Hello Joachim
Sorry for this. I will try to fix all this stuff as soon as possible.
I ran
lintian --pedantic xnoise_0.1.25-1_source.changes
and it didn't give me errors or warnings for the final version, which I
then uploaded. I must have done something very wrong, but I don't know
yet what it
(seems like my previous message didn't hit d-mentors)
El mié, 06-07-2011 a las 10:19 +0900, Charles Plessy escribió:
I have uploaded john 1.7.8-1. I will send you the build log in private.
Thank you very much!
Would you consider applying as DM or resuming your DD application ? It think
that
Hi William,
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 12:43 -0500, William Vera wrote:
2011/7/6 Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org:
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 18:23 -0600, René Mayorga wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Tim, are you agreed that William takes over or do you
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Olivier Girondel wrote:
I included the FreeMono.sfd, COPYING and README files from the freefont
package in the source tarball.
I don't think that was needed. Really you only need them in any
non-Debian binary packages that you make (for Windows/MacOS etc). Even
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Does pristine-tar work if the upstream branch contains files which have
been
removed during repack?
Unfortunately the directory and the tarball must have identical contents.
That's not true, but the larger the difference
On 06/28/2011 02:12 PM, Etienne Millon wrote:
Hello,
I had a look at your package. Please not that I am not a DD, and so I
can't sponsor your contribution.
Build
-
Your package builds in a clean sid chroot.
Lintian
---
Your package is _not_ lintian clean. Here are the warnings upto
Yes, thank you all :)
I'm currently working in your feedback
and hope that I can give an update this week-end.
Best regards,
Robert
Am 07.07.2011 um 11:10 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
On 07/04/2011 09:17 AM, Strobl, Robert wrote:
I need a sponsor for:
Package name:pmwiki
Hi Elías,
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 16:15 -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package pidgin-latex.
* Package name: pidgin-latex
Version : 1.4.4-1
Upstream Author : Benjamin Moll q...@users.sourceforge.net
* URL :
Hi Bastien,
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 07:50 +0200, roucaries bastien wrote:
Please do not upload directly, i will upload git tree before under
collab maint and postthe final ppackage here.
It is more a rfc.
On Thursday 07 July 2011 07:55:48 Kilian Krause wrote:
Hi William,
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 12:43 -0500, William Vera wrote:
2011/7/6 Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org:
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 18:23 -0600, René Mayorga wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
How can I create this delta? The man page says only about creating a delta
for a tarball without a directory.
The delta is created for you when you run pristine-tar commit.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Tim,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 05:00:00PM +0100, Tim Brown wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2011 07:55:48 Kilian Krause wrote:
[...]
Since that bug is dead since 2009 I guess it would help to push this a
bit again so that this common shared package will finally make it to the
Debian archive. But
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.8.2-2
of my package sxiv.
It builds these binary packages:
sxiv - simple X image viewer
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 632914
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL:
Hi Kilian,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 05:18:01PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Thanks for stepping up as new maintainer for this interesting package.
yes, It was useful for me sometime ago.
I see you're including CHANGES as docs which is not required. It'll get
installed twice then and end up as
Daniel,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:05:12PM -0500, Daniel Echeverry wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.8.2-2
of my package sxiv.
It builds these binary packages:
sxiv - simple X image viewer
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Echeverry wrote:
sxiv - simple X image viewer
The package is already uploaded by kilian, but here is a review of
things you could fix:
The upstream README.md file contains installation information that
isn't relevant to users of binary packages.
Hi Sebastian,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:13:14PM +0200, Sebastian H. wrote:
The new package source is uploaded.
looking closer at your package I find the following:
1. It's an intial upload to Debian AFAICT. Yet your debian/changelog is
cluttered with a number of entries already. For an
Hi
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Hi William,
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 12:43 -0500, William Vera wrote:
Package updated
Built, Signed, Uploaded. Thanks!
Thanks :)
You may want to try to push #481296 forward and make the oui resp.
ethervendors
Hi Paul
2011/7/7 Paul Wise p...@debian.org
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Echeverry wrote:
sxiv - simple X image viewer
The package is already uploaded by kilian, but here is a review of
things you could fix:
The upstream README.md file contains installation information
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:21:50PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.10-1
of my package flush.
Some 'LDFLAGS += -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,--as-needed' should help to get
the depedency list a bit shortened. Otherwise the package looks fine
and I would
Hi Sven,
and thanks for your review.
Il giorno gio, 07/07/2011 alle 21.12 +0200, Sven Hoexter ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:21:50PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.9.10-1
of my package flush.
Some 'LDFLAGS += -Wl,-z,defs
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:59:26PM -0500, Edgar Antonio Palma de la Cruz wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.3.4-1 of my package
wav2cdr.
Uploaded, thanks.
Sven
--
And I don't know much, but I do know this:
With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.
[
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:17:46PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hi Fabrizio,
Really strange.
I tried to install and use it before request sponsor, and I have not
found errors
I've no doubt in that, it's possible that there's something wrong with the
dbus stuff here. With the devil sitting
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Echeverry wrote:
2011/7/7 Paul Wise p...@debian.org
The upstream README.md file contains installation information that
isn't relevant to users of binary packages. Looking at the rest of the
content, that is covered by the manual page. IIRC README.md files
Hi Sven,
Il giorno gio, 07/07/2011 alle 21.37 +0200, Sven Hoexter ha scritto:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:17:46PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hi Fabrizio,
Really strange.
I tried to install and use it before request sponsor, and I have not
found errors
I've no doubt in that, it's
Hi
2011/7/7 Paul Wise p...@debian.org
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Echeverry wrote:
2011/7/7 Paul Wise p...@debian.org
The upstream README.md file contains installation information that
isn't relevant to users of binary packages. Looking at the rest of the
content, that is
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Andreas Moog wrote:
dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libpar2/libpar2_0.2-2.dsc
I am unable to unpack the source package:
dpkg-source: error: File ./libpar2_0.2.orig.tar.gz has size 401700
instead of expected 403492
--
bye,
pabs
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
The package appears to be lintian clean.
Not really:
I: libgeier source: missing-debian-source-format
W: libgeier source: debian-rules-missing-recommended-target build-arch
W: libgeier source: debian-rules-missing-recommended-target
On 07/07/2011 09:53 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Andreas Moog wrote:
dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libpar2/libpar2_0.2-2.dsc
I am unable to unpack the source package:
dpkg-source: error: File ./libpar2_0.2.orig.tar.gz has size 401700
instead
There is one lintian warning:
I: libpar2-0: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libpar2.so.0.0.1
Two cppcheck warnings:
[libpar2.h:29]: (error) Memory leak: LibPar2::par1Repairer
[libpar2.h:30]: (error) Memory leak: LibPar2::par2Repairer
Since you are essentially upstream now, will you be
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage accuracy and for people to actually use
lintian and fix any issues
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
Hi all,
I think the main problem is the default level of warning/error for lintian.
Even for my first package I ran lintian but my package seems to be lintian
clean !!
Now I run lintian with theses parameters : lintian -IivEcm --pedantic
*.changes
It's a but strict but help me find problem.
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:53 +0200, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
So, where do these other warnings come from?
From my bash configuration:
alias lintian='lintian --info --display-info --display-experimental --pedantic
--show-overrides --checksums --color auto'
And always use the latest lintian from
Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Until that happens though I've put together a somewhat lenghty test-script
that I usually run on my resulting packages after they are built as a review
process. And if that fails, I'll report it back to the list like
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage accuracy and for people to actually
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:44:01PM +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
Hi,
I decided to take this package (and renew it) for his horrible state in
sid.
Uploaded, thanks.
Sven
--
And I don't know much, but I do know this:
With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.
[ Streetlight Manifesto -
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
The package appears to be lintian clean.
Not really:
I: libgeier source: missing-debian-source-format
W: libgeier source: debian-rules-missing-recommended-target build-arch
W: libgeier source:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package xxxterm.
* Package name: xxxterm
Version : 1.399-1
Upstream Author : Marco Peereboom ma...@peereboom.us, Stevan Andjelkovic
ste...@student.chalmers.se, Edd Barrett vex...@gmail.com, Todd T. Fries
t...@fries.net
* URL
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:36:21 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
A little heads up; in lintian 2.5.1 and newer you can enable default
settings for some options in your lintianrc (e.g. ~/.lintianrc):
Wow, that's cool -- thanks!
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be
lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change
it
to
On 2011-07-08 00:34, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to
Le Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be
lintian clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually
be lintian clean. If we were to change the RFS template,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:47:24 +0200
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:04:49PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Until that happens though I've put together a somewhat lenghty test-script
that I usually run on my resulting packages after they are built as a
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean.
Thanks for raising this topic for discussion.
If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it to
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 07:27:21 +0200
Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:04:49PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org
wrote:
Does anyone know the current status of the new mentors.d.n?
Hasn't
50 matches
Mail list logo
