(stripping -mentors, adding the bug to the cc list)
(another mail where I did send commands to the BTS interface weren't intended to you) if you care to learn... https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control >I resent the RFS mail to sub...@bugs.debian.org. This time the subject >was simply "RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]" instead of "Bug#813485: RFS: >setop/0.1-1 [ITP]". Perhaps that was the problem. yes, as Mattia said to me, starting with Bug:#### means that this is a followup to a current bug so submit won't open a new one. >I deleted the dependence libboost-dev as suggested, ALTHOUGH I am not >sure if that is correct. >The documentation just says “This package provides headers.” Besides >regex and program-options I indeed need some other headers and now I >don’t know if these are installed for sure. each sublibrary has its headers and its libraries, so you need just the minimum set needed. (pbuilder is happy on a clean environment) >Changed the text according to the examples. I still don't get why having two licenses. you need a LICENSE file inside your tarball, with the license text inside, otherwise the package will be probably rejected. and it is fine to have *everything* under GPL-2+ >You were right: not having any releases yields in an error. I created >one for testing, and everything is ok now. wonderful! please let me know! (BTW std-version is 3.9.8 now) G.
