Re: Package being built with mruby version different from the one in the debian archive

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Muammar El Khatib wrote: > Would it be fine to upload the package compiled with these upstream shipped > versions of mruby/extensions? or does it has absolutely to be compiled with > the > versions present in the debian archive?. Debian policy is to not use embedd

Bug#793651: RFS: hdump/2.3-1 [ITP] -- Hexadecimal and ASCII dumper for binary files

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi Jakub, I work more in package and correct issues that you point about packaging and upload again to mentors. http://mentors.debian.net/package/hdump I send to upstream your review about LSF and more. Thanks. []'s kretcheu :x On 26-07-2015 0

Bug#793737: marked as done (RFS: gbsplay/0.0.92-2)

Your message dated Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:27:53 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: gbsplay/0.0.92-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #793737, regarding RFS: gbsplay/0.0.92-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case

Package being built with mruby version different from the one in the debian archive

Dear mentors, There is a package I maintain that was abandoned, but now it has been forked. I have decided to upload a new version renaming it, and following instructions in [1]. In this new project, and that is the doubt I have, the package is being built using a version of mruby[2] different f