On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:27 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Hi Svante,
>
> (see bottom)
>
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:18:26 +0200 Svante Signell <
> svante.sign...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I uploaded a new version, 3.2.9-7+debian2 which fi
Hi again,
I uploaded a new version, 3.2.9-7+debian2 which fixes many lintian
warnings:
* binary-control-field-duplicates-source
* out-of-date-standards-version
* package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version
* xc-package-type-in-debian-control
* rules-requires-root-missing
* hardening-no-b
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 00:36 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I saw that there was some complaints from lintian of the uploaded
> version. I've fixed some of them. Upload again?
>
> BTW: running lintian with the --pedantic flag does not show all
> issues
Hi again,
I saw that there was some complaints from lintian of the uploaded
version. I've fixed some of them. Upload again?
BTW: running lintian with the --pedantic flag does not show all issues
as 956...@bugs.debian.org does. Which option(s) trigger all the output
at the link?
Thanks!
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "eudev"
* Package name: eudev
Version : 3.2.9-7+debian1
Upstream Author : NA
* URL : https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eudev.git
* License : GPL-2+
* Vc
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 18:37 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 04:41:51PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > That is a different thing: once the dependencies on Hurd are fixed,
> > you
>
> Of course the hurd issue turned out more complex once I actually read
> past the first post,
On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 23:16 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Yavor,
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:06:05PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > What's the correct way to fix the symbols file to work with both
> > > versions of gcc?
> Guess what, C++ is more complex than C.
So
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 12:48 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:55:18AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on poppler any
> > more.
> > If you have problems with
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 08:10 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 at 07:59, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > > On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > > I still don't get
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > >
>
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 13:56 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:28:37PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing
> > > purposes, ac
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please explain.
>
> Your package can't enter the archive since this would require to
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 08:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 at 08:12, Svante Signell wrote:
...
Sorry, I still don't get it: - Which packages still depend on
> > poppler, unless via xpdf? The ones directly dependant on poppler are
> > not affected.
>
>
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 06:49 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-04 at 14:19, Svante Signell wrote:
...
> > Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no
> > longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about poppler?
>
> Because ot
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: noowner -1
>
> > OK, got it. Are you still interested to sponsor this package, now when
> > you know about status quo? If so, I'll create an account at
> > alioth.debian.org and we'll continue from there.
>
> I was hoping that you
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: noowner -1
>
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:56:59AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > I'm not referring to currently kn
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:59:34AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > The security issues that I have raised.
> >
> > Which security issues? Please let me know (links please), so I can
> &
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 16:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:13:53PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > OK, including the real upstream tarball solves that issue, right?
>
> It wouldn't, since the sources of hello.pdf are not included in that
> tarbal
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 14:01 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:19:43PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > And BTW: poppler upstream seems to be freedesktop.org, i.e. gnome.
> > Who
> > can trust gnome nowadays, especially people preferring systemd-free
>
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 02:50 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 01:56:26PM -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for
> > > > testing purposes, according to the INSTALL file. It would
> > > > likely need to be repacked to re
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 11:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> I agree with you that a poppler-based xpdf is not maintainable until
> and unless xpdf upstream switches to poppler. However, it is not
> clear to me why we shouldn't just remove xpdf from Debian. The main
> reason that De
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:02:29AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > It sounds like the source should not in fact be repacked. What do
> > you
> > think, Svante?
>
> The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing
> purposes
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 07:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:36:56PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > BTW: Do I need to publish my packages somewhere locally? I
> > currently
> > don't have a web server running. Or is it possible to just use
> &
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 08:02 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Jason,
>
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:00:19AM -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > If you're going to adopt the Xpdf package, I thought you might want
> > to
> > know a little about Xpdf first and why the Debian package is the
> > way
> > that
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 13:12 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Seems like I made some errors when uploading and sending the RFS
> > request:
> > 1) I did not change the Maintainer: fi
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
> control: owner -1 !
>
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf"
>
> I&#
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 12:23 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> >
> >
> > https://mentors.debian.net/my
>
> Thanks, found out that I had
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/my
Thanks, found out that I had to upload the public gpg key too.
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
...
> The files should be available at:
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf
> but is not yet. However uploading was successful:
> dput mentors xpdf
uild using the correct upstream tarball xpdf-3.04.tar.gz.
-- Svante Signell Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:33 +0100
The files should be available at:
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf
but is not yet. However uploading was successful:
dput mentors xpdf_3.04.real-4_amd64.changes
(By mista
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:57 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:26:52PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 18:09 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > OK; I'll use experimental, even if the new package closes 11 important and
> > norm
On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 18:09 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> >
> On the other hand, this package is a part of stretch, and we're in deep
> freeze. This means, unless you're fixing RC or at least important bu
Hi,
I'm intending to ITA the orphaned package xpdf, see #848631. An updated package,
xpdf 3.0.4-5 is ready for review and upload. What to do next, provide a debdiff
as a start?
Thank you for your time.
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 12:15 +0100, Guido van Steen wrote:
> >> I'm currently looking into packaging eudev, consolekit2, uselessd for
> >> Debian. If doing so, is anybody interested in sponsoring uploads of
> >> these packages? It would be great to know, before digging into the
> >> details. If you
Hi,
Seems like I sent my question to the wrong list.
Please Cc: replies, I'm not subscribed (yet)
--- Begin Message ---
Am 13.11.2014 um 19:17 schrieb Svante Signell:
Hi,
Hi,
I'm currently looking into packaging eudev, consolekit2, uselessd for
Debian. If doing so, is anybody
35 matches
Mail list logo
