Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package to fix FTBFS)

2010-03-20 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
>> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.3.dfsg-4 >> of my package "libnanoxml2-java". > > Uploaded > Thank you! Sveinung -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package to fix FTBFS)

2010-03-20 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Wed Mar 17 03:06, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.3.dfsg-4 > of my package "libnanoxml2-java". Uploaded Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package)

2010-02-06 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Feb 05 15:54, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > Just double checked. They are. Should I still change it to include > them? (I assumed java2-runtime-headless is meant to be a superset > including all java5 and java6 runtimes by design and not accident) The > version I just uploaded to mentors st

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package)

2010-02-05 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
> You need a default which is a real package and satisfiable on all > architectures, which openjdk is not. If you don't explicitly need openjdk, > then > you should have default-jre as the concrete depends (which is openjdk on most > platforms). > Fixed. >> Not sure what you mean here. Doesn't ja

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package)

2010-02-04 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Thu Feb 04 21:36, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > >  - If you are build-depending on default-jdk, why are you then depending on > >  openjdk? > OpenJDK is just the default unless another dependency in > java2-runtime-headless is installed. The idea was to ensure repeatable > builds if another pac

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package)

2010-02-04 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
> Hi, I'm looking over the package now. Sorry about the delay. I had tried jh_innstalljavadocs before but misunderstood a few things. I tried again since it was in your feedback. It took some time to figure out what I had done wrong. (And to debug I needed a long slice of time that I didn't have un

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java (updated package)

2010-01-29 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Jan 29 14:11, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.3.dfsg-3 > of my package "libnanoxml2-java". Hi, I'm looking over the package now. There's a couple of things (which aren't new, but should probably be changed either in this o

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-08-02 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
> Everything looks good now, and I'd be happy to upload, _but_: > > you now have: > > Suggests: nanoxml2-java-doc > > whereas you actually want: > > Suggests: libnanoxml2-java-doc > Fixed and uploaded to mentors. Thank you for your help. Sveinung -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] wi

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-08-01 Thread Matthew Johnson
Hi, sorry I've been silent for a while, I've been a bit busy. Everything looks good now, and I'd be happy to upload, _but_: you now have: Suggests: nanoxml2-java-doc whereas you actually want: Suggests: libnanoxml2-java-doc Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signat

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-21 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
>> - Is it safe to do as I have done in debian/origCleaner.sh (using one >> more parameter than uscan passes to tell set the tempdir from >> get-orgi-source) or do I risk that uscan adds parameters without >> notice? (If adding is the only risk I could pass the tempdir by the >> second parameter in

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-21 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Mon Jul 21 14:37, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > By the way, should the copyright text from dh_helper be included in > debian/rules like it is now? (Lintian did not warn me about it so I > assumed it was OK) Yeah, that's fine, and possibly required. > - Is it safe to do as I have done in debia

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-21 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
Hello! Thank you for your feedback. > I've had a look at this and it looks pretty good, except you have: > > Suggests: nanoxml2-doc > > but the package name is libnanoxml2-java-doc. > Fixed. By the way, should the copyright text from dh_helper be included in debian/rules like it is now? (Lintia

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-21 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Jul 18 04:25, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libnanoxml2-java/libnanoxml2-java_2.2.3.dfsg-1.dsc > I've had a look at this and it looks pretty good, except you have: Suggests: nanoxml2-doc but the package name is libnanoxml2-java-doc. Other th

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-17 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik
>> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: >> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libnanoxml2-java >> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable >> main contrib non-free >> - dget >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libnanoxml2-java/l

Re: RFS: libnanoxml2-java

2008-07-17 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Thu Jul 17 17:31, Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote: > Hello! Hi! > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libnanoxml2-java > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable > main contrib non-free > - dget > http