RFS: falcon package (ITP:Bug#460591); source package

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I have realized a first tentative packaging; complete source package can be downloaded here: http://www.falconpl.org/downloads/0.8.7/falcon-0.8.7.SourceDebian.tar.gz It is a sightly modified version of the package I am preparing for U

Re: python-osd (adopted package)

On 14/01/2008, Mauro Lizaur wrote: > Hello there, 'lo. > I recently adopted the python module python-osd, i could say that i've > already finished the work needed but i have a couple of question > though: First, I'd like to point you to the DPMT[1,2], which might act like a mentor with specific

python-osd (adopted package)

Hello there, I recently adopted the python module python-osd, i could say that i've already finished the work needed but i have a couple of question though: The "source" package is lintian clean, but when i do the .deb file i get this warnings from lintian: 1) -- python-osd: script-not-executab

Re: RFS: mg (updated package)

On 14/01/2008, Trent W. Buck wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20070918-1 > of my package "mg". Some quick comments: - debian/changelog, line 11: wrong indentation? - You B-D on debhelper >= 5, and still use compat 4 (debian/compat). Any reason to do so? - You don't use

Re: packaging advice and eventually RFS: osmo

Hi. On 13/01/2008, Eike Nicklas wrote: > The package appears to be lintian clean and builds fine in pbuilder. Actually, no for the lintian part: W: osmo source: desktop-file-but-no-dh_desktop-call but that's nothing too dramatic, just read about it (-I option of lintian), it's quite trivial to f

RFS: mg (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 20070918-1 of my package "mg". It builds these binary packages: mg - microscopic GNU Emacs-style editor The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 445232, 445233, 445234 The package can be found

packaging advice and eventually RFS: osmo

Hi debian mentors, I've been a long term debian user and just created my first package: * Package name: osmo Version : 0.1.6 Upstream Author : Tomasz Maka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://clay.ll.pl/osmo/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C It builds these

RFS: falcon package (ITP:Bug#460591)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am searching for sponsors for including a Falcon Programming Language package in Debian. Falcon aims to be the next generation scripting language, providing a wide set of programming paradigms, template file processing for web develop

RFS: spacechart (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.5-14 of my package "spacechart". It builds these binary packages: spacechart - Star map viewer and navigator The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net

Re: RFS: libhugetlbfs

On 13/01/2008, Mel Gorman wrote: > Dear mentors, Maw, > It builds these binary packages: > libhugetlbfs - helper to back malloc(), text and data with hugepages > libhugetlbfs-dev - libhugetlbfs Development library and Header Files > > The package appears to be lintian clean. No: W: libhugetlbf

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog (uploaded)

On 08/01/2008, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog". FWIW, 0.3.3-3 just landed in NEW. -- Cyril Brulebois pgpYxby5Z4A1Z.pgp Description: PGP signature

RFS: libhugetlbfs

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor/reviewer for my package "libhugetlbfs". * Package name: libhugetlbfs Version : 1.2-1 Upstream Author : Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/projects/deb-libhugetlbfs/ * License : LGPL 2.1 Se

RFS: libcrypt-dsa-perl

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libcrypt-dsa-perl". * Package name : libcrypt-dsa-perl Version : 0.14 Upstream Author :Benjamin Trott, [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL: :http://search.cpan.org/~btrott/Crypt-DSA-0.14/

RFS: stardata-common (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.5 of my package "stardata-common". It builds these binary packages: stardata-common - Common framework to manage astronomy packages The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http

RFS: sshproxy

Hi ! I am looking for a sponsor for my package "sshproxy". I have already asked last year but got no proposal for upload (but a lot of suggestions). Upstream has released a new version and the package is now more complete: it uses dbconfig-common for the mysql package. Moreover, t

Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED

On 12/01/2008, Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks - I have read the whole > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00760.html thread now, as > well as have skimmed the debian-mentors thread another posted here. > > I agree whole-heartedly with your position, which has been

Re: RFS: gthumb (updated and adopted package)

Il giorno Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:53:37 +0100 Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > David Paleino wrote: > > > I believe "yelp" is better suited as a Depends (AFAIK, to read "gnome-doc" > > documentation, you need yelp) > > gthumbs main purpose is to display images. It works perfectly fine

Re: RFS: gthumb (updated and adopted package)

David Paleino wrote: Il giorno Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:52:03 +0100 Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: Could you please make the yelp dependency a Recommends? May I ask why? Sure. I believe "yelp" is better suited as a Depends (AFAIK, to read "gnome-doc" documentation, you need yelp

Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED

Asheesh Laroia wrote: Dear Mentors, I'm a Debian Maintainer now and am uploading a new release of my package alpine, for which I successfully uploaded 1.0+dfsg-1 to the archive. I noticed that according to http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=alpine , the Debian archive never builds i386

Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080112 11:41]: That's exactly the point: at the moment, source-only uploads are REJECTED. You have to provide at least the binaries for one architecture. Interesting. Is there a reason for this policy, or is i