Bug#776012: RFS: shadowd/1.0.0 [ITP: #775998]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:00:20 -0800 Cameron Norman wrote: > description "Shadow Daemon Web Application Firewall" > > start on runlevel [2345] > stop on runlevel [016] or unmounting-filesystem > > exec /usr/bin/shadowd -c /etc/shadowd/shadowd.ini -U shadowd -G shadowd Thanks for all the tips! I bas

Bug#774120: RFS: libjson-rpc-cpp/0.4.1-2 [ITP]

* Peter Spiess-Knafl , 2014-12-29, 03:22: http://mentors.debian.net/package/libjson-rpc-cpp ... which points us to: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libj/libjson-rpc-cpp/libjson-rpc-cpp_0.4.2-1.dsc I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my quick review: Typos in the pack

Bug#776023: marked as done (RFS: pcmanfm/1.2.3-1.1 [RC])

Your message dated Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:25:49 +0100 with message-id <2015012549.ga12...@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> and subject line Re: Bug#776023: RFS: pcmanfm/1.2.3-1.1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #776023, regarding RFS: pcmanfm/1.2.3-1.1 [RC] to be marked as done. This means that you c

Bug#776012: RFS: shadowd/1.0.0 [ITP: #775998]

El jue, 22 de ene 2015 a las 9:33 , Hendrik Buchwald escribió: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "shadowd". * Package name: shadowd Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : Hendrik Buchwald * URL : ht

Bug#776023: RFS: pcmanfm/1.2.3-1.1 [RC]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pcmanfm" * Package name: pcmanfm Version : 1.2.3-1.1 Upstream Author : LXDE team. * URL : http://lxde.org/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : u

Bug#776012: RFS: shadowd/1.0.0 [ITP: #775998]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "shadowd". * Package name: shadowd Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : Hendrik Buchwald * URL : https://shadowd.zecure.org/ * License : GPL Programming La

Re: Lawyer.com Referral Preference Request (012120152301339058)

Greetings Mr. Rice, Thank you for contacting Lawyer.com. I have validated your request and updated your free listing, please view your updated profile here: http://www.lawyer.com/philip-robert-rice.html If you are looking for increased online presence, and preferential access to our Referral Ser

Re: Looking for guidance on multi-binary package with private DSOs

[I'm subscribed, no need to CC] On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Tristan Schmelcher wrote: > Thanks guys. The confusion I'm concerned about in (2) is not the > library files themselves, but the package names. If we install > roccat-tools' liblua.so.2 to, say, /usr/lib//roccat/liblua.so.2, > shoul

Re: Bug#774175: RFS: libgaminggear/0.5.0-1 [ITP]

I've uploaded a new revision that fixes the issues Riley pointed out and more. FYI, I am pretty sure the hardening-no-fortify-functions is a false positive since the build is blhc-clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble

Re: Looking for guidance on multi-binary package with private DSOs

Thanks guys. The confusion I'm concerned about in (2) is not the library files themselves, but the package names. If we install roccat-tools' liblua.so.2 to, say, /usr/lib//roccat/liblua.so.2, should it's package name just be liblua2, or something else? I can imagine a Lua programming language deve

Re: Looking for guidance on multi-binary package with private DSOs

Tristan Schmelcher writes: > 2) Like (1), but install to a private directory and have everything in > roccat-tools declare an rpath to it, thus avoiding ld.so collisions. This > triggers binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath, but IIUC this would be an accepted > use. However, the private DSO package name