Bug#895681: marked as done (RFS: arc/5.21q-6)
Your message dated Sun, 02 Sep 2018 04:20:24 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: arc/5.21q-6 has caused the Debian Bug report #895681, regarding RFS: arc/5.21q-6 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 895681: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895681 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arc" * Package name: arc Version : 5.21q-6 Upstream Author : Howard Chu * URL : http://sf.net/projects/arc * License : gpl2 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: arc - Archive utility based on the MSDOS ARC program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/arc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arc/arc_5.21q-6.dsc Changes since the last upload: * QA upload. * Bump dhlevel to 11. I checked the https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt and no change appear to be necessary. Regards, Ricardo Fantin da Costa --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package arc has been removed from mentors.--- End Message ---
Re: Nonlinear git-buildpackage workflow?
Hi Ferenc, On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 09:56:17AM +0200, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > Lumin writes: > > > The problem is, if I maintain the two releases in parallel, the > > dch would become a mess when moving the 1.0 release to sid. > > dch will contain duplicated changelog entries (e.g. fixing > > common problems found in both 0.7 and 1.0) and the timeline > > is also screwed up. > > Do you know dpkg-mergechangelogs? I think fixing common problems in the > experimental branch and periodically merging it into the unstable branch > would work out fairly well with its help. Of course you'd still have to > fix up the version number after the merge. Thank you for this reminder! I had forgotten to activate the merge driver in .git/info/attributes in the repo of the one bpo I maintain where a no-change bpo is not possible. For anyone else reading this, the easy and convenient solution is at the bottom of dpkg-mergechangelogs(1) <- and that's a manpage. So with gbp, you git merge the new debian tag, the mergechangelogs magic occurs, then you 'dch --bpo', commit the changelog, and you're good to go--unless new changes are required, of course! Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#897642: RFS: gpgme1.0/1.11.1-1~bpo9+1
[ Resend for the record with the lists below ] + debian-backports@l.d.o + pkg-gnupg-maint@l.alioth.d.o On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Jacob Adams wrote: > control: tag -1 -moreinfo > > On Sep 1, 2018, at 04:49, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Dear Jacob, > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Jacob Adams wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > > Severity: normal > > > Dear mentors, > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gpgme1.0" > > > Thanks for your interest in contribution to debian! > > Changes since the last upload: > > > gpgme1.0 (1.11.1-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium > > > * Rebuild for stretch-backports. > > > -- Jacob Adams Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:13:54 -0400 > > > > This package will also require libgpgerror, which you can find here: > > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error > > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.29-4~bpo9+1.dsc > > > It already has an RFS: #897045 > > > I would like to be able to use the latest version of GPGME in my GSoC > > 2018 project. In order to do that I would prefer to use a backport as > > the PGP Clean Room CD is based off of stretch. > > > I see the project seems already released as beta [1], so maybe there's > no need to do this backports upload? > > > My project does require a newer version of GPGME than is shipped in stretch. > However, I didn’t want to wait on the backport, so I’ve been including the > deb files directly in my build: > https://salsa.debian.org/tookmund-guest/make-pgp-clean-room/tree/master/resources/config/packages.chroot > > > And what's the benefit for this backports pkg? Any new feature or > bugfix you're particularly interested in? > > > There has been significant improvement in GPGME’s python binding since > stretch, and my project relies on these features, such as the new key > generation function. > > It would be nice to be able to pull these packages from backports instead of > including them directly. I compiled this pkg under stretch, and meet the following error. cJSON.c:45:20: fatal error: gpgrt.h: No such file or directory # include ^ I see you updated libgpg-error to 1.29, so I tried to compile with latest backported sid version, 1.32, and it succeeded. So I updated D-B on libgpg-error to >= 1.29. I uploaded this backported pkg to DELAYED/6. So If you don't like the backports upload, just kindly cancel it. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
Re: Avoid building Sphinx documentation on request (was: Bug#905750: RFS: elpy/1.23.0-1)
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:02:14AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Chris Lamb writes: > > > * You should probably avoid building the documentation too if the > >nodocs build profile is enabled. > > For packages from PyPI which have documentation detectable by > ‘dh_sphinxdoc’, does this (avoid building the documentation if the > “nodocs” build profile is enabled) just work by default? Or do we need > some specific change to the Debian package? I also wonder about this :-) Unfortunately, in the case of Elpy, dh_sphinxdoc does not find the documentation, and specifying a subdir only limits the search for documentation to that dir.: dh_sphinxdoc -O--buildsystem=pybuild dh_sphinxdoc: Sphinx documentation not found > Is there generic Debian package maintainer advice that can be given – > specific things to put in ‘/debian/rules’, etc. – to let “nodocs” work > as designed? Yes, this would be very much appreciated! I followed a Debian Python Team wiki page on the topic and am currently using the following in debian/rules: override_dh_auto_build: dh_auto_build PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -bman docs/ build/man # Manpage generator PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -btexinfo docs/ build/info makeinfo --no-split build/info/Elpy.texi -o build/info/elpy.info It was trivially easy to figure out how to build info pages, based on the manpage generator example. I imagine something like wrapping the relevant sections of the overridden dh_auto_build with a conditional check would do the trick, but I haven't yet found an example, nor documentation of "nodocs". eg: override_dh_auto_build: dh_auto_build ifeq ($(nodocs),"YET_UNKNOWN_VALUE_SHOULD_EVAL_FALSE_FOR_NORMAL_BUILD") PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -bman docs/ build/man # Manpage generator PYTHONPATH=. sphinx-build -N -btexinfo docs/ build/info makeinfo --no-split build/info/Elpy.texi -o build/info/elpy.info endif The trouble is there are no booleans in Makefiles, and an undefined variable doesn't eval to nil like in LISPs. So I don't know how to proceed. Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#907664: RFS: budgie-desktop/10.4+git20180830.01.f2dbc215fdb-1
Hi David Mohammed, I am giving you budgie-desktop upload permission. Regards, Herver
Bug#897642: RFS: gpgme1.0/1.11.1-1~bpo9+1
> On Sep 1, 2018, at 12:45, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > I compiled this pkg under stretch, and meet the following error. > > > cJSON.c:45:20: fatal error: gpgrt.h: No such file or directory > # include >^ > > > I see you updated libgpg-error to 1.29, so I tried to compile with > latest backported sid version, 1.32, and it succeeded. > So I updated D-B on libgpg-error to >= 1.29. > Should’ve mentioned that it required a newer version of libgpg-error sorry. Thanks for fixing that and updating the backport. > I uploaded this backported pkg to DELAYED=6. > So If you don't like the backports upload, just kindly cancel it. > Thank you! Looking into why you did a gnupg2 backport I probably should use that too, to support newer ECC keys. Thanks again, Jacob
Bug#906719: marked as done (RFS: rpyc/4.0.2-1 [RC])
Your message dated Sat, 01 Sep 2018 16:35:47 -0400 with message-id <2514666.cL2jRCi8Kn@hosiet-mi> and subject line Re: Bug#906719: RFS: rpyc/4.0.2-1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #906719, regarding RFS: rpyc/4.0.2-1 [RC] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 906719: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906719 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rpyc" maintained within the python modules team. Package name: rpyc Version : 4.0.2-1 URL : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/rpyc Section : python It builds these binary packages: python-rpyc-doc - transparent and symmetric Remote Python Call library -- documenta python3-rpyc - transparent and symmetric Remote Python Call library -- Python3 m Getting the package: https://mentors.debian.net/package/rpyc dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rpyc/rpyc_4.0.2-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: rpyc (4.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium [ Ondřej Nový ] * d/control: Set Vcs-* to salsa.debian.org * d/control: Remove ancient X-Python3-Version field [ Carl Suster ] * New upstream release (Closes: #904615). * Recommend python3-gevent to support the new gevent server (however this feature is currently disabled due to crashes that are not yet understood). * Build-Depend on python3-gevent for the corresponding test (however this test is currently disabled to match upstream CI configuration). * Make the build reproducible by applying the patch provided by Chris Lamb (Closes: #893611). * Build-Depend on python3-sphinx-rtd-theme which is now used by the docs. * Stop cleaning up (in debian/rules) screencasts and CI image from docs that no longer exist upstream. * Remove GitHub "fork me" banner from documentation. * Update Standards-Version to 4.2.0 (no changes needed). * Mark the doc package as M-A: foreign as per multiarch hinter. * Add upstream metadata file. * Bump debhelper compat to 11. -- Carl Suster Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:35:11 +1000 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:27:57 +1000 Carl Suster wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rpyc" maintained within the > python modules team. > > Package name: rpyc > Version : 4.0.2-1 > URL : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/rpyc > Section : python > >dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rpyc/rpyc_4.0.2-1.dsc > > Changes since the last upload: > > rpyc (4.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium Reviewed and sponsored from git repository. Two minor problems: * Please also clean up git repo and delete useless branches like patch-queue/ debian/master and patch-queue/master, etc. * Ondřej Nový committed some more changes with UNRELEASED 4.0.2-2; I didn't touch them but you should keep an eye on it. -- Regards, Boyuan Yang signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. --- End Message ---
Bug#897072: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.17-1~bpo9+1
retitle 897072 RFS: btrfs-progs/4.17-1~bpo9+1 stop Hi Gianfranco! I noticed that this RFS bug has been open since 4.15.1-2~bpo9+1 (April). Are there any problems with the package I haven't addressed? Upstream has recently started grumbling again about ancient Debian packages ;-) Future changes: Dmitri doesn't want to allow no-change backports anymore (See #900314), so after this upload I will merge the changelog entries for unstable in between the ones for stretch-backports. See below for updated links: On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:16:05PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my continued support of backported > "btrfs-progs". There was an RC bug against btrfs-progs for some time, > which is why it didn't migrate to testing, and why I was unable to > provide an updated backport. > > Hi Gianfranco! > > I've CCed you as usual, because you usually take care of sponsoring > this package. Thank you very much for your continued support :-) > > Package name: btrfs-progs > Version : 4.15.1-2~bpo9+1 > Upstream Author : linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org > URL : http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ > License : GPL-2 > Section : admin > > It builds these binary packages: > > btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities > btrfs-progs-udeb - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (udeb) > (udeb) > btrfs-tools - transitional dummy package > > To access further information about this package, please visit the following > URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfs-progs > > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.15.1-2~bpo9+1.dsc > dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.17-1~bpo9+1.dsc > More information about btrfs-progs can be obtained from > http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ > > Changes since the last upload: btrfs-progs (4.17-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium * Rebuild for stretch-backports. * Relax debhelper Build-Depends to 11~ to allow backporting. * Restore btrfs-tools transitional package. This is needed for the following packages on stretch: xen-tools, schroot, lxc, linaro-image-tools, kvpm, fsarchiver, and libguestfs0. * Add Breaks snapper (<< 0.5.4-4~). Needed because upstream btrfs-progs-4.16.1 changed some library names and locations. See Bug #900314 for more information. * Remove debian/source/options, because this source option forces regeneration of a new orig.tarball, when the existing one in the archive must be used for backports. -- Nicholas D Steeves Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:59:26 -0400 btrfs-progs (4.17-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:31:22 +0100 btrfs-progs (4.16.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Do not copy_exec btrfs-zero-log into initramfs, superseeded by `btrfs rescue zero-log` sub-command. Closes: #898720, #898719. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Tue, 15 May 2018 14:15:27 +0100 btrfs-progs (4.16.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release. * Drop transitional btrfs-tools package. * Drop cross.patch, similar change done upstream. * Package libbtrfs, libbtrfsutil, and python bindings. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Tue, 08 May 2018 14:17:03 -0700 btrfs-progs (4.15.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * If libzstd is provided in both deb & udeb variants (such as Ubuntu bionic) enable zstd support. If libzstd is not provided with both deb & udeb variants (such as current Debian unstable) disable zstd support. If and when libzstd is provided in both deb & udeb variants, a binNMU of this package is sufficient to enable zstd support. Closes: #886968 * Drop obsolete lintian overrides. * Add alternative email address as uploader. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Sat, 21 Apr 2018 11:59:50 +0100 btrfs-progs (4.15.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release -- Dimitri John Ledkov Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:50:12 + btrfs-progs (4.14.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release. * Add libzstd-dev build dependency. -- Dimitri John Ledkov Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:43:20 + Cheers, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#907773: RFS: btrfsmaintenance/0.4.1-3
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Sven and mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "btrfsmaintenance" Package name: btrfsmaintenance Version : 0.4.1-3 URL : https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance License : GPL-2 It builds this binary package: btrfsmaintenance - automate btrfs maintenance tasks on mountpoints or directories To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfsmaintenance Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfsmaintenance/btrfsmaintenance_0.4.1-3.dsc Alternatively, checkout this repository: git clone https://salsa.debian.org/sten-guest/btrfsmaintenance.git Changes since the last upload: btrfsmaintenance (0.4.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium * Import 0003-btrfs-defrag.sh-add-functions-library-to-fix-missing.patch from upstream pull request, to address failure of scheduled defragmentation in btrfs-defrag.sh due to missing 'is_btrfs' function. * Declare Standards-Version: 4.2.1. (No additional changes needed) -- Nicholas D Steeves Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:35:13 -0400 btrfsmaintenance (0.4.1-2) unstable; urgency=high Regards, Nicholas D Steeves
Bug#897642: RFS: gpgme1.0/1.11.1-1~bpo9+1
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Jacob Adams wrote: > control: tag -1 -moreinfo > > On Sep 1, 2018, at 04:49, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Dear Jacob, > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Jacob Adams wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > > Severity: normal > > > Dear mentors, > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gpgme1.0" > > > Thanks for your interest in contribution to debian! > > Changes since the last upload: > > > gpgme1.0 (1.11.1-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium > > > * Rebuild for stretch-backports. > > > -- Jacob Adams Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:13:54 -0400 > > > > This package will also require libgpgerror, which you can find here: > > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error > > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.29-4~bpo9+1.dsc > > > It already has an RFS: #897045 > > > I would like to be able to use the latest version of GPGME in my GSoC > > 2018 project. In order to do that I would prefer to use a backport as > > the PGP Clean Room CD is based off of stretch. > > > I see the project seems already released as beta [1], so maybe there's > no need to do this backports upload? > > > My project does require a newer version of GPGME than is shipped in stretch. > However, I didn’t want to wait on the backport, so I’ve been including the > deb files directly in my build: > https://salsa.debian.org/tookmund-guest/make-pgp-clean-room/tree/master/resources/config/packages.chroot > > > And what's the benefit for this backports pkg? Any new feature or > bugfix you're particularly interested in? > > > There has been significant improvement in GPGME’s python binding since > stretch, and my project relies on these features, such as the new key > generation function. > > It would be nice to be able to pull these packages from backports instead of > including them directly. I compiled this pkg under stretch, and meet the following error. cJSON.c:45:20: fatal error: gpgrt.h: No such file or directory # include ^ I see you updated libgpg-error to 1.29, so I tried to compile with latest backported sid version, 1.32, and it succeeded. So I updated D-B on libgpg-error to >= 1.29. I uploaded this backported pkg to DELAYED=6. So If you don't like the backports upload, just kindly cancel it. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
Bug#897045: marked as done (RFS: libgpg-error/1.29-4~bpo9+1)
Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2018 00:46:58 +0900 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#897045: RFS: libgpg-error/1.29-4~bpo9+1 has caused the Debian Bug report #897045, regarding RFS: libgpg-error/1.29-4~bpo9+1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 897045: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=897045 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libgpg-error" * Package name: libgpg-error Version : 1.29-4~bpo9+1 Upstream Author : GnuPG developers * URL : https://www.gnupg.org/software/libgpg-error/index.html * License : LGPL-2.1+ Section : libs It builds those binary packages: gpgrt-tools - GnuPG development runtime library (executable tools) libgpg-error-dev - GnuPG development runtime library (developer tools) libgpg-error-mingw-w64-dev - library of error values and messages in GnuPG (Windows developmen libgpg-error0 - GnuPG development runtime library libgpg-error0-udeb - library for common error values and messages in GnuPG components (udeb) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.29-4~bpo9+1.dsc Changes since the last upload: libgpg-error (1.29-4~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium * Rebuild for stretch-backports. -- Jacob Adams Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:47:15 -0400 This package is a dependency for libgpgme which I would like to backport for my GSoC 2018 project. I will file an RFS for libgpgme once the latest version migrates to testing. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- + debian-backports@l.d.o + pkg-gnupg-maint@l.alioth.d.o On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Jacob Adams wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libgpg-error" > > * Package name: libgpg-error >Version : 1.29-4~bpo9+1 testing version is 1.32-1 So your patch doesn't apply anymore. I uploaded 1.32-1~bpo9+1 to stretch-backports with DELAYED/5. If anyone don't like this backports upload, feel free to cancel it. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1--- End Message ---
Bug#897642: RFS: gpgme1.0/1.11.1-1~bpo9+1
control: tag -1 -moreinfo > On Sep 1, 2018, at 04:49, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Dear Jacob, > >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Jacob Adams wrote: >> Package: sponsorship-requests >> Severity: normal >> >> Dear mentors, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gpgme1.0" > > Thanks for your interest in contribution to debian! > >> Changes since the last upload: >> >> gpgme1.0 (1.11.1-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium >> >> * Rebuild for stretch-backports. >> >> -- Jacob Adams Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:13:54 -0400 >> >> >> This package will also require libgpgerror, which you can find here: >> >> https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error >> >> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.29-4~bpo9+1.dsc >> >> It already has an RFS: #897045 >> >> I would like to be able to use the latest version of GPGME in my GSoC >> 2018 project. In order to do that I would prefer to use a backport as >> the PGP Clean Room CD is based off of stretch. > > I see the project seems already released as beta [1], so maybe there's > no need to do this backports upload? My project does require a newer version of GPGME than is shipped in stretch. However, I didn’t want to wait on the backport, so I’ve been including the deb files directly in my build: https://salsa.debian.org/tookmund-guest/make-pgp-clean-room/tree/master/resources/config/packages.chroot > > And what's the benefit for this backports pkg? Any new feature or > bugfix you're particularly interested in? There has been significant improvement in GPGME’s python binding since stretch, and my project relies on these features, such as the new key generation function. It would be nice to be able to pull these packages from backports instead of including them directly. Thanks, Jacob
Bug#897642: RFS: gpgme1.0/1.11.1-1~bpo9+1
control: tag -1 +moreinfo Dear Jacob, On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Jacob Adams wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gpgme1.0" Thanks for your interest in contribution to debian! > Changes since the last upload: > > gpgme1.0 (1.11.1-1~bpo9+1) stretch-backports; urgency=medium > > * Rebuild for stretch-backports. > > -- Jacob Adams Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:13:54 -0400 > > > This package will also require libgpgerror, which you can find here: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error > > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libg/libgpg-error/libgpg-error_1.29-4~bpo9+1.dsc > > It already has an RFS: #897045 > > I would like to be able to use the latest version of GPGME in my GSoC > 2018 project. In order to do that I would prefer to use a backport as > the PGP Clean Room CD is based off of stretch. I see the project seems already released as beta [1], so maybe there's no need to do this backports upload? And what's the benefit for this backports pkg? Any new feature or bugfix you're particularly interested in? BTW. I just uploaded gnupg 2.2 to stretch-backports, to fix #906545 [2]. And I see your RFS. [1] https://tookmund.com/2018/07/pgp-clean-room-beta [2] https://bugs.debian.org/906545 Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
