Hi,
>Having trouble doing the signing. I was able to sign the .deb but not the
>.changes, any hints? I couldn't rectify the situation online yet
debsign filename_version.changes
maybe you have to export your key on ~/.devscripts.
e.g. for my key
DEBSIGN_KEYID='92978A6E195E4921825F7FF0F34F09
Your message dated Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:27:02 + (UTC)
with message-id <1799160641.4587755.1459837622169.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#811214: RFS: retroarch/1.3.0-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #811214,
regarding RFS: retroarch/1.3.0-1 [ITP]
to be marked as don
> control:
> std-version is 3.9.7
Fixed.
> rules: no upstream makefile is sad.
> makedocs? not run?
Forgot it. Fixed.
New version on mentors.
What do you think about NEWS, AUTHORS and THANKS?
I doubt NEWS is of any use, AUTHORS is mirrored in d/copyright,
but I think it would be fair for end-u
Having trouble doing the signing. I was able to sign the .deb but not the
.changes, any hints? I couldn't rectify the situation online yet
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna <
locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Herbert
>
> if you want to maintain the package in Debian it w
Hi Mattia,
On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> meh, there is git, let me use it!
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/grip.git
Actually, it would be pretty nice if the RFS template grabbed the
"Vcs-Git" field. I'll remember to add it manually in the next time.
> Though as
Mattia,
On 4 April 2016 at 21:37, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> yep, saw the mail that day, but didn't pay much attention back then.
There's no problem.
> This is basically a security feature, I think, not a bug.
>
> Though you should be able to fix it more manually by directly editing
> the HEAD fil
RetroArch is in the new queue! Thanks Gianfranco!
I updated some of the libretro cores, for mupen64plus and beetle-psx
it's better to stick with the old ones (not so old...). Lot of commits
nowadays, it's better to wait them stay calm.
sergio-br2
control: tag -1 moreinfo
control: owner -1 !
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:02:56PM -0300, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
> dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/grip/grip_4.1.0-1.dsc
meh, there is git, let me use it!
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/grip.git
Though as I said on the o
Your message dated Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:39:30 +
with message-id <20160405003930.go31...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#819773: RFS: python-path-and-address/1.0.0-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #819773,
regarding RFS: python-path-and-address/1.1.0-1 [ITP]
to be marked as don
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 08:09:31PM -0300, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
> Hi Mattia,
>
> On 4 April 2016 at 18:25, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > I usually prefer using git to do my stuff, though here a simple clone is
> > not enough:
> >
> > mattia@chase ~/devel/RFS/python-path-and-address % git clone
> > htt
Your message dated Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:57:15 +1000
with message-id <1718500.HoCDOZSMQ5@deblab>
and subject line Re: [pkg-go] Bug#817284: RFS:
golang-github-hlandau-degoutils/0.0~git20160211.0.16c74cc [ITP] --
miscellaneous utilities for Go
has caused the Debian Bug report #817284,
regarding RFS:
Hi Mattia,
On 4 April 2016 at 18:25, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I usually prefer using git to do my stuff, though here a simple clone is
> not enough:
>
> mattia@chase ~/devel/RFS/python-path-and-address % git clone
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/python-path-and-address.git
> Cloning
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:09:48 +
with message-id <20160404220948.gj31...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#819804: RFS: opengm/2.3.6+20160131-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #819804,
regarding RFS: opengm/2.3.6+20160131-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you clai
On 04/04/16 22:06, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
control: tag -1 moreinfo
control: owner -1 !
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 02:22:16PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "opengm"
sure thing :)
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/opengm.git
th
control: tag -1 moreinfo
control: owner -1 !
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:08:23AM -0300, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
> I've updated the package to the version "1.1.0" which the upstream
> kindly released after integrating my patch fixing some issues with
> tests under Python 3.
>
> It was uploaded to mento
control: tag -1 moreinfo
control: owner -1 !
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 02:22:16PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "opengm"
sure thing :)
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/opengm.git
this one's good.
A thing: you close no bugs w
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "grip"
* Package name: grip
Version : 4.1.0-1
Upstream Author : Joe Esposito
* URL : https://github.com/joeyespo/grip
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:54:54 +
with message-id <20160404205454.gf31...@chase.mapreri.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#818557: RFS: windowlab/1.40-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #818557,
regarding RFS: windowlab/1.40-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pro
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi, lets review:
control:
std-version is 3.9.7
rules: no upstream makefile is sad.
makedocs? not run?
other stuff LGTM
check-all-the-things review:
$ perlcritic -1 . 2>&1 | grep -vF 'No perl files were found.'
Il Martedì 1 Marzo 2016 8:21, Matti
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi, lets review:
control:
please use autoreconf
std-version is 3.9.7
debian/menu: drop per ctte decision
copyright: lots of embedded libraries and copyright/licenses missing.
BSD / ISC / zlib/libpng / libpng / Apache?
not sure how many more, and w
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi, lets review:
control:
autotools-dev, dh-autoreconf,
I think autoreconf alone should be enough.
libgmp10, libcrypto++9v5, libfftw3-double3
on noes! shlibs:Depends should do that automatically. If not, it means your
binaries are not
linking corr
* Jörg Frings-Fürst , 2016-04-02, 10:41:
The result looks like that all builds use an other symbols
file as base, because already the second line differs from
the original.
Why?
Looks like a bug in dpkg-gensymbols(1). You might want to file the bug
in the BTS.
This circumstance also prev
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:56:00 +0200
with message-id <20160404165600.gb29...@kin.test.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#814806: RFS: libauxv/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- libauxv --
Auxiliary Vector Library library
has caused the Debian Bug report #814806,
regarding RFS: libauxv/1.
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:05:22 + (UTC)
with message-id <588292580.3964418.1459778722182.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line RFS: aggressive-indent-mode/1.5.1-1 -- Emacs minor mode that
reindents code after every change
has caused the Debian Bug report #819821,
regardin
Hi Frederic,
>Very good point James :)
so, do you think we can close this RFS?
I don't think the package is still useful after the latest commends.
cheers,
G.
control: owner -1 !
Hi, signed an uploaded, thanks for your contribution to Debian!
cheers,
G.
Il Sabato 2 Aprile 2016 21:05, Sean Whitton ha
scritto:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for an update to aggressive-indent-mode.
* Pac
Hi Frank,
nobody usually sponsors stuff without an RFS bug.
And sending a mail with RFS in the subject isn't a bug :)
anyhow, lets review:
"CXXFLAGS = -std=c++11 -O3"
I think you shouldn't force -O3 and for sure you shouldn't override external
flags.
Please do += instead of =
or maybe ?=
also
Hi Herbert
if you want to maintain the package in Debian it would be easier to find a
sponsor.
you might want to start from there
https://wiki.debian.org/IntroDebianPackaging
you will probably need to check lintian and check-all-the-things to first
review your packaging.
after that, please u
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Dimitri, I see you already acked the change on 780081, so I would like to
sponsor this package (if I remember correctly you like also cosmetical changes
on NMUs, so I'll
ask to bump std-version and something more).
I did a preliminary review on
Hi therre,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:17:15AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi dear Joerg and Ricardo, do you have any issues in having me
> sponsoring the debdiff?
Not from my side :)
> The debdiff looks really good, however some things needs
> changes/comments:
>
> 1) adding yourself
Hi,
>Please be in mind that the fix is a new upstream version. We have to
>to upgrade from 0.8.3-1+b1 to 0.8.4-1, though.
you can extract the fix as patch and cherry-pick on the old version.
we don't need the autogenerated autotools stuff, we regenerate it anyway.
(not asking to do that)
>di
* Gianfranco Costamagna [2016-04-04 09:17 +]:
> Hi dear Joerg and Ricardo, do you have any issues in having me sponsoring the
> debdiff?
>
>
> The debdiff looks really good, however some things needs changes/comments:
>
> 1) adding yourself to uploaders needs an ack
> 2) this seems to be
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:00:25 + (UTC)
with message-id <526910942.3624740.1459764025267.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line fgetty is now in unstable.
has caused the Debian Bug report #817213,
regarding RFS: fgetty/0.7-1 ITP
to be marked as done.
This means that you cl
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:00:25 + (UTC)
with message-id <526910942.3624740.1459764025267.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line fgetty is now in unstable.
has caused the Debian Bug report #817213,
regarding RFS: fgetty/0.7-0.1 [NMU] -- very small, efficient, console-only ge
Hi dear Joerg and Ricardo, do you have any issues in having me sponsoring the
debdiff?
The debdiff looks really good, however some things needs changes/comments:
1) adding yourself to uploaders needs an ack
2) this seems to be otherwise an NMU, and I would prefer a puntual fix.
However, since
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:05:15 + (UTC)
with message-id <1750986072.3556818.1459760715290.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#819929: RFS: mini-httpd/1.23-1 -- Small HTTP server
has caused the Debian Bug report #819929,
regarding RFS: mini-httpd/1.23-1 -- Small H
Hi mentors,
I managed together with upstream to fix
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=812668.
I asked the Debian maintainers to push the fix but there was no
response. So I've build an updated package and asked the maintainers
again to push with no response. What shall I do now?
37 matches
Mail list logo
