Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:20:44 + (UTC)
with message-id <586198311.4817837.1473499244...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#837209: RFS: lua-torch-nn/0~20160908-g9d7b9ea+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #837210,
regarding RFS: lua-torch-torch7/0~20160908-ge5ebac6-1
to
Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:20:44 + (UTC)
with message-id <586198311.4817837.1473499244...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#837209: RFS: lua-torch-nn/0~20160908-g9d7b9ea+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #837209,
regarding RFS: lua-torch-nn/0~20160908-g9d7b9ea+dfsg-1
to
control: owner -1 !
control: tags -1 moreinfo
>- add debugging symbols packages
why? they are autogenerated now
https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages
other stuff seems good
G.
Hi Gianfranco,
the debug packages and symbols are not currently being created since I am
using the pre v9 packaging mechanism.
I'm sure you remember - budgie-desktop is just very weird under debian &
ubuntu and the standard debhelper - all packages seem to be generated but
the desktop never lau
Hi,
>I'm sure you remember - budgie-desktop is just very weird under debian &
>ubuntu and the standard debhelper - all packages seem to be generated but the
>desktop never >launches :/
yep I remember
>I look forward to the future budgie-desktop where the maintainer is to recode
>using C and i
Fully understand Gianfranco.
thanks for the advice. The package has now been stripped of these dbg
and symbols now and uploaded to mentors.
Have done a test rebuild of the revised package together with a linitian -i
-I of the sources and .deb packages and all looks as the same as the
current b
Dear LTS team, Mateusz:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:12:47AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:53:49AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi Adam,
> > (answering in general, not in this particular situation)
> >
> >
> > >I've reviewed the upload, but I'm not sure if you
hi,
On 09/06/2016 12:44 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
[...]
> I didn't think about adding -latomic to the linker flag list
> directly via -Wl. I just tested your suggestion and it's really
> funny; libtool does mangle your line and separate it into:
>
> -Wl,--push-state -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-latomi
On 09/10/2016 03:22 PM, Muri Nicanor wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 12:44 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> [...]
>> I didn't think about adding -latomic to the linker flag list
>> directly via -Wl. I just tested your suggestion and it's really
>> funny; libtool does mangle your line and separate it into:
>>
>
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cdist"
* Package name: cdist
Version : 4.3.1-2
Upstream Author : Nico Schottelius
* Url : http://www.nico.schottelius.org/software/cdist/
* Licenses: GPL
Hi,
Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 03:03:42PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > cdist-doc depends on "sphinx-common (<< 1.4.5.0~), sphinx-common (>=
> > 1.4.5)". This causes the following issues:
> >
> > * It's uninstallable in unstable
> > * sphinx doesn't migrate to testing[0]
> >
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo unreproducible
Control: severity -1 minor
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > cdist-doc depends on "sphinx-common (<< 1.4.5.0~), sphinx-common (>=
> > 1.4.5)" via ${sphinxdoc:Depends}. While this is generally fine, it also
> > means that cdist needs to be rebuilt again
> *sigh* I'd reopened and reassiged it if I were you. Not doing that now
> myself because there is also a sponsorship request for cdist at
> https://bugs.debian.org/837319 which will solve this anyways.
>
> Dmitry: Will have a look at #837319. :-)
Fine.
> > While on it I'd investigate why it has
> But that also means that your upload at
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/cdist will not fix this bug since
> the bug is about a missing Build-Conflicts, not about the
> uninstallability. The latter was just context on how I stumbled upon
> that bug. #837312 is the actual uninstallability bug
Hi Dmitry,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 05:09:20PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > Since not every sphinx reverse dependency which uses
> > ${sphinxdoc:Depends} (about 527 source packages in unstable according
> > to [1]) seems to have that rather strict dependency (thanks to Mattia
> > for pointing t
Hi Dmitry,
our mails once again have crossed each other. :-)
Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > So please either drop the "(Closes: #837311)" from the changelog
> > completely or change it to "(Closes: #837312)".
>
> On mentors.
Do you want me to upload this directly or do you want me to wait for
the "B
> our mails once again have crossed each other. :-)
>
> Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > > So please either drop the "(Closes: #837311)" from the changelog
> > > completely or change it to "(Closes: #837312)".
> >
> > On mentors.
>
> Do you want me to upload this directly or do you want me to wait for
>
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > Do you want me to upload this directly or do you want me to wait for
> > the "Build-Conflics: python-sphinx" fix, too?
>
> Now, I think. After all, build conflicts is internal problem, and
> uninstallable documentation is user-visible.
Will do then. Thanks fo
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 05:09:20PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > > Since not every sphinx reverse dependency which uses
> > > ${sphinxdoc:Depends} (about 527 source packages in unstable according
> > > to [1]) seems to have that rather strict dependency (thanks to Mattia
> > > for pointing th
Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:25:56 + (UTC)
with message-id <2025308401.5083600.1473524756...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#837196: RFS: budgie-desktop/10.2.6-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #837196,
regarding RFS: budgie-desktop/10.2.6-2
to be marked as done.
This means
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:59:46PM +0200, Hanno 'Rince' Wagner wrote:
> I am packaging open-invaders, a clone of space invaders. I was able to
> "port" it (with a lot of help from friends) to gcc-6, but I have a
> problem with the used libraries.
>
> I am able to successfully compile and package o
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:10:27PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> I have a new version of downtimed ready for a review.
> The package is uploaded to mentors[1].
> Please can someone review this package?
Uploaded.
It looks like regular sponsors rely on automation these days, and
requests witho
Dear Boyuan, Dmitry,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:52:29PM +0300, Dmitry Ivanov wrote:
> I am the upstream developer of QEverCloud library. Sorry for the
> interference, I'd just like to clarify a bit what QEverCloudGenerator
> is and how it is intended to work.
Please don't apologise -- there's a r
Hi,
I maintain a package and the latest release tarball from source
unfortunately contains a .gitignore file listing debian/. I can't import
it in my git copy with "gbp import-orig --uscan" and patch it in
debian/patches afterwards, since as soon as the new tarball would be
imported, the whole deb
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 23:53:40 +0200, Raphaël Halimi wrote:
> I maintain a package and the latest release tarball from source
> unfortunately contains a .gitignore file listing debian/. I can't import
> it in my git copy with "gbp import-orig --uscan" and patch it in
> debian/patches afterwards, sin
control: tag -1 +moreinfo
control: owner -1 !
Dear David,
Thank you for your work to bring this new package to Debian! I can't
sponsor the upload, but I hope this review is useful to you.
I've split it into two sections: things that I would consider must-fixes
before an upload to Debian, and su
Hi Sean,
2016-09-11 5:46 GMT+08:00 Sean Whitton :
> In that GitHub thread, there is mention of a parsing tool called
> 'lemon'. Dmitry suggests packaging that separately, but you say it's
> not necessary. Could you explain why? Where can I find out about that
> tool?
>
"apt install lemon" will
Control: reopen -1
The upstream release issue has now been addressed. Apologies for posting
this before it was ready but everything is good to go now
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/9wm
Alternatively, on
28 matches
Mail list logo
