Bug#838941: RFS: duperemove/0.11~beta3-3 ITP

2016-09-26 Thread peter . zahradnik
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "duperemove" * Package name: duperemove Version : 0.11~beta3-3 Upstream Author : Mark Fasheh * URL : https://github.com/markfasheh/duperemove * License

Bug#838939: RFS: devtodo/0.1.20-6.1 [NMU]

2016-09-26 Thread Fernando Seiti Furusato
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important X-Debbugs-Cc: bren...@br.ibm.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "devtodo" * Package name: devtodo Version : 0.1.20-6.1 Upstream Author : Alec Thomas * URL : http://swapoff.org/DevTodo * Licens

Bug#835253: RFS: steghide/0.5.1-11 [QA]

2016-09-26 Thread Fernando Seiti Furusato
Hello, Gianfranco. Thanks a lot for taking some time to verify this. I tried to follow your recommendations: On 09/12/2016 05:05 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > BTW, what about having the documentation in a separate -doc package? > (and in the doc standard location) I tried to to that. But

Bug#838481: RFS: daemontools/0.76-7 [RC]

2016-09-26 Thread Jan Mojzis
Hello, Gerrit is currently very busy, I will help him using NMU. Gerrit knows about it. NMU fixes the RC bug (#831921) and also fixes: - all problems reported by Ondrej - and also fixes 3 important bugs: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=776876 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugre

Bug#832429: Remove wrong blocking bug

2016-09-26 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
Control: unblock -1 by 837112

Bug#837650: RFS: cf-python/1.3.1+dfsg.1-1 [ITP]

2016-09-26 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:15:08 +0200 Klaus Zimmermann wrote: > Mattia already declined sponsoring on grounds of not sponsoring Debian > virgins like myself. Ross Gammon's initial ITP intended to maintain this package in the Debian GIS team alongside the netcdf packages where I'm available for spons

Bug#838180: RFS: mmh/0.3-2

2016-09-26 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi, >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mmh" and I was waiting for it :) uploaded. G.

Re: Libraries with "extra" priority?

2016-09-26 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 07:31:37AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >This "must" policy requirement has long gone past "pointless" deep into the > >"actively harmful" land. It is universally ignored, and I'd advise you to > >do so too. > > what about changing the policy? I admit I never care

Re: Libraries with "extra" priority?

2016-09-26 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Hi Adam, >This "must" policy requirement has long gone past "pointless" deep into the >"actively harmful" land. It is universally ignored, and I'd advise you to >do so too. what about changing the policy? I admit I never cared too much about such priorities, and I would like it to be relaxed/

Re: Libraries with "extra" priority?

2016-09-26 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50:19PM +0200, Tim Dengel wrote: > I was looking at debcheck[0] and saw that my package (with "optional" > priority) depends on a package with "extra" priority (libpeas-1.0-0), > which is not allowed by policy. > After re-reading the policy chapter about priorities[1] it