Bug#671731: RFS: leechcraft/0.5.70+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- modular internet-client

2012-05-28 Thread Boris Pek
Package was updated to new release. Current direct link for download: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/leechcraft/leechcraft_0.5.70+dfsg-1.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license contains a license which specifically excludes the right to re-distribute. I filed a bug to keep track of this (#674844). Ansgar

Bug#673096: RM: figlet -- RoQA; license which specifically excludes the right to re-distribute

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable. The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is that the file fonts/8859-3.flc contains a license which specifically excludes the right to

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens
Hi Jonathan, Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at 2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of re-distribution. http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet Note that you can still package figlet for Debian, if you want that, but then the

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens
Hi Jonathan, This seems an easy solution for figlet 2.2.4-1 : ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#673096: RFS: figlet/2.2.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Jonathan McCrohan
On 28 May 2012 10:05, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: Please remove the package figlet 2.2.4-1 from mentors uploaded there at 2012-05-28 00:23, because having that package there is a form of re-distribution. http://mentors.debian.net/package/figlet I have removed this from mentors.d.n

Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing

2012-05-28 Thread Jonathan McCrohan
[Please keep cc: list intact, so people don't have to subscribe to the non-public figlet mailinglist] Hi all, During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable files. An example of these files are the

RFS: gnustep-back/0.22.0-1 [RC]

2012-05-28 Thread Yavor Doganov
Dear mentors, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package gnustep-back. This upload would fix #663388 and #666334. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-back/gnustep-back_0.22.0-1.dsc Changes: gnustep-back (0.22.0-1) experimental; urgency=low * New major upstream release. *

Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing

2012-05-28 Thread Ian Chai
On 28/05/2012 18:42, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: It would be great to have these issues solved so that figlet could continue to be included in the next Debian release. Will Bob Marten's suggestion to replace the current fonts/8859-*.flc with

Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing

2012-05-28 Thread Claudio Matsuoka
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Ian Chai ianjuli...@gmail.com wrote: Will Bob Marten's suggestion to replace the current fonts/8859-*.flc with ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT solve the problem, then? If so, I vote that we go ahead and do that. Agreed. Let's allow a

how often should ask for upload?

2012-05-28 Thread gustavo panizzo gfa
hi after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i prepare new revisions of it and ask to potential sponsors to upload it to the archive? should i wait until the pkg has a many bugs? or each bug deserves an upload? thanks -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C

Re: how often should ask for upload?

2012-05-28 Thread Bart Martens
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:55:16PM -0300, gustavo panizzo gfa wrote: hi after getting my first pkg in debian, i wonder how often should i prepare new revisions of it I have no general answer to that, but I see that bug 674339 should be fixed as soon as possible. and ask to potential

Bug#667994: marked as done (RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA])

2012-05-28 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Mon, 28 May 2012 16:14:14 + with message-id e1sz2ae-00080u...@ravel.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #667994, regarding RFS: stl-manual/3.30-13 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#673096: [FIGlet] Figlet Font Licensing

2012-05-28 Thread John Cowan
Jonathan McCrohan scripsit: During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These files contain the following paragraph: Unicode, Inc.

Re: RFS: new powertop version

2012-05-28 Thread Julian Wollrath
Hello, I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes were needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also needed so that it would be machine readable according to

Re: Getting rid of control messages revisited

2012-05-28 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Thu, 24 May 2012, Arno Töll wrote: [*] jwilk looked into the code and it /seems/ to me, the bts subscription does not contain control messages, whereas bts-control control does. Can anyone verify this? I confirm this. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian

Re: Updating Mawk in Debian

2012-05-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi Yann, yannubu...@gmail.com wrote: any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version? I don't think it can happen and be properly tested in time for wheezy. The new upstream version has significant changes relative to the packaged version and probably introduces some (minor or not)

Updating Mawk in Debian

2012-05-28 Thread yannubu...@gmail.com
Dear all, any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version? Regards Yann 2012/5/28 Gert Hulselmans hulselmansg...@gmail.com The Debian version of mawk has a lot of bugs (v1.3.3) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=mawk;dist=unstable Thomas Dickey (other dev than

Re: Bug#554167: Updating Mawk in Debian

2012-05-28 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:48:02PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi Yann, yannubu...@gmail.com wrote: any news about updating Mawk with the last upstream version? I don't think it can happen and be properly tested in time for wheezy. The new upstream version has significant changes

Re: how often should ask for upload?

2012-05-28 Thread gustavo panizzo gfa
Did you receive a notification for the comment that was added on this page ? http://mentors.debian.net/package/vavoom no i've added what was missing to the changelog (DEP-5, DEP-3, wrap-and-sort,etc) i thought that kind of changes were not necesary to be added to changelog, policy disagrees

Bug#674959: RFS: jstest-gtk/0.1.1~git20090722-2 - joystick testing and configuration tool

2012-05-28 Thread Stephen Kitt
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-games-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package jstest-gtk * Package name: jstest-gtk Version : 0.1.1~git20090722-2 Upstream Author : Ingo Ruhnke grum...@gmx.de * URL

Bug#674961: RFS: roxterm/2.6.4-1

2012-05-28 Thread Tony Houghton
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package roxterm * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.4-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+