Re: Subject: RFS: testng (updated package)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Asheesh Laroia wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 5.11+dfsg-2 of my package >> "testng". (Still looking BTW...) > Have you talked with the Debian Java team about this? If not, take a look > at http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/JavaPa

RFS: lowpan-tools

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lowpan-tools". * Package name: lowpan-tools Version : 0.2.2-1 Upstream Authors: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov and Sergey Lapin * URL : http://linux-zigbee.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPLv2 Section :

Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)

Hi, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > of my package "poppler". > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poppler > - Sour

Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:03:08 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > > of my package "poppler". > > > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net

Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:20:23 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:03:08 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:52:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > Dear mentors, > > > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.4-1.2 > > > of my

dfsg bit in the package name

Hi Mentors, Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different packages use a different format, here are some quick stats from packages in unstable (with the counts): 1179 +dfsg 1119 .dfsg 233 ~dfsg

Re: dfsg bit in the package name

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:42:09 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote: > Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that > joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different > packages use a different format, here are some quick stats from packages > in unstable (with the cou

Re: dfsg bit in the package name

On 18/08/10 18:23, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:42:09 +0100, Tomasz Muras wrote: > >> Is there any preference/reasoning for using any particular symbol that >> joins "dfsg" bit with the package name? I can see that different >> packages use a different format, here are some quic

Re: Subject: RFS: testng (updated package)

Hi Marcus, On Mon, 16 Aug, 2010 at 11:06:41AM +0200, Marcus Better wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 5.11+dfsg-2 of my package > "testng". > > It builds these binary packages: > testng - testing framework for

Re: dfsg bit in the package name

Felipe Sateler writes: > And if there are any prospects of upstream cleaning up their tree, the ~ > symbol makes it possible to re-release the same tarball without the > offending files. Yes, either ~ or + will work provided that you haven't just realized that upstream has files that have to be

Re: RFS: glogg (third try, new version)

Hi Nicolas, On Tue, 17 Aug, 2010 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Nicolas Bonnefon wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "glogg". > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. I would upload the package if you fixed the following (minor) issues: 1/ lintian W: glo