El dg 03 de 11 de 2013 a les 08:23 -0500, en/na Mark Buda va escriure:
I am confused. 728292 is an RFS, 688531 is the ITA. And neither is mentioned
in that link.
What am I not understanding?
This link is generated twice a day. It may be a temporary mistake or
maybe setting you as the owner
Hi Axel,
I'd sponsor tht package in general as I use it (the old upstream
package) and would be happy to see it in Debian.
thank you for your support.
Looking at the sponsorship request shows me already two issues:
* Section: python
* Binary: python-automx
This is a server application,
On 11/11/2013 08:36 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
In fact, I have. I've got a few tools brewing for Debian that use
Docker. I've got it packaged and it'll be in Debian soon.
do you have a package, even preview quality, to use it?
i would check git.d.o but is down :(
--
1AE0 322E B8F7 4717
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Andreas Moog wrote:
The author of the software actually addresses this point in Makefile.am:
# @GTK_LIBS@ libdbus_CFLAGS are not used to avoid unwanted
# libraries (like -latk, -lrt, etc.) passed to the linker
Ahhh, this explains why
Hey gustavo and Tong,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:20:14PM +0800, gustavo panizzo gfa wrote:
On 11/11/2013 08:36 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
In fact, I have. I've got a few tools brewing for Debian that use
Docker. I've got it packaged and it'll be in Debian soon.
do you have a package,
Hi,
The package that I'm planning to maintain gives me the following error at
the end of the build:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
/usr/bin/install: cannot create regular file
Hi,
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
Obviously, that should be ${DESTDIR}/usr/share/man/man1 .
Cheers,
Nik
--
* concerning Mozilla code leaking assertion failures to tty without D-BUS *
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:21:11 +0100, Dominik George wrote:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
Obviously, that should be ${DESTDIR}/usr/share/man/man1 .
So given the rules file posted in OP,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:28:33PM +, T o n g wrote:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
Obviously, that should be ${DESTDIR}/usr/share/man/man1 .
So given the rules file posted in OP,
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for a nmu upload of the package syfi
* Package name: syfi
Version : 1.0.0.dfsg-1.2
Section : devel
This is the nmu changelog entry:
syfi (1.0.0.dfsg-1.2) unstable;
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:40:46 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
Obviously, that should be ${DESTDIR}/usr/share/man/man1 .
Hmm... I don't know if that is
T o n g mlist4sunt...@yahoo.com writes:
Hmm... I don't know if that is accurate, because it is at the end of
binary package *building*, not the binary package *installation*.
Upstream doesn't appear to support DESTDIR in their build system and is
just trying to install things directly under
I took a look at the good build, which is glimpse-4.18.5, and I see:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d /export/build/glimpse/bld/
glimpse-4.18.5/debian/tmp/usr/share/man/man1 ; \
done
Do you know what
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:14:48 +0100, Dominik George wrote:
I took a look at the good build, which is glimpse-4.18.5, and I see:
for d in glimpse.1 glimpseindex.1 glimpseserver.1 ; do \
/usr/bin/install -c -m 444 $d
/export/build/glimpse/bld/
T o n g mlist4sunt...@yahoo.com writes:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:14:48 +0100, Dominik George wrote:
Tadaa ... it is ${DESTDIR}. Which leads us to the conclusion that, as
stated in my initial reply, that the lack thereof is the culprit
So how to fix it then? Upstream has been dead for several
Hi Elmar,
It's OK that you write your own non-free license, but this license in
particular has, in my opinion, too many serious flaws to allow it in section
non-free. I suggest to get professional legal advice or to use an existing
well-known license.
Regards,
Bart Martens
--
To
16 matches
Mail list logo
