Bug#750644: RFS: bitcoin-armory/0.91.1-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bitcoin-armory" * Package name: bitcoin-armory Version : 0.91.1-1 Upstream Author : Armory Technologies, Inc. * URL : https://bitcoinarmory.com/ * License : AGPL3 Section : net It builds those binary packages: bitcoin-armory - Advanced Bitcoin Wallet Management Software To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/bitcoin-armory Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bitcoin-armory/bitcoin-armory_0.91.1-1.dsc More information about Armory can be obtained from https://bitcoinarmory.com/. Regards, Joseph Bisch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao+ptjsyyno8bveqotarbxcp-is5eunpzf66-c5ti_wws7b...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
Hi, I uploaded a newer version 0.9.1-5 that fixes most of the errors/warnings reported by lintian. The debian-watch-file-pubkey-file-is-missing error remains, although debian/upload/signing-key.asc is included. Testing with uscan worked correctly. Possibly a bug in lintian? To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pyformex Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyformex/pyformex_0.9.1-5.dsc Regards, Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53907b34.70...@ugent.be
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Benedict Verhegghe wrote: > The debian-watch-file-pubkey-file-is-missing error remains, although > debian/upload/signing-key.asc is included. Testing with uscan worked > correctly. Possibly a bug in lintian? Wrong path, uscan/lintian look at debian/upstream/signing-key.asc. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6fvskhhuhpuxgwe-sg+3n+mv3o-xzpq3yx7g6_q1ng...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Benedict Verhegghe wrote: > Oops, that was a typo in my mail. The key is really in > debian/upstream/signing-key.asc Testing it locally I don't get the lintian warning you mentioned with lintian 2.5.22.1. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6g1+1ohhbdsywpryu71lmqr6q5s4c9ddwyky0kjh1k...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
Oops, that was a typo in my mail. The key is really in debian/upstream/signing-key.asc tar tzf pyformex_0.9.1-5.debian.tar.gz: debian/ debian/changelog debian/menu debian/pyformex.manpages debian/compat debian/pyformex.doc-base debian/source/ debian/source/format debian/pyformex-extra.manpages debian/pyformex-lib.install debian/docs debian/pyformex-extra.install debian/pyformex.install debian/copyright debian/upstream/ debian/upstream/signing-key.asc debian/watch debian/control debian/rules On 06/05/2014 05:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Benedict Verhegghe wrote: > >> The debian-watch-file-pubkey-file-is-missing error remains, although >> debian/upload/signing-key.asc is included. Testing with uscan worked >> correctly. Possibly a bug in lintian? > > Wrong path, uscan/lintian look at debian/upstream/signing-key.asc. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53908a62.6040...@ugent.be
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
Yes, locally lintian also did not give me a problem. But after uploading to mentors an error is displayed. Maybe the uscan version on mentors is older and does not yet accept the asc key format? On 06/05/2014 05:34 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > > Testing it locally I don't get the lintian warning you mentioned with > lintian 2.5.22.1. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/539093ca.1050...@ugent.be
Bug#750677: RFS: buildnotify/0.3.5-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "buildnotify" * Package name: buildnotify Version : 0.3.5-1 Upstream Author : Anay Nayak * URL : https://bitbucket.org/Anay/buildnotify * License : GPL-3+ Section : devel It builds those binary packages: buildnotify - cruise control CI build monitor To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/buildnotify Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/buildnotify/buildnotify_0.3.5-1.dsc More information about buildnotify can be obtained from https://bitbucket.org/Anay/buildnotify. Changes since the last upload: buildnotify (0.3.5-1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial release (Closes: #750457) -- Daniel Lintott Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:38:07 +0100 Regards, Daniel Lintott signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Help needed about deprecated dependency
Hello, a bug has been reported[1] against a package I maintain in Debian. It is said that one of the binary packages recommends Udisks, which is deprecated for a while now, and I should move to Udisks2. The problem is that: 1. bilibop-rules already works fine with udisks2; in fact it works fine with both udisks and udisks2 (which do not conflict and can be installed on the same system as documented in udisks package itself) 2. udisks (version 1.x) is still present in sid and jessie, so it seems to not be so much deprecated 3. the Recommends: field already says 'udisks | udisks2': how to do better ? Is there a difference if I replace it by 'udisks2 | udisks' ? quidame -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/n1r-gfaujbs...@safe-mail.net
Re: Help needed about deprecated dependency
Oops, sorry: [1] https://bugs.debian.org/750507 message d'origine De: "bilibop project" A: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Sujet: Help needed about deprecated dependency Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:20:13 +0200 > a bug has been reported[1] against a package I maintain in Debian. It is said > that one of the binary packages > recommends Udisks, which is deprecated for a while now, and I should move to > Udisks2. The problem is that: > > 1. bilibop-rules already works fine with udisks2; in fact it works fine with > both udisks and udisks2 (which do not > conflict and can be installed on the same system as documented in udisks > package itself) > > 2. udisks (version 1.x) is still present in sid and jessie, so it seems to > not be so much deprecated > > 3. the Recommends: field already says 'udisks | udisks2': how to do better ? > Is there a difference if I replace it > by 'udisks2 | udisks' ? quidame -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/n1r-9cmk15o...@safe-mail.net
Bug#712610: marked as done (RFS: meson/0.17.0-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:23:54 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: meson/0.17.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #712610, regarding RFS: meson/0.17.0-1 [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 ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 712610: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712610 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [wishlist] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "meson" * Package name: meson Version : 0.4.1-22-gea3e8f1-1 Upstream Author : Jussi Pakkanen * URL : https://sourceforge.net/p/meson/ * License : Apache 2.0 Section : devel It builds those binary packages: meson - high-productivity build system To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/meson Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/meson/meson_0.4.1-22-gea3e8f1-1.dsc Thanks, --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package meson version 0.17.0-1 is in NEW now, and the package at mentors is not newer (2014-06-04) than the package in NEW (2014-06-04), so there is currently no package to sponsor. http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/meson_0.17.0-1.html http://mentors.debian.net/package/meson Please remove the package from mentors or mark it "needs sponsor = no". If for some reason you need to replace the package in NEW, then you can upload an updated package to mentors and feel free to reopen this RFS 712610 or open a new RFS.--- End Message ---
Re: Help needed about deprecated dependency
Hi, On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:20:13 +0200, "bilibop project" wrote: > a bug has been reported[1] against a package I maintain in Debian. It is > said that one of the binary packages recommends Udisks, which is deprecated > for a while now, and I should move to Udisks2. The problem is that: The bug was filed by one of the udisks maintainers, so you could always ask him directly ;-). > 1. bilibop-rules already works fine with udisks2; in fact it works fine > with both udisks and udisks2 (which do not conflict and can be installed on > the same system as documented in udisks package itself) > > 2. udisks (version 1.x) is still present in sid and jessie, so it seems to > not be so much deprecated It's possible the udisks maintainers are hoping to remove udisks from sid and jessie, which they can't do as long as anything depends on it. So bugs such as the one you're referring to would be the first step in the process. > 3. the Recommends: field already says 'udisks | udisks2': how to do > better ? Is there a difference if I replace it by 'udisks2 | udisks' ? If you simply "Recommends: udisks2", then you can close the bug. Users who still use udisks won't be affected, your package will still work with it as long as they keep it installed. Regards, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#750592: New version pyformex/0.9.1-5 available
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Benedict Verhegghe wrote: > Yes, locally lintian also did not give me a problem. But after uploading > to mentors an error is displayed. > Maybe the uscan version on mentors is older and does not yet accept the > asc key format? Correct, thanks for the pointer, I upgraded it just now. In general you shouldn't need to look at the mentors lintian warnings if you are running the latest lintian locally. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caktje6hjn850jwhwqpii_tcsxhdhsndkton8umyjfvmt17s...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#750708: RFS: audiotools/2.21-3 [ITP] -- Collection of audio handling programs for the command line
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "audiotools": * Package name: audiotools Version : 2.21-3 Upstream Author : Brian Langenberger * URL : http://audiotools.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPLv2+ Section : sound To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/audiotools Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/audiotools/audiotools_2.21-3.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://audiotools.sourceforge.net/ Changes since the last upload: * Cherry-pick upstream d798cc82 Add proper licensing text to manpage sources * Promote python-urwid from Recommends to Depends Regards, Eric Shattow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANV2PTOGBL4XQ5zRTTHwJ4cj7bSzO+h9LhcfngsBm=vwqu8...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#749929: RFS: aircrack-ng/1:1.2-0~beta3-1
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 19:38 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > ieee-data installs the file in the 4th place My mistake, I didn't see that it installs a symlink there. > As commented on my previous reply, the package don't installs > airoscript-ng. Yeah, that was mainly for forwarding upstream. > In general I agree with you, but this release is IMHO an improvement > over the previous 1.1 series and is as stable as the older one. Fair enough. > Because is completely broken and only manages to confuse users. > > Please check: http://trac.aircrack-ng.org/ticket/1317 I see, thanks for the pointer. > I tried to do it, but it was such a mess that I decided to go back. ... > I will gladly accept patches if you are interested in any of this > tools. I see, makes sense. > The changelog says that it is a C# library to parse Airodump-ng output > files. Probably not useful then. > This patches are the ones that airdriver-ng used. 99% of this patches > not longer apply or make any sense. See the ticket > http://trac.aircrack-ng.org/ticket/1317 > > I think this patches should be removed from the upstream repository. Makes sense, would be nice if the Kali patch got upstreamed. I've pinged one of the Kali/Debian devs about it on #debian-derivatives. > http://trac.aircrack-ng.org/ticket/1436 Thanks. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
