Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

control: tag -1 -moreinfo +confirmed control: noowner -1 Hello, On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:11:35PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Added Forwarded: header at bootom of description. It works. If I add it at > top, > it will be lost during patch->commit->patch conversion. Okay. I think that

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

> > > Thanks for your response. I think this package is almost ready. Please > > > add Forwarded: headers to the patches based on our discussion. > > Is it any wat to get best of 'gbp pq' and dep3? > I generally resort to using quilt :( Added Forwarded: header at bootom of description. It

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:26:02PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > > Thanks for your response. I think this package is almost ready. Please > > add Forwarded: headers to the patches based on our discussion. > > Is it any wat to get best of 'gbp pq' and dep3? I generally resort to using quilt

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

> Thanks for your response. I think this package is almost ready. Please > add Forwarded: headers to the patches based on our discussion. Is it any wat to get best of 'gbp pq' and dep3? -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

Hello Dmitry, Thanks for your response. I think this package is almost ready. Please add Forwarded: headers to the patches based on our discussion. -- Sean Whitton

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

On Wednesday, June 29 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>3) Any reason why you're using debhelper version 10? It's still > >>experimental, so you probably should be using version 9. > > > I'm not sure about this, some days ago debhelper 11 implementation started, > so I think compat > level

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

Hi, >3) Any reason why you're using debhelper version 10? It's still >experimental, so you probably should be using version 9. I'm not sure about this, some days ago debhelper 11 implementation started, so I think compat level 10 is somewhat considered stable?

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

control: owner -1 ! control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Dmitry, I thought you were finished after evil and its dependencies :) Glad to see more ELPA packages. Here's a review for you. 1. The "-el" suffix on the source package name is pointless because the name already contains "elisp" so it's

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

> 1) The links listed on the Vcs-* fields are not valid, so perhaps you > may want to (a) push your git repo temporarily at another URL, or (b) > create the repo under collab-maint/ and push your things there. Thanks. Fixed. > 2) It seems you forgot to set the distribution to 'unstable' on your

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

On Tuesday, June 28 2016, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elisp-slime-nav-el" > > * Package name: elisp-slime-nav-el > Version : 0.9-1 > Upstream Author : Steve Purcell > * Url :

Bug#828889: RFS: elisp-slime-nav-el/0.9-1 ITP

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elisp-slime-nav-el" * Package name: elisp-slime-nav-el Version : 0.9-1 Upstream Author : Steve Purcell * Url :