[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#851937: marked as done (RFS: farbfeld/2.20170109-1 ITP)

Your message dated Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:04:49 -0700
with message-id <20170717180449.ewwrpalhxrbuen77@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#851937: RFS: farbfeld/2.20170109-1 ITP
has caused the Debian Bug report #851937,
regarding RFS: farbfeld/2.20170109-1 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

851937: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851937
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 "farbfeld"

* Package name     : farbfeld
  Version          : 2.20170109-1
  Upstream Author  : Laslo Hunhold <dev@frign.de>
* Url              : http://tools.suckless.org/farbfeld
* Licenses         : ISC
  Programming Lang : C
  Section          : graphics

 Farbfeld is a lossless image-format designed to be parsed and piped
 easily. It is designed to be as simple as possible, leaving the task
 of compression to outside tools, beating PNG's filesize in many
 This package contains tools for converting between farbfeld format
 and other image formats (png, jpeg, ppm, pam, git)

It builds those binary packages:

  * farbfeld

Please note, that package is maintained with dgit(1) tool using
dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow. In particular, it means that quilt
patches are squashed in source package and are not intended for
review. For more information about how to sponsor this package,
see dgit-sponsorship(7).

  Git repository: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/farbfeld.git
  Git branch: master
  Orig tar.gz: from tag 2.20170109

With /bin/sh following commands should suffice:

  $ git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/farbfeld.git farbfeld
  $ cd farbfeld
  $ git archive -o ../farbfeld_2.20170109.orig.tar.xz 2.20170109
  $ dgit sbuild

  Dmitry Bogatov

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Uploaded to NEW -- thank you for your help.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:45:42AM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> > - your changes to the patch header do not make sense: the '3..' will not
> >   yield "the changes made by the Debian maintainer in the first upload
> >   of upstream version 3".
> Should be fixed now. The 'debian/3-1' tag is still missing, I guess the
> right time to tag it is after the package is accepted.

Right, dgit creates the tag during the upload.

You probably want to fetch the tag from dgit-repos.[1]

> > - I disagree with you about Dmitry's `convert` patch.  It just
> > doesn't seem likely to me that there would be difficult merge
> > conflicts with new upstream versions, and it is indeed useful to
> > inform the user that convert is not available.  But I will defer to
> > your judgement -- if you're sure about dropping the patch, maybe
> > imagemagick should be moved to a hard dependency?
> I still believe this patch belongs to upstream, and even if it's trivial
> to maintain it already prevented a clean 'git merge' of upstream version
> 3.

Ah, really?  I didn't realise that.

> The package works fine even without imagemagick, it just can't handle
> all those image formats. Imagemagick itself is not very kind when a
> helper binary is missing:
> $ convert test.jpg test.webp
> convert-im6.q16: delegate failed `'cwebp' -quiet %Q '%i' -o '%o'' @
> error/delegate.c/InvokeDelegate/1919.
> (cwebp is provided by the webp package, which is not even suggested by
> imagemagick).

Urgh, indeed, that's not very user-friendly.

> In general I believe it's better not to apply patches whenever
> possible, for several reasons. I understand this one is trivial, but
> the issue it addresses is, in my opinion, even more trivial.
> This said, I left it in. I explained my general thought on the topic,
> but I value your feedback and while I think there is no strong reason to
> include this patch, I see there is no strong reason to oppose it.
> I would be against a hard dependency on imagemagick.

Right, not sure why I suggested that.

[1]  http://browse.dgit.debian.org/farbfeld

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: