Please don't send HTML mail on Debian lists:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
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
Archiv
On 24 April 2010 19:33, Yann Lejeune wrote:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/httpry/httpry_0.1.5-1.dsc
Sorry for my lack of response... again.
You've removed 'quilt' from debian/control, but debian/rules still
contains quilt lines - sorry for not being clearer earlier. I would
take
On 4 June 2010 10:45, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> I am seeking an __active__ sponsor for this package.
I'm afraid it seems you're stuck with me. ;) At DebConf we (the
project) shall have to discuss the sponsoring situation.
> In comparison to the first packaging attempt, the Debian
> specific
On 23 April 2010 18:33, Mats Erik Andersson
wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 4.2-5
> of my package "netpipes".
> The upload would fix these bugs: 203290, 482399, 503341
In the reformulation of the short description, it has become a verb
phrase rather than a noun phrase. Se
Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> 2010/6/11 Tanguy Ortolo :
>
>> * dokuwiki, a PHP-based wiki, that I co-maintain with a DD that has
>> almost no time to sponsor me and suggested me to find another sponsor:
>> such a package (PHP, web application) seems to interest nobody.
>>
>
> Which should no
2010/6/11 Tanguy Ortolo :
> * dokuwiki, a PHP-based wiki, that I co-maintain with a DD that has
> almost no time to sponsor me and suggested me to find another sponsor:
> such a package (PHP, web application) seems to interest nobody.
Which should not really come as a surprise. First of all, not
Hi,
I think the quotes should be added to fortunes-fr. A seperate package for ~100
quotes is IMHO not the right way.
A few comments for the sake of feedback and learning (but as explained above I
will not upload the package if you fix these issues).
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Johan Van de Wauw <
johan.vandew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
> here are some comments:
> debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
> ubuntu, remove it
> section: I would use 'E
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Johan Van de Wauw <
johan.vandew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
> here are some comments:
> debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
> ubuntu, remove it
> section: I would use 'E
I am not a devian developer, so I can not sponser your upload, however
here are some comments:
debian/control: XSBC-original maintainer is a field only used by
ubuntu, remove it
section: I would use 'Electronics'
debian/copyright:
your last lines read:
License: GPL-2
The Debian packaging is hereb
Quoting "Klaus Grue" :
Perhaps maintainers should stand up and review some packages of
their peers?
Absolutely. This already happens a little bit. It would be excellent
if more people could do it.
Maybe my experience with Fedora and Cygwin could be of interest. As
a new packager, I made m
On Fr, 11 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't think this has the implication that it sounds like you believe it
> has. Suppose that you're packaging something where upstream includes a
Thanks Russ, I completely agree. In fact I ask upstream to not ship
debian.
I only wanted to make clear tha
On Sa, 12 Jun 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> No, it is exactly correct and one of the important improvements of v3
> that the .orig.tar.gz's debian/ dir is completely removed.
Contraticted, I agree that v3 has lots of improvements, that is not
one of it.
Wasn't there *one* point in the list of i
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "femmes-celebres".
* Package name: femmes-celebres
Version : 0.1-1
Upstream Author : TUDURI Benoît
* URL : N/A
* License : [fill in]
Section : games
It builds these binary packages:
femmes-celeb
On 06/12/2010 03:31 PM, Klaus Grue wrote:
> So this is my experience with Fedora: When I came with my package, the
> Fedora community did something for me (reviewed the package) then
> required me to do something for them (do a pre-review), and the package
> was accepted. That seems quite fair.
>
Perhaps maintainers should stand up and review some packages of their peers?
Absolutely. This already happens a little bit. It would be excellent
if more people could do it.
Maybe my experience with Fedora and Cygwin could be of interest. As a new
packager, I made my first package ('logiweb')
* Thomas Goirand [100612 07:54]:
> I am quite sure that I read it somewhere, however, I can't find it again.
It was more important in the past. Since there is the version 3 source
format, an debian/ directory in the upstream tarball is only unecessary
and no longer harmful. So no longer any need
* Norbert Preining [100612 06:49]:
> > One of the ways dpkg-source v3 differs from dpkg-source v1 is that any
> > debian/ directory in the orig.tar.gz is removed before the
> > debian.tar.gz is unpacked. So debian.tar.gz cannot be empty and the
> > upstream debian/ directory if any is irrelevant.
18 matches
Mail list logo
