Hi,
I've tried to upload a backport to mentors.d.n a few moments ago and
it got rejected with the following error:
"If you tried to upload a package which only increased the Debian
revision part, make sure you include the full source (pass -sa to
dpkg-buildpackage)"
The manpage for "dpkg-buildpa
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my backport of "btrfs-tools", and have
been unable to reach Dimitri John Ledkov , the
maintainer of the package, for several months.
Package name: btrfs-tools
Upstream-Name : btrfs-progs
Version
Hi,
>It's a local thing too ?
>I thought it was for the "action needed" frame of tracker.debian.org
>Normally a day after upstream releases i see a notification there.
"uscan" simple as it.
apt-file search bin/uscan might help in finding the package :)
>A link to bug report 813020 of yesterda
Hi,
i wrote:
> >I am waiting for the new upstream tarball to be recognized by
> >uscan and reported to the package tracker.
> it is reconized as soon as published (uscan locally just does a wget and
> looks for versions to parse)
It's a local thing too ?
I thought it was for the "action needed"
Hi
>[Changing hats.]
>I am the upstream myself. .pl01 is tradition. What's wrong with it ?
>[Changing hats again.]
>
>(Upstream is not unteachable. Just would need to be convinced.)
well, it is a little bit unusual to have versioning with letters and not only
numbers...
I would expect the wat
Hi,
Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> (well, you might want to ask upstream to call it 1.4.2.1 maybe?)
[Changing hats.]
I am the upstream myself. .pl01 is tradition. What's wrong with it ?
[Changing hats again.]
(Upstream is not unteachable. Just would need to be convinced.)
i wrote:
> > The bina
Hi,
>thanks for the answers to my previous question about Multi-Arch.
>Incidentially the next packaging of libburn will happen soon,
>because of an embarrassing bug in its command line frontend cdrskin.
>
>This leads me to my next first-time situation:
>
>There is now upstream
>libburn-1.4.2.pl0
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:56:20PM +, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> Because of the soname change. It is localized into this 3 packages,
> should I warn anyway the release manager?
Now that I have a better view of the thing I'm confident that involving
them is just pointless.
There are these 3 pack
Hi,
thanks for the answers to my previous question about Multi-Arch.
Incidentially the next packaging of libburn will happen soon,
because of an embarrassing bug in its command line frontend cdrskin.
This leads me to my next first-time situation:
There is now upstream
libburn-1.4.2.pl01.tar.gz
Your message dated Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:41:59 +
with message-id <20160129184159.gf15...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#810921: RFS: rep-gtk/1:0.90.8.2-1 [ITA] -- GTK+
binding for librep
has caused the Debian Bug report #810921,
regarding RFS: rep-gtk/1:0.90.8.2-1 [ITA] -- GTK+ bind
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:27:00PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:44:23PM +, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> > Sorry for taking a long time to reply, adding my delay I had email
> > problems.
>
> funny ;)
>
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:13:29AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:56:09PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I've included a suggestion that upstream sign releases in my submission
> of the homepage URI patch. However, I'm not hopeful it will be
> fulfilled so consider my Lintian override to be in the name of
> pessimism.
I owe an apology t
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:44:23PM +, Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> Sorry for taking a long time to reply, adding my delay I had email
> problems.
funny ;)
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:13:29AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > + I have a extended-description-is-probably-too-short, please fix.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
