Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "think-rotate"
* Package name: think-rotate
Version : 3.0-1
Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream]
* URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site]
I am sorry that I forgot to fill in the table. Here it is:
* Package name: think-rotate
Version : 3.0-1
Upstream Author : Martin Ueding
* URL : http://martin-ueding.de/en/projects/think-rotate/
* License : GPL v2 or later
Section : utils
--
http://m
I've received a patch about one of my packages, that apparently doesn't work
when using a non-utf locale.
Do you think I should consider the patch or no?
--
Salvo Tomaselli
http://ltworf.github.io/ltworf/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Salvo Tomaselli
> Do you think I should consider the patch or no?
Depends on the patch and the package, please include details when
asking questions.
I would suggest neither option; instead, fix the patch and then accept it.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/
> > Ok, done (grabbed from the nlopt package).
>
> OK (not brave enough to try the new uscan which would have saved you
> from this get-orig-source thingy by adding a single line to d/copyright?
What are you talking about?
> Yep. BTW, config model (see below) would have changed to 3.9.4
> autom
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "pyformex".
* Package name: pyformex
Version : 0.9.1-2
Upstream Author : benedict.verheg...@ugent.be
* URL : pyformex.org
* License : GPL3
This is an up
Your message dated Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:28:07 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: hunspell-bo/0.1-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #716708,
regarding RFS: hunspell-bo/0.1-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this i
Hello all,
Could I get a packaging review? My first time building/bundling a script for
debian (debian-native) and I want to make sure I get the "right advice" on a
few points:
1) Is the use of tempfile here correct? (is this properly secure / policy
compliant? should it be in /var/run? b
Il 30/11/2013 17:22, Jakub Wilk ha scritto:
> * Giulio Paci , 2013-11-29, 17:13:
>>> What do you mean by "Drop manpages"?
>> I dropped the manpages file. Do you think is ok to rephrase the entry as
>> "Drop manpages file"?
>
> I'd write something akin "Drop debian/manpages. Upstream makefile now
Hi,
I want to pack a simple perl script (http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/
files/pixelserv.pl.txt) as a package, but need your help.
I've checked out the
Debian Perl Policy
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/
and believe the script is fine.
But I don't know if there
> I want to pack a simple perl script (http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/
> files/pixelserv.pl.txt) as a package, but need your help.
You should have a close read of the Debian Policy Manual:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
...specifically: Section 10.7 "Configuration Files" which su
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 07:19:51PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> > > Ok, done (grabbed from the nlopt package).
> >
> > OK (not brave enough to try the new uscan which would have saved you
> > from this get-orig-source thingy by adding a single line to d/copyright?
>
> What are you talking a
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > What are you talking about?
> I think I've recommendet you reading
> https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements
Indeed, I've forgot this reference. But it seems,
this out of the dep5 standard for now, isn't? And this
approach
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Robert Ames wrote:
> 1) Is the use of tempfile here correct? (is this properly secure / policy
> compliant? should it be in /var/run? but /var/run requires permissions
> issues)
The manual page for tempfile says that it is deprecated in favour of
mktemp. Otherwi
Your message dated Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:25:33 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: syfi/1.0.0.dfsg-1.2 [NMU RC]
has caused the Debian Bug report #729323,
regarding RFS: syfi/1.0.0.dfsg-1.2 [NMU RC]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:18:31AM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > What are you talking about?
> > I think I've recommendet you reading
> > https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements
>
> Indeed, I've forgot this reference.
16 matches
Mail list logo