Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

2016-09-07 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi >remove gcc, >let sdl 1.2 (remove unused sdl2) >update versions from unstable oh... no sdl2 ready code? >>fixed. >>i only can test in these archs, but i changed it to => any > >Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, libsdl1.2 (>= 1.2.15) libsdl1.2 explicit

Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

2016-09-05 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 16/08/16 a las 09:15, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > control: tags -1 moreinf > > Hi, > >>* Initial release (Closes: #739035) > lets try a review: Hi gianfranco! lets go: > > 1) std-version is 3.9.8 now fixed. > > 2) debhelper (>= 9), libncurses5-dev (>= 5.9), > unzip (>= 6.0), li

Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

2016-08-17 Thread Fernando Toledo
El 16/08/16 a las 09:15, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > control: tags -1 moreinf > > Hi, > >>* Initial release (Closes: #739035) > lets try a review: > > 1) std-version is 3.9.8 now > > 2) debhelper (>= 9), libncurses5-dev (>= 5.9), > unzip (>= 6.0), libsdl2-dev (>= 2.0.2), libsdl1.2-de

Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

2016-08-16 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
control: tags -1 moreinf Hi, >* Initial release (Closes: #739035) lets try a review: 1) std-version is 3.9.8 now 2) debhelper (>= 9), libncurses5-dev (>= 5.9), unzip (>= 6.0), libsdl2-dev (>= 2.0.2), libsdl1.2-dev (>= 1.2.15), gcc (>= 4:4.9) do you really need both sdl1.2 and sdl2? do y

Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

2016-08-09 Thread Fernando Toledo
Hi all!!! i'm still search for sponsor for Syncterm! Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "syncterm" * Package name: syncterm Version : 1.0+dfsg-1 Upstream Author : Deuce * URL : http://syncterm.bbsdev.net/ * License : LGPL Sect