On 21/01/17 09:32, Ferenc Wágner wrote:
> Shall I upload the backport, or do you plan to add anything else?
Yes, please upload it. :) I updated the debian/jessie-backports branch
with the contents of the package on mentors.
Etienne
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "freecell-solver"
* Package name: freecell-solver
Version : 4.8.0-1
Upstream Author : Shlomi Fish
* URL : http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/
* License
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Please read and follow
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu
Your debian/patches/debian-changes is full of conflict markers, this is
unacceptable and also means you did something wrong.
B-D changes are not reflected in d/changelog.
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "groonga"
* Package name: groonga
Version : 6.1.5-1
Upstream Author : Groonga Project
* Url : http://groonga.org/
* Licenses: LGPL-2.1
Section :
Hi Andrey,
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:25:11 +0500
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> Please read and follow
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu
>
> Your debian/patches/debian-changes is full of conflict markers, this is
> unacceptable
Oh, and as this NMU doesn't deserve a short delay, it will miss stretch
and so should be uploaded to experimental until the freeze is over, unless
I'm miscalculating.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> should I send a new NMU request based on that or can this ticket be reused for
> it as well?
You can reuse this RFS ticket for the package you just uploaded, you
should retitle it though. And you still need to follow the NMU procedure,
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "patat":
patat - Terminal-based presentations using Pandoc
Package: patat
Version: 0.4.7.1-1
Upstream Author: Jasper Van der Jeugt
Homepage: http://github.com/jaspervdj/patat
License: GPL
Control: retitle -1 RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-0.1 NMU
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:52:06 +0500
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > should I send a new NMU request based on that or can this ticket be reused
> > for it as well?
> You can reuse
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:39:22 + (UTC)
with message-id <1828715187.18831021.1485185962...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#852319: RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #852319,
regarding RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:07:34PM +0300, Коля Гурьев wrote:
> I've putted the current changes back to [1].
>
> I would appreciate your advice about my debian/rules. What can I improve it?
>
> [1]
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/t/telegram-desktop/telegram-desktop_1.0.0-1.dsc
I
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:56:37 +0500
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Oh, and as this NMU doesn't deserve a short delay, it will miss stretch
> and so should be uploaded to experimental until the freeze is over, unless
> I'm miscalculating.
>
This makes me angry and disappointed. I reported
https://bu
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:57:51 +0100
with message-id
and subject line RFS: golang-github-restic-chunker/0.1.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #846785,
regarding RFS: golang-github-restic-chunker/0.1.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:22:14 + (UTC)
with message-id <1920977075.18941252.1485188535...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#852304: RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #852304,
regarding RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:18:39 + (UTC)
with message-id <945492406.18801373.1485188319...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#852270: RFS: farmhash/0~20161014-g92e897b-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #852270,
regarding RFS: farmhash/0~20161014-g92e897b-2
to be marked as don
Hello
>This makes me angry and disappointed. I reported
>https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841445 many months ago and
>posted "ping replies" and nothing was done to resolve it - either by the
>maintainer, who was missing-in-action and not for the first time - or by a
>different De
oops, happened to send the reply to James as a PM... here it comes, it
was actually meant for the list
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what?
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:40:10 +0100
From: Alec Leamas
To: James Cowgill
On 21/01/17 13
hello,
>> However I think the .dist files
>> should be installed in /usr/share and copied from there instead of being
>> installed in /etc.
>
>This is of course the Right Thing to do. Will implement, thanks!
This is nice, however I think this "workaround" should be dropped post-Stretch
releas
On 23/01/17 18:03, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
hello,
Hi!
However I think the .dist files
should be installed in /usr/share and copied from there instead of being
installed in /etc.
This is of course the Right Thing to do. Will implement, thanks!
This is nice, however I think this "
Hi,
>OK, I see your point.
>
>In my usual, provocative style: To me, this means that the bug should be
>closed without further actions unless there is more input.
or change to usr/share, that seems a saner approach.
Your call, I don't have an opinion here!
G.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:12:01PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Andrey, do you agree with me? you started the review, I don't want to steal
> your package
> or break rules too much :)
I didn't look into the packaging, only into the diff between versions,
feel free to continue reviewing it
Hi everyone,
Still struggling with the binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath [1] here. After
having added
```
-DCMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_RPATH:BOOL=ON
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH:BOOL=OFF
```
to the CMake config, it all seems to configure and build fine. That is
until dpkg-shlibdeps enters the stage (ri
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:25:24PM +, Nico Schlömer wrote:
> to the CMake config, it all seems to configure and build fine. That is
> until dpkg-shlibdeps enters the stage (right before installation):
It's not "right before installation". The build process has nothing to do
with installing pack
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "udftools"
* Package name: udftools
Version : 1.3-1
Upstream Author : Pali Rohár
* URL : https://github.com/pali/udftools
* License : GPL-2+
Section
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my backport of "dash-el". It is a
prerequisite for a bpo of magit 2.x (really nice emacs interface for
git). I have received Hajime Mizuno, the maintainer's, blessing to
maintain a bpo of dash-el.
I hop
Your message dated Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:52:30 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#852371: RFS: udftools/1.3-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #852371,
regarding RFS: udftools/1.3-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Hello
I'm really sorry but my time has evaporated, I'm no longer able to fix the
problems with this.
On 28 December 2016 at 22:56, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:53:00PM +, David Davies-Jones wrote:
> > I shall go through it with a fine toothcomb over the
Dear David,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:33:49AM +, David Davies-Jones wrote:
> I'm really sorry but my time has evaporated, I'm no longer able to fix
> the problems with this.
That's fine. There is no need to apologise.
If you will have time after Debian Stretch is released, we could upload
In all honesty I don't think I'll have any more free time until June, so it
would probably be better to close the bug
On 24 Jan 2017 01:00, "Sean Whitton" wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:33:49AM +, David Davies-Jones wrote:
> > I'm really sorry but my time has evaporated,
control: owner -1 !
Dear Nicholas,
dash-el 2.13.0-1.1 is set to migrate to stretch in 5 days. If that
happens before this gets processed out of backports-NEW, it would be
rejected by the backports ftp-masters.
Since 2.13.0-1.1 is very likely the version of dash-el that will be
frozen in stretch
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tikzit"
* Package name: tikzit
Version : 1.0-1
Upstream Author : Aleks Kissinger
* URL : http://tikzit.sourceforge.net/
* License : Mostly GPL-3+, some L
Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:38:12 -0700
with message-id <20170124013811.pbhxwctclzh5v...@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#849489: RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #849489,
regarding RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA]
to be marked as done.
This means that
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> dash-el 2.13.0-1.1 is set to migrate to stretch in 5 days. If that
> happens before this gets processed out of backports-NEW, it would be
> rejected by the backports ftp-masters.
>
> Since 2.13.0-1.1 is very likely the v
33 matches
Mail list logo
