Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the package "worklog", which was orphaned
by ema@debian a while back, and due to some recent interest in the package
by people other than myself, I've packaged up some bug fixes and
ema@debian says he
Your message dated Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:48:56 +0200
with message-id <85eh8nxdwn@boum.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)
has caused the Debian Bug report #675532,
regarding RFS: bilibop/0.4.16 (ITP #675467)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
retitle 721080 RFS: vpcs/0.4b2-1 [ITP]
thanks
Dear mentors,
Following some advice on Debian Mentors, I have re-uploaded the vpcs
package to mentors.
* Package name: vpcs
Version : 0.4b2-1
Upstream Author : Paul Meng
* URL
On 2013-09-17 21:42 +0200, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> On 17/09/13 19:36, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> That would be the best, I think.
>
> Thank you for your assistance Sven.
Note that I'm not a DD and cannot sponsor your package.
> I have now uploaded the package to mentors again, hopefully fixed this
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/09/13 19:36, Sven Joachim wrote:
> That would be the best, I think.
Thank you for your assistance Sven.
I have now uploaded the package to mentors again, hopefully fixed this
time around. Would you kind enough to take another look at the packag
Hello,
I've received a bug in one of my packages and I want to check with you a
proper solution before I make a stupid thing. The bug number is 722794.
I've been investigating the problem with linkage and I see it comes from
package libmcrypt-dev, more precisly from a script it installs
'/usr/bin/
On 2013-09-17 20:24 +0200, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> On 17/09/13 18:50, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Looks like you used different .orig.tar.gz tarballs for 0.4b2-1
>> and 0.4b2-2.
>
> Ah... I had recreated the git repository to follow the git workflow
> outlined on the Debian Wiki, which in turn has recr
On 17-09-13 21:01, Jose G. López wrote:
> I've received a bug in one of my packages and I want to check with you a
> proper solution before I make a stupid thing.
There is some discussion on debian-devel: [1] and follow ups. It is not
agreed that the bug is valid.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debi
On 2013-09-17 16:58 +0200, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> I updated one of my packages on mentors earlier and wanted to clarify
> whether each upload increment the build number? (For example 0.4b2-1
> would become 0.4b2-2)
Sponsors have different requirements, but most of them would rather not
want you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/09/13 18:50, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 16:58 +0200, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> Sponsors have different requirements, but most of them would rather
> not want you do that.
I shall keep this in mind, for future uploads.
>
> True, but the
Your message dated Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:03:45 +0200
with message-id <52389981.9010...@xs4all.nl>
and subject line mapserver/6.2.1-4 is superseded by mapserver/6.4.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #717866,
regarding RFS: mapserver/6.2.1-4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avt"
* Package name: avt
Version : 0.2-1
Upstream Author : Fernando Iazeolla
* URL : http://github.com/elboza/avt
* License : GPL
Section : utiliti
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dcl"
* Package name: dcl
Version : 0.1-1
Upstream Author : Fernando Iazeolla
* URL : http://github.com/elboza/dcl
* License : GPL
Section : u
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "metar"
* Package name: metar
Version : 0.2-1
Upstream Author : Fernando Iazeolla
* URL : http://githib.com/elboza/metar
* License : GPL
Section : u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> I think the current compatibility level is 8, not 9.
Forget it.
- -nik
- --
Auf welchem Server liegt das denn jetzt…?
Wenn es nicht übers Netz kommt bei Hetzner, wenn es nicht
gelesen wird bei STRATO, wenn es klappt bei manitu.
P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
> I updated one of my packages on mentors earlier and wanted to clarify
> whether each upload increment the build number? (For example 0.4b2-1
> would become 0.4b2-2)
Yes, each upload should increase the Debian revision, and contain a
changelog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi mentors,
I updated one of my packages on mentors earlier and wanted to clarify
whether each upload increment the build number? (For example 0.4b2-1
would become 0.4b2-2)
At the the moment, my second upload of the package has created a
strange erro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
retitle 721080 RFS: vpcs/0.4b2-2 [ITP]
thanks
Dear mentors,
I have updated my package and would still like to find a sponsor for my
package "vpcs"
* Package name: vpcs
Version : 0.4b2-2
Upstream Author : Paul Meng
* URL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "skippy-xd"
* Package name: skippy-xd
Version : 0.5.1-1
Upstream Author : Hyriand
* URL : http://code.google.
Hi,
On 10/09/2013 12:40, intrigeri wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the fixes. I've just reviewed and built 0.4.15 and
> hoped to upload right away, but Lintian is still not happy:
>
> W: bilibop-rules: extended-description-contains-empty-paragraph
> N:
> N:The extended description (the lines afte
20 matches
Mail list logo
