Bug#790391: RFS: bomberclone/0.11.9-5 ITA

2015-06-30 Thread Tobias Frost
Am Mittwoch, den 01.07.2015, 00:14 +0200 schrieb Peter Spiess-Knafl: > Hi Tobi! > > Thanks for taking the time of reviewing. > > > just minor remarks: > > -changelog entry "d/control: migrated from cdbs to dh9" > > implies that changes are only in d/control, maybe remove > > d/control. > > - I'

Bug#747032: RFS: libjs-zxcvbn/1.0+dfsg.2-2

2015-06-30 Thread Ben Finney
Control: owner 726171 ! Control: retitle 726171 ITP: libjs-zxcvbn -- realistic password strength estimation Control: retitle 747032 RFS: libjs-zxcvbn/1.0+dfsg.2-2 [ITP] Control: tags 726171 + pending I am looking for a sponsor for my package ‘libjs-zxcvbn’: Package name: libjs-zxcvbn

Re: How or if daemon users should be removed

2015-06-30 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 30 juin 2015 14:07 -0700, Cameron Norman  : > I have a package (apt-p2p) that I want to adopt that removes its > daemon with deluser in postrm (on purge). This causes issues (piuparts > complains) because deluser is not essential and dependent packages are > not guaranteed to be installed at th

Bug#790391: RFS: bomberclone/0.11.9-5 ITA

2015-06-30 Thread Peter Spiess-Knafl
Hi Tobi! Thanks for taking the time of reviewing. > just minor remarks: > -changelog entry "d/control: migrated from cdbs to dh9" > implies that changes are only in d/control, maybe remove d/control. > - I'm a fan of DEP3 style patch headers :) Maybe you can tweak your > headers? For example thi

How or if daemon users should be removed

2015-06-30 Thread Cameron Norman
I have a package (apt-p2p) that I want to adopt that removes its daemon with deluser in postrm (on purge). This causes issues (piuparts complains) because deluser is not essential and dependent packages are not guaranteed to be installed at the time of postrm. So, should I: * Not remove the user

Bug#790391: RFS: bomberclone/0.11.9-5 ITA

2015-06-30 Thread Tobias Frost
Hi Peter, just minor remarks: -changelog entry "d/control: migrated from cdbs to dh9" implies that changes are only in d/control, maybe remove d/control. - I'm a fan of DEP3 style patch headers :) Maybe you can tweak your headers? For example this would avoid this question: Did you send upstream

Bug#790391: RFS: bomberclone/0.11.9-5 ITA

2015-06-30 Thread Tobias Frost
Control: owner -1 ! Control: tags: -1 pending Am Sonntag, den 28.06.2015, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Peter Spiess-Knafl: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: important > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bomberclone" > > * Package name: bomberclone >Ve

Bug#775445: marked as done (RFS: bitfighter/019d+dfsg-14 [ITP])

2015-06-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:27:33 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: bitfighter/019d+dfsg-14 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #775445, regarding RFS: bitfighter/019d+dfsg-14 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit

Re: Bug#788844: RFS: gbutils/5.6.6-1 [ITP]

2015-06-30 Thread Tomasz Buchert
On 30/06/15 12:35, Pietro Battiston wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am again asking for a sponsor for the package gbutils - see > description below. > > I tried to ask on the Debian science mailing list, but without success. > > I will be happy to provide any further info about the software/package. >

Re: Bug#788844: RFS: gbutils/5.6.6-1 [ITP]

2015-06-30 Thread Pietro Battiston
Dear mentors, I am again asking for a sponsor for the package gbutils - see description below. I tried to ask on the Debian science mailing list, but without success. I will be happy to provide any further info about the software/package. Thanks for your attention, Pietro Il giorno lun, 15/06