Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 14 Jul 2016, at 08:50, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:23:48AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:17:32PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> Thanks very much - I’ve had something I think’s ready to go for a >>> couple of days (I

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:23:48AM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:17:32PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > > Thanks very much - I’ve had something I think’s ready to go for a > > couple of days (I realised the license wasn’t a blocker), I’d been > > trying to hunt Olly out on

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:17:32PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > Thanks very much - I’ve had something I think’s ready to go for a > couple of days (I realised the license wasn’t a blocker), I’d been > trying to hunt Olly out on IRC, now I know why I was failing. Today should have been the day

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 16 Jun 2016, at 18:07, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:35:48PM +0100, Olly Betts wrote: >> The DEP-5 machine readable copyright is optional - from the spec: >> >>"Use of this specification is optional." >> >>

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:35:48PM +0100, Olly Betts wrote: > The DEP-5 machine readable copyright is optional - from the spec: > > "Use of this specification is optional." > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > It's not a bad thing to do, but isn't a

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:32:39AM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > Just an update for people watching this ticket and interested in > progress. I resolved the uic issue, was down to two lintian warnings > this morning, and now I’m down to one (it’s no longer happy with the > copyright format, reading

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 12 Jun 2016, at 22:09, Kevin Smith wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2016, at 22:06, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 09:49:21PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> Next step is working out why uic reports that it “could not find a Qt >>> installation

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 12 Jun 2016, at 22:06, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 09:49:21PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >> Next step is working out why uic reports that it “could not find a Qt >> installation of ‘’”. I’ll keep at it. > > If you share the thing somewhere (a git

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 09:49:21PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > Next step is working out why uic reports that it “could not find a Qt > installation of ‘’”. I’ll keep at it. If you share the thing somewhere (a git repository? Vcs-Git is supposed to point to the *packaging* repository, but it

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 12 Jun 2016, at 18:27, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 06:24:14PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >> My current issue is working out how to remove a dev dependency on the >> qt5-default metapackage and still have it compile. > > usually, removing qt5-default

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 06:24:14PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > My current issue is working out how to remove a dev dependency on the > qt5-default metapackage and still have it compile. usually, removing qt5-default from build-dep means finding all the needed build-dependencies that were pulled

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:43, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:21:52PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> There’s a new package in the process of being uploaded. The version >>> I produced a few days

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:21:52PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > > There’s a new package in the process of being uploaded. The version > > I produced a few days ago accidentally used an old lint profile, but > > I’ll fix that

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > There’s a new package in the process of being uploaded. The version > I produced a few days ago accidentally used an old lint profile, but > I’ll fix that imminently. Great! Thus, I'm looking forward for an upload the next week. --

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

There’s a new package in the process of being uploaded. The version I produced a few days ago accidentally used an old lint profile, but I’ll fix that imminently. /K > On 29 May 2016, at 00:27, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > Source: swift-im > Version: 2.0+dev6-1 > Severity:

Bug#825704: swift-im: should it be removed from Debian?

Source: swift-im Version: 2.0+dev6-1 Severity: serious Dear maintainer, swift-im: * has few users https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=swift-im * has 2 unanswered RC bugs since 9 months #797279 #822131 * FTBFS * several other bugs with no action taken (and waiting for the next big