On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 02:28:13PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Azat,
>
>
> last thing: can you please fix the autopkgtestsuite?
> http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/cunit/2.1-3-dfsg-1/autopkgtest
>
> seems that it is not finding the correct header file...
>
> t
Hi Azat,
last thing: can you please fix the autopkgtestsuite?
http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/cunit/2.1-3-dfsg-1/autopkgtest
seems that it is not finding the correct header file...
thanks a lot!
(this should be the last showstopper)
cheers,
G.
Il Lunedì 12 Ottobre 2
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:17:29PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Azat,
>
>
>
> >No problem, replaced version in d/changelog and d/NEWS to
> >"2.1-3+dfsg-1".
>
>
> wonderful
> >Done using d/copyright, thanks.
>
>
> this is not really correct.
>
> I see you remove Makefiles in copy
Hi Azat,
>No problem, replaced version in d/changelog and d/NEWS to
>"2.1-3+dfsg-1".
wonderful
>Done using d/copyright, thanks.
this is not really correct.
I see you remove Makefiles in copyright, but why?
that files-excluded needs to be used for non dfsg files, not for autogenerated
stuf
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:38:27AM +0200, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for the long wait!
Hi, no problem!
> I did a deep review, and I guess I found the last "showstoppers"
>
> 1) Upstream revision seems to be "2.1-3" and you seem to have
> introduced a first dfsg revision
> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
sorry for the long wait!
I did a deep review, and I guess I found the last "showstoppers"
1) Upstream revision seems to be "2.1-3" and you seem to have
introduced a first dfsg revision
so it becomes 2.1-3+dfsg
and then the debian revision,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:59:26AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, I'm referring to:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=792144#54
Hm, I thought that I dropped autoconf from B-D, but seems that this was
in some separate branch, anyway fixed that now.
As for *.css, I t
Hi, I'm referring to:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=792144#54
and (sorry for that I forgot to send the mail)
to the need to mark the package as multiarch where needed
https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation
also, please rebase the changelog into one entry.
(I mean,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:26:03AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> (please also address issues from other emails)
I look through emails again, and couldn't find any non addressed issues,
could please duplicate it?
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cunit/cunit_2.1-3-dfsg1.dsc
>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:30:27AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Another issue you should address:
>
>
> I duplicate-long-description
> libcunit1-dev libcunit1 libcunit1-ncurses-dev libcunit1-ncurses libcunit1-doc
>
> (you might append something like "this is the development package" "th
Another issue you should address:
I duplicate-long-description
libcunit1-dev libcunit1 libcunit1-ncurses-dev libcunit1-ncurses libcunit1-doc
(you might append something like "this is the development package" "this is the
common
documentation" or so)
feel free to steal from python-pyqtgraph or
(please also address issues from other emails)
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cunit/cunit_2.1-3-dfsg1.dsc
quoting changelog:
+ * Bump to 2.1-3
+ * Fix versions
I see two patches dropped
and the watch file updated (diff between this version and your previous one,
not complete
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 08:48:45PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> well something has been buried by my MUA.
>
> There is a new upstream release, can you please update it?
Okay, done.
> BTW there is a problem in versioning:
>
> -2.dfsg is bad, because it seems only Debian revisio
Hi,
well something has been buried by my MUA.
There is a new upstream release, can you please update it?
BTW there is a problem in versioning:
-2.dfsg is bad, because it seems only Debian revision, while
-2 is upstream and dfsg is Debian.
please use two "-" but I'm not sure if it works or not.
Hi again,
>Hm, so if I will replace all targets with dh_*_auto, and will add
>override_* for them when required, this will not work for rules.d since
>it will call the same again and again, no? Or do you suggesting get rid
>off that rules.d stuff?
yes, or merge them in the main rules file :)
Hi,
>Yes, you are right, dh-autoreconf is enough.
so please drop the other one :)
>Hm, according to lintian(1):
> "For binary packages, Lintian looks for overrides in a file named
> usr/share/lintian/overrides/ inside the binary package, where
> is the name of the binary package."
>
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:50:46PM +0300, a3at.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 01:14:45PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > quick review:
> >
> > 1) lintian is complaining about no compat level set.
> > I don't see any problem in the compat level set, not sure
>
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:21:35AM +0300, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:33:32AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
>> > d/copyright:
>> > -In the LGPL license text, you've accidentally referred to the wrong
>> > license:
>> > You sho
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 01:14:45PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick review:
>
> 1) lintian is complaining about no compat level set.
> I don't see any problem in the compat level set, not sure
> if a bug in lintian or something else...
>
> 2) d/rules: please use the new dh for
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 01:14:45PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick review:
>
> 1) lintian is complaining about no compat level set.
> I don't see any problem in the compat level set, not sure
> if a bug in lintian or something else...
> 2) d/rules: please use the new dh forma
Hi,
quick review:
1) lintian is complaining about no compat level set.
I don't see any problem in the compat level set, not sure
if a bug in lintian or something else...
2) d/rules: please use the new dh format, it should be trivial to convert.
3) d/control: do you really need autoconf as b-d?
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:21:35AM +0300, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:33:32AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> > d/copyright:
> > -In the LGPL license text, you've accidentally referred to the wrong
> > license:
> > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
Changes since the last upload:
* New maintainer. (Closes: #763096).
* Fix pkg-config file is broken (Closes: #782366).
* Bump Standards version to 3.9.6
* Bump debhelper to version 9
* Migrate to git
* copyright: link to [L]GPL-2 instead of versionless [L]GPL
* copyright: migrate to DEP-5 (machin
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:33:32AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cunit"
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm not a DD, so I can't sponsor your package, but I had a look, and
> here are some notes:
Hi,
Thanks for you comments, by some reason I didn't see your email when you
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cunit"
Hi!
I'm not a DD, so I can't sponsor your package, but I had a look, and
here are some notes:
d/control:
-The link to your git repository doesn't seem to work.
d/copyright:
-In the LGPL license text, you've accidentally referred to the wrong
l
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cunit"
Package name: cunit
Version : 2.1-2.dfsg-3
Upstream Author : Jerry St.Clair
Anil Kumar
URL : http://cunit.sourceforge.net/
License
26 matches
Mail list logo
