Bug#837650: RFS: cf-python/1.3.1+dfsg.1-1 [ITP]

2016-10-07 Thread Klaus Zimmermann
Hi Gianfranco, hi Bas, Am 01.10.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: > (additional review, on top of Sebastiaan's one) > * Requires a python version from 2.6 up to, but not including, 3.0. > > Sebastiaan, I'm not sure we can build Python3 version, but I leave this > check to the maintaine

Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Ole Streicher
Hi, my package "saods9" has currently a RC release in experimental that is named 7.5~rc+repack-1 Now, upstream released a second RC which I want to upload as well: 7.5~rc2+repack-1 However, it turns out that this release is actually *smaller* than the first RC release? I originally thought tha

Bug#839833: RFS: gkeyring/0.4-1 [ITP]

2016-10-07 Thread SOUBEYRAND Yann - externe
Hi! Thank you for your interest in sponsoring this package ;-) I uploaded a new version which should address the most important concerns you raised https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gkeyring/gkeyring_0.4-1-gf4ce4c7-1.dsc Regards Yann Le jeudi 06 octobre 2016 à 12:49 +0800, un expé

Bug#837650: RFS: cf-python/1.3.1+dfsg.1-1 [ITP]

2016-10-07 Thread Klaus Zimmermann
Hi Guys, one more thing: In a private exchange Ross agreed to me taking over. Thanks Klaus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Santiago Vila
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > my package "saods9" has currently a RC release in experimental that is > named > > 7.5~rc+repack-1 > > Now, upstream released a second RC which I want to upload as well: > > 7.5~rc2+repack-1 > > However, it turns out that this re

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Ole Streicher
Santiago Vila writes: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: >> dpkg --compare-versions 7.5~rc+repack lt 7.5~rc2+repack && echo lt || echo >> ge >> ge >> >> What is the best way to fix this? > > The best way I don't know, but I would put the RC number at the end, > i.e

Bug#838495: RFS: python-cartopy/0.14.2-1 [ITP]

2016-10-07 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
Hi Frederic, I have uploaded a new version of python-cartopy/0.14.2+dfsg1-1 [1] for you to review and sponsor. I ended up doing a dfsg-repack of the source to exclude the files you suggested, for which the copyright was either missing, non-free or ambiguous. [1] https://mentors.debian.net/debia

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > >> dpkg --compare-versions 7.5~rc+repack lt 7.5~rc2+repack && echo lt || > >> echo ge > >> ge > >> > >> What is the best way to fix this? >

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Ole Streicher
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Santiago Vila writes: >> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: >> >> dpkg --compare-versions 7.5~rc+repack lt 7.5~rc2+repack && echo >> >> lt || echo ge >> >> ge >> >> >> >> What

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:23:45AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > agreed. What about > 7.5~rc.2+repack > ? > > The full stop is ugly at my eyes, but does the work and there are worse > things in the world. What about rc-2+repack? A matter of taste but I'd call this somewhat less ugly. --

Re: Version comparison with "+repack"

2016-10-07 Thread Ole Streicher
Adam Borowski writes: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:23:45AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> agreed. What about >> 7.5~rc.2+repack >> ? >> >> The full stop is ugly at my eyes, but does the work and there are worse >> things in the world. > > What about rc-2+repack? A matter of taste but I'd c

Bug#838870: RFS: nbsphinx/0.2.9+ds-1 [ITP] -- Jupyter Notebook Tools for Sphinx

2016-10-07 Thread Frederic Bonnard
Thanks Benoit for all the documentation work. The package looks good to me. Good catch for the audio link ; indeed lintian does not seem to handle element (I sent a patch : https://bugs.debian.org/840009 ) As a side node, I'd advise you consider (report from check-all-the-things tool) : - adding

Bug#840011: RFS (on ITP): node-typescript/2.0.5-1

2016-10-07 Thread Julien Puydt
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-typescript" * Package name: node-typescript Version : 2.0.5-1 Upstream Author : Microsoft Corp. * URL : http://typescriptlang.org/ * License

Bug#840011: RFS (on ITP): node-typescript/2.0.5-1

2016-10-07 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-typescript" missing licenses? cat ThirdPartyNoticeText.txt worries me missing copyrights Ecma, Sputnik and probably more other stuff LGTM G.

Bug#838679: marked as done (RFS: cysignals/1.1.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- interrupt and signal handling for Cython)

2016-10-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 07 Oct 2016 22:36:42 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: cysignals/1.1.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- interrupt and signal handling for Cython has caused the Debian Bug report #838679, regarding RFS: cysignals/1.1.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- interrupt and signal handling for Cython

Bug#838679: [Debian-science-sagemath] Bug#838679: Fwd: Bug#838679: RFS: cysignals/1.1.1+ds-1 [ITP] -- interrupt and signal handling for Cython

2016-10-07 Thread Jerome BENOIT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Ximin, thanks for the upload. Unfortunately an RC bug arised [1]. I have just resolved it [2]. Can review the new material and eventually upload it ? Or give me the necessary privileges to uploas as DM ? Thanks in advance, Jerome On 04/10/16 0

Bug#839833: marked as done (RFS: gkeyring/0.4-1-gf4ce4c7-1 [ITP])

2016-10-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sat, 8 Oct 2016 11:26:56 +0800 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#839833: RFS: gkeyring/0.4-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #839833, regarding RFS: gkeyring/0.4-1-gf4ce4c7-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wi