Bug#703399: marked as done (RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP])

2013-07-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013 04:23:32 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #703399, regarding RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not

Bug#701014: marked as done (RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP])

2013-07-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013 04:23:32 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #703399, regarding RFS: udevil/0.4.1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not

mentors.d.n upload issues

2013-07-17 Thread Bill Blough
I emailed support@mentors.d.n about this, but I since I haven't heard back (and I have no idea how often that email queue is checked), I figured I'd check here and see if anyone has suggestions. Here's the short(-ish) version: I had an upload rejected due to a signing key issue. I fixed that (I

RFS: openbox/3.5.0-8 [ITA]

2013-07-17 Thread Mateusz Łukasik
Package: openbox Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "openbox" * Package name: openbox Version : 3.5.0-8 Upstream Author : Mikael Magnusson , Dana Jansens * URL : http://www.openbox.org * License : GPL-2

Re: Empty binary package

2013-07-17 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:30:13AM -0700, Tong Sun wrote: > >> Here is what I've discovered so far: > >> > >> - If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package > >> with 'debuild -us -uc', then the built binary package contains the files I > >> want > >Using the debian/ direc

Re: Empty binary package

2013-07-17 Thread Paul Gevers
On 17-07-13 20:30, Tong Sun wrote: > > > Re: Empty binary package > > >> I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is empty. >>> >>> Here is what I've discovered so far: >>> >>> - If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with >>> 'debuild -u

Re: Empty binary package

2013-07-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Tong, Side note, could you please stop with posting html messages to Debian lists? See the code of conduct: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Empty binary package

2013-07-17 Thread Tong Sun
Re: Empty binary package > I'm wondering why the binary package built from my source package is empty.  >> >> Here is what I've discovered so far: >> >> - If I unpack the upstream tarball and build the binary debian package with >> 'debuild -us -uc', then the built binary package contains the

Bug#716895: marked as done (RFS: libhtml-fromtext-perl/2.07-1 - Mark up text as HTML (already in debian))

2013-07-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:40:33 +0200 with message-id <2296852.LAEdhe5rWU@pestilence> and subject line Re: Bug#716895: RFS: libhtml-fromtext-perl/2.06-1 - Mark up text as HTML (already in debian) has caused the Debian Bug report #716895, regarding RFS: libhtml-fromtext-perl/2.07-1 -