Hi James,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:55 PM, James Lu wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> Wow, that's a lot of magic for one makefile target! I followed the guide,
> setting the file timestamps to the last changelog entry's date, and it works
> fine now. I've uploaded the newest version to mentors.
Using your
Your message dated Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:33:30 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: xcffib/0.1.10-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #776232,
regarding RFS: xcffib/0.1.10-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> The question is that the package creates a few libraries in /usr/lib and a
> bunch of small libraries (used as plugins but treated libraries by upstream
> (with pkg-control files, etc).
>
> I have patched upstream code to make SON
Hi Andrey,
Thanks a lot for the review. I've fixed most of the reported errors (sorry
I did not checked enough my package before uploading it).
On 06/09/2015 07:45 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> debian/man and debian/man/man/ look unnecessary.
Not sure how these
On 06/09/2015 07:23 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Please add a .patch extension the debian/patches/no-unsupported-deps.
>
Just re uploaded the package with a properly named patch file in it.
David
--
David DOUARD LOGILAB
Directeur du département Outils & Systèmes
+33 1 45 3
Hi,
I'm packaging a piece of software that are making me crazy with the lintian
messages. The piece is rtt-ros-integratiion [1]. An usable package is located
here [2]. It belongs to the orocos project.
The question is that the package creates a few libraries in /usr/lib and a
bunch of small l
Your message dated Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:29:46 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: libgom/0.2.1-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #765924,
regarding RFS: libgom/0.2.1-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
Thank you very much for the reply. Yes I think a link to something like
this on the project's page would do it until then, great! I'll check for it
and put in the copyright register in the package, then.
Greetings,
Daniel
On 14.06.2015 17:26, Rintze Zelle wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Bruce D'Arcus an
Hi Daniel,
Bruce D'Arcus and I think that the MIT license might be the best
option for relicensing the CSL schema. I just proposed the change on
our mailing list
(http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/MIT-license-as-default-for-CSL-software-tp7579193p7579395.html),
but I don't expect any obje
On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote:
roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it)
roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries)
roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols)
roxterm (virtual pack
Hi Rintze,
(we've been in contact last year on my TUGBOAT article on CSL)
I'm packaging Brecht Machiel's citepyroc-py for Debian and we have an issue
over the license of the CSL scheme files (schema/*) which are shipped with this:
for the locales and the style files it's clearly stated (headers,
Sorry I was busy. Thank you for reviewing the package!
I think the RELAX NG scheme files for CSL style files aren't necessary for the
citeproc to run anyway, nor really necessary to have them in the package.
I'll get into that again today.
DS
--
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian%
Hi,
Please take this up with the core CSL team at the CSL mailing list:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
or http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.xbiblio.devel
Best regards,
Brecht
> On 14 Jun 2015, at 06:58, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2015, Andrey Ra
13 matches
Mail list logo
