Re: RFS: flvmeta

2011-02-11 Thread Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Neutron Soutmun wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "flvmeta". * debian/control: - The appropriate section should be "video", not "utils". See its friends here: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/video/ - Vcs-Svn is currently pointing to ups

Re: RFS: blockade upgrade

2011-02-11 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for blockade. Its a sokoban-like > XWindow game. The game itself is public domain, but most of > the the levels included are not. Have you considered splitting the source package in two to create blockade and bloc

RFS: blockade upgrade

2011-02-11 Thread Harald Dunkel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, Sorry, I missed the "RFS:" in my previous EMail. I am looking for a sponsor for blockade. Its a sokoban-like XWindow game. The game itself is public domain, but most of the the levels included are not. blockade is already in the official n

somebody please upload a new version of my package?

2011-02-11 Thread Harald Dunkel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, It would be very nice if somebody could volunteer to verify and upload a new version of my package "blockade" into unstable (non-free). I just brought it up-to-date wrt Debian policy and debhelper and lintian. There were no bugs to fix. R

Re: RFS: flvmeta

2011-02-11 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
I'm not a DD, I can't sponsor :) On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Neutron Soutmun wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "flvmeta". > > * Package name    : flvmeta >  Version         : 1.0.11-1 >  Upstream Author : Marc Noirot > * URL             : http://code.googl

RFS: flvmeta

2011-02-11 Thread Neutron Soutmun
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "flvmeta". * Package name: flvmeta Version : 1.0.11-1 Upstream Author : Marc Noirot * URL : http://code.google.com/p/flvmeta/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : utils It builds these binary package

Re: RFS: mpg321 (updated package, 2nd try)

2011-02-11 Thread Niels Thykier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-02-11 16:17, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote: > Dear mentors, > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.13-1 of my package > "mpg321". > > It builds these binary packages: > > mpg321 - Simple and lighweight command line MP3 playe

Re: rules makefile and packaging basics

2011-02-11 Thread Etienne Millon
Hello, the problem is that your "install" target installs files during the build, and not during the .deb installation. What a source package does is preparing a .deb file, which is roughly a tarball of files that will be installed under / (on the user's system) by dpkg. How it does it is through

RFS: mpg321 (updated package, 2nd try)

2011-02-11 Thread Nanakos Chrysostomos
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2.13-1 of my package "mpg321". It builds these binary packages: mpg321 - Simple and lighweight command line MP3 player The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 148971, 196787 The package can be

rules makefile and packaging basics

2011-02-11 Thread james frize
Hey Mentors, I've just started making my own deb packages and I'm struggling to get them working properly. You'll have to excuse my lack of technical knowledge, as I've only been programming for a few months. I'm doing this as a learning task with a view to becoming a contributer / maintainer in t

Re: RFS: python-gearman

2011-02-11 Thread Oxan van Leeuwen
Hi Sandro, On 10-02-11 22:17, Sandro Tosi wrote: Hi Oxan, On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 16:08, Oxan van Leeuwen wrote: I've removed the XB-Python-Version from d/control. Just out of curiousity, do you have any pointers to a current policy regarding these fields? I can only find old ones that are a b

Re: How to get packages into 6.0.1?

2011-02-11 Thread Simon Paillard
Hi, On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:22:58AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > bug #610240 was injected when trying to fix an RC bug in gnumed-client. > Because this bug was actually not RC but quite nasty (no translations) > I would like to know what the proper procedure would be to get it into > 6.0.1. S

Re: RFS: tomb

2011-02-11 Thread Benoît Knecht
Jaromil wrote: > i've packed a new upstream version of tomb and packaged it with some > mentored corrections. it is now lintian clean and can be attained > from http://apt.dyne.org/debian > > deb http://apt.dyne.org/debian stable main > > here below i'll reply to a few standing issues: > > On

How to get packages into 6.0.1?

2011-02-11 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, bug #610240 was injected when trying to fix an RC bug in gnumed-client. Because this bug was actually not RC but quite nasty (no translations) I would like to know what the proper procedure would be to get it into 6.0.1. Any hints Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,