Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 669585 RFS: bibtexconv/0.8.20-1 [ITP]
Bug #669585 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: bibtexconv/0.8.14-1 [ITP]
Bug #670448 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: bibtexconv/0.8.16-3 -- Looking for a
Debian sponsor
Changed Bug title to 'RFS:
Hi Samuel,
Why do you use suffix ~naesten4 on your package at mentors ?
http://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg
Regards,
Bart Martens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi Bart,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 05:21:54AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
I don't see the package at mentors. What happened ?
It must have expired - I'm re-uploading it just now.
Regards,
Stephen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 667974 RFS: libreoffice-converter/3.3-2 [ITP]
Bug #667974 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libreoffice-converter/3.3.34.1+ds-3
[ITP]
Bug #668877 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libreoffice-converter/3.3-1 [ITP]
Bug #670453 [sponsorship-requests]
Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2012 09:15:35 +0300
with message-id 20120522061535.GA20043@laptop.local
and subject line Re: RFS: python-django-evolution/0.6.7-1 [ITP] -- Schema
evolution for the Django web framework
has caused the Debian Bug report #669599,
regarding RFS:
Hello,
The package at mentors is marked needs sponsor = no on this page:
http://mentors.debian.net/packages/index
You may want to change that to needs sponsor = yes since you are obviously
looking for a sponsor via this RFS.
Regards,
Bart Martens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi!
Hmm, i try reupload package to mentors again, but don't see it too.
May be this is because now package added into pkg-bacula git and i
change package maintainer field to Debian Bacula packaging Group?
git://git.debian.org/git/pkg-bacula/webacula.git
On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:34:39 +,
Hi Stephen,
I don't see the package at mentors. What happened ?
It must have expired - I'm re-uploading it just now.
Have you received the mail with note that your package was deleted from m.d.n.?
If no it could be an imperfection of m.d.n., and it affects all of us.
Regards,
Boris
--
On 21/05/12 21:42, Andy Hawkins wrote:
Hi,
In article 4fbab097.7080...@trendhosting.net,
I wonder if that is justification to make a lintian-override for that
warning?
If someone else can confirm that's the cause, then yes.
I've just gone ahead and added the override - there is a
On 2012-05-21 17:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 21/05/12 10:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
[...]
- - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
I'm not sure you want to keep the current names for the lib and the dev
On 22/05/12 09:57, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2012-05-21 17:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 21/05/12 10:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
[...]
- - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
I'm not sure you want to keep
Hi Thomas,
Oh, and besides this, building your package twice fails.
Precisely because the swfupload.swf file binary content
changes, and dpkg-source can't do its job:
Ok, thanks for that hint. I always build my packages with
git-buildpackage and a separate build directory. So this
is never a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
noowner 669373
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
Removed annotation that Bug was owned by alger...@madhouse-project.org.
tag 669373 - pending
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
noowner 669373
tag 669373 - pending
thanks
Andy Hawkins a...@gently.org.uk writes:
Gergely, Daniel has uploaded new packages for flactag (2.0.2-1) and
libmusicbrainz5 (5.0.1-1). Are you still considering sponsoring flactag?
Would you also consider sponsoring libmusicbrainz5? Now that its
Hi,
In article handler.s.c.133768460611739.transcr...@bugs.debian.org,
Debian Bug Tracking Systemow...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
noowner 669373
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
Removed annotation that
Andy Hawkins a...@gently.org.uk writes:
Hi,
In article handler.s.c.133768460611739.transcr...@bugs.debian.org,
Debian Bug Tracking Systemow...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
noowner 669373
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS:
On 22/05/12 11:03, Gergely Nagy wrote:
noowner 669373
tag 669373 - pending
thanks
Andy Hawkins a...@gently.org.uk writes:
Gergely, Daniel has uploaded new packages for flactag (2.0.2-1) and
libmusicbrainz5 (5.0.1-1). Are you still considering sponsoring flactag?
Would you also consider
http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate
I got a lintian warning
postinst-does-not-load-confmodule
so I added a line to source the module:
#!/bin/sh
. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
set -e
into my repro.postinst file
Now, the postinst hangs and doesn't return to the
Hi Dmitry,
a few comments:
- neither debian/README.Source nor debian/changelog tells me on which git
commit this is based exactly. There have been several commits on April 25th...
- README.Source further states: Unfortunately ReviewBoard itself requires
JQuery-UI version 1.6 which is not in
Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:18 +
with message-id 20120522164418.ga26...@master.debian.org
and subject line closing sponsorship-requests for packages uploaded to unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #669598,
regarding RFS: djblets/0.7~git20120402+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Collection of
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 673438 RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]
Bug #673438 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1-1 [ITP]
Changed Bug title to 'RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]' from 'RFS:
libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1-1 [ITP]'
retitle
On 05/22/2012 06:35 PM, Christian Welzel wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Oh, and besides this, building your package twice fails.
Precisely because the swfupload.swf file binary content
changes, and dpkg-source can't do its job:
Ok, thanks for that hint. I always build my packages with
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 669720 RFS: reviewboard/1.7~git20120425.4be2b88+dfsg-1 [ITP] --
Web-based code review tool
Bug #669720 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: reviewboard/1.7~git20120425+dfsg-1
[ITP] -- Web-based code review tool
Changed Bug title to 'RFS:
Dear mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package gnustep-gui.
This upload fixes #672986.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-gui/gnustep-gui_0.22.0-1.dsc
Changes:
gnustep-gui (0.22.0-1) experimental; urgency=low
* New major upstream release.
* debian/rules (v_base):
All,
One of things I decided to do as part of adopting the mrtg-ping-probe
package was to rewrite debian/copyright for DEP-5. The first thing I
noticed when I was doing that is that while the original
debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual source
COPYRIGHT file looks to be
One of things I decided to do as part of adopting the
mrtg-ping-probe package was to rewrite debian/copyright for DEP-5.
Thanks for taking care.
The first thing I noticed when I was doing that is that while the
original debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual
source
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 16:47 -0400, Paul Gevers wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 14:18:52 -0400, Robert James Clay wrote:
The first thing I noticed when I was doing that is that while the
original debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual
source COPYRIGHT file looks to be GPL-2
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Calling it +ds doesn't express anything.
+ds stands for Debian Source and is commonly used when dropping say
vast quantities of embedded code copies from upstream tarballs.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To
Your message dated Wed, 23 May 2012 04:37:20 +
with message-id 20120523043720.ga31...@master.debian.org
and subject line closing sponsorship-requests for packages uploaded to unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #673438,
regarding RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]
to be marked as
Hi Boris,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:40:51AM +0300, Boris Pek wrote:
I don't see the package at mentors. What happened ?
It must have expired - I'm re-uploading it just now.
Have you received the mail with note that your package was deleted from
m.d.n.?
If no it could be an
30 matches
Mail list logo
