on it; since it's configurable, a Suggests: or Recommends:
> > stanza would be appropriate.
>
> k - fonts-cantarell was maybe not a good idea.
>
> Have changed it in the recent upload to a standard Sans font which
> looks ok on stretch xfce (well at least to my eyes) - but as you
> mentioned its configurable.
Looks like we have a miscommunication: I'm not complaining about the look of
Cantarell itself _when installed_. My problem is when fonts-cantarell is
not installed, and there is nothing that pulls it in.
> Yes please to New if you are happy with the minor tweaks I've done above.
Right, let's tweak it in -2, I've tossed it to the NEW bin so the ftpmasters
can do their thing.
Meow!
--
Don't be racist. White, amber or black, all beers should be judged based
solely on their merits. Heck, even if occasionally a cider applies for a
beer's job, why not?
On the other hand, corpo lager is not a race.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: