Bug#896988: RFS: nautilus-hide/0.2.3-3

On Saturday, April 28 2018, Carlos Maddela wrote: > On 29/04/18 07:11, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> By the way, if you want to move your packages repositories from your >> private namespace to the Debian namespace on salsa, just let me know and >> I can create the proper repos and give you

Bug#895870: marked as done (RFS: deepin-music/3.1.8.1+ds-1)

Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2018 00:56:39 +0200 with message-id <20180429225639.3g3tcfswomwbu...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#895870: closing 895870 has caused the Debian Bug report #895870, regarding RFS: deepin-music/3.1.8.1+ds-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#897197: marked as done (RFS: spacefm/1.0.6-3)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:36:24 +0200 with message-id <20180429213624.2f767ely7r7im...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897197: RFS: spacefm/1.0.6-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #897197, regarding RFS: spacefm/1.0.6-3 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#896519: marked as done (RFS: peek/1.3.1-1~bpo9+1)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:16:52 +0200 with message-id <20180429211652.w2jjrvuospwra...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#896519: RFS: peek/1.3.1-1~bpo9+1 has caused the Debian Bug report #896519, regarding RFS: peek/1.3.1-1~bpo9+1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#897197: RFS: spacefm/1.0.6-3

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "spacefm" * Package name: spacefm Version : 1.0.6-3 Upstream Author : IgnorantGuru * URL : https://github.com/IgnorantGuru/spacefm * License

Bug#897193: marked as done (RFS: ddccontrol-db/20171217-2)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:57:54 +0200 with message-id <20180429205754.mquysdv424sip...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897193: RFS: ddccontrol-db/20171217-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #897193, regarding RFS: ddccontrol-db/20171217-2 to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#897194: marked as done (RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-4)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:50:22 +0200 with message-id <20180429205022.ph5eawexjpfvj...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897194: RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #897194, regarding RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-4 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#897194: RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-4

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnustep-back". * Package name: gnustep-back Version : 0.26.2-4 Upstream Author : Fred Kiefer , Adam Fedor ,

Bug#897193: RFS: ddccontrol-db/20171217-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ddccontrol-db" * Package name: ddccontrol-db Version : 20171217-2 Upstream Author : Miroslav Kravec

Bug#897055: marked as done (RFS: xml2/0.5-2 [QA])

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 21:00:10 +0200 with message-id <20180429190010.ki4cowo7wyuby...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897055: RFS: xml2/0.5-2 [QA] has caused the Debian Bug report #897055, regarding RFS: xml2/0.5-2 [QA] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#896995: marked as done (RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.4-1)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:50:33 +0200 with message-id <20180429185033.3bybtnhsmhd4k...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#896995: RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.4-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #896995, regarding RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.4-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#897016: marked as done (RFS: ncurses-hexedit/0.9.7+orig-4)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:31:47 +0200 with message-id <20180429183146.iipoej2sclw3e...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897016: RFS: ncurses-hexedit/0.9.7+orig-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #897016, regarding RFS: ncurses-hexedit/0.9.7+orig-4 to be marked as done. This means

Re: i386 and AMD architectures in debian/control

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:58:59PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > > > It will run on an AMD architecture too (as is confirmed by a test.) > The architecture is called amd64. It's not about the CPU vendor. > > > and I

Bug#897078: marked as done (RFS: fcitx-qt5/1.2.2-2)

Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:56:25 +0200 with message-id <20180429165625.ho6ne4zoncj6p...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#897078: RFS: fcitx-qt5/1.2.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #897078, regarding RFS: fcitx-qt5/1.2.2-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Re: i386 and AMD architectures in debian/control was Re: Building a prospective 32 bit package on 64 bits.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > > Running a AMD architecture Debian I run programs built for i386 > > > without > > > giving it much thought. > > > > > > Is it sufficient if an i386 package builds and tests properly on an > > > AMD > > > buster, or is it

Bug#897102: libexif-gtk/0.4.0-2

On 2018-04-29 Hugh McMaster wrote: > On Sunday, 29 April 2018 10:11 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] > > 0.4.0-1 says "Switch to LGPL-2.1+ for libexif-gtk 0.4.0.". Is this > > correct? While COPYING contains a copy of LGPL-2.1 only a single c/h > > file

i386 and AMD architectures in debian/control was Re: Building a prospective 32 bit package on 64 bits.

Andrey Rahmatullin schreef op 2018-04-26 17:47: Please don't start a new thread by replying to some existing email. I hit "send" on a concept inadvertantly. I also see some irritation about the poor phrasing of the concept that steers you away from the actual question. My apologies. Running

Bug#897102: libexif-gtk/0.4.0-2

On 2018-04-29 Hugh McMaster wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > Dear mentors and Debian PhotoTools Team, > I am looking for a sponsor for a Team Upload of the package "libexif-gtk". > Version 0.4.0-1 is is currently in Experimental and is