On 26.08.14 00:28:28, jeanfi wrote:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package psensor
* Package name: psensor
Version : 1.0.4-1
Upstream Author : Jean-Philippe Orsini jea...@gmail.com
* URL :
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for making the package for Debian! I'm not a DD, so I can't
sponsor your package, but here's my review:
d/control:
-Don't put each dependency on a different line.
-In your description, you don't need to include a description of what
node.js is, rather, you can mention that your
On 26 August 2014 08:46:27 BST, Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for making the package for Debian! I'm not a DD, so I can't
sponsor your package, but here's my review:
d/control:
-Don't put each dependency on a different line.
This is
Hello Dariusz,
On 08/26/2014 08:44 AM, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
* Package name: psensor
Version : 1.0.4-1
Upstream Author : Jean-Philippe Orsini jea...@gmail.com
* URL : http://wpitchoune.net/psensor
* License : GPL v2
Section : utils
This package is questionnable because it contains too little code...
https://github.com/joaquimserafim/base64-url/blob/master/index.js
There is an ongoing discussion on pkg-javascript ML about bundling
packages:
d/control:
-Don't put each dependency on a different line.
This is actually common practice as having them on separate lines makes it
easier to review a diff for future versions.
Okay, thanks, I didn't know that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
I am not DD, I cannot sponsor you package but have a question,
why is priority for psensor extra ? Should it not be optional ?
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html
According to the definition of 'optional':
This is all the software that you might reasonably
Hi,
On 26/08/14 11:03, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
I am not DD, I cannot sponsor you package but have a question,
why is priority for psensor extra ? Should it not be optional ?
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html
According to the definition of 'optional':
This is
Hi Łukasz, Gianfranco,
hi Tobi!
I've just got 30 minutes for a short review...
really appreciated :)
- d/patches: the patches need a dep3-header and needs to
ack, changed
- d/changelog should be just Initial Release.
ok
- d/control VCS-Browser does not work (404)
- d/control VCS-bzr
On 08/26/2014 12:10 PM, Daniel Lintott wrote:
On 26/08/14 11:03, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
I am not DD, I cannot sponsor you package but have a question,
why is priority for psensor extra ? Should it not be optional ?
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html
According
2014-08-25 12:21 GMT-03:00 Dimitar Ivanov drim...@freeshell.de:
Hi Eriberto,
Hi,
I saw you made a new revision (-2) of your package. However, the
1.3.1-1 not exist in Debian. So you must change 'unstable' by
'UNRELEASED' in d/changelog when saying about 1.3.1-1.
2. d/control:
Sorry, but
Am Montag 25 August 2014, 14:35:40 schrieb Eriberto:
Hi Marc,
2014-08-25 10:47 GMT-03:00 Marc Dietrich marvi...@gmx.de:
1. d/control:
- Change debhelper from 9.0.0 to 9.
You didn't it.
ups, I thought you meant the compat file.
- Create a VCS to control your /debian
Thanks!
2014-08-25 17:57 GMT-03:00 Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch:
Hi,
Ah, I thought that the date referred to the time of download. I've
changed the date to 2014-06-17 and I've uploaded the new package to mentors.
Cheers,
Riley
On 26/08/14 05:55,
Your message dated Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:41:42 -0300
with message-id
cap+dxjcqeekl-yrqoywijxzqdx5lgnllerkrrcbcn0rqobs...@mail.gmail.com
and subject line Re: RFS: python3-pyelliptic/1.5.3+git20140617.7810c7afd8-1
[ITP] -- High level Python 3 wrapper for OpenSSL
has caused the Debian Bug report
Ok. My suggestion:
1. Put all files in /usr/share/libzhuyin-utils. I think that
zhuyin-utils is better for package name. But it is my opinion. Not
relevant.
2. Make symlinks in /usr/bin and /usr/share/man. Example:
zhuyin_gen_binary_files.
Or don't distribute the binaries. I prefer the first
Your message dated Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:26:07 +0200
with message-id
1409063167.678113.156915849.2bf93...@webmail.messagingengine.com
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #757210,
regarding RFS: [NMU] php-imagick/3.1.2-1.1 ease transition of imagemagick
to be marked as done.
This
On Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org wrote:
This package is questionnable because it contains too little code...
https://github.com/joaquimserafim/base64-url/blob/master/index.js
There is an ongoing discussion on pkg-javascript ML about bundling
packages:
Your message dated Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:25:26 +
with message-id e1xmjyk-00033p...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: lucene++/3.0.6-2 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #752897,
regarding RFS: lucene++/3.0.6-2 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Hello,
Your package mostly looks good, however debian/copyright is incomplete
(which is a blocker for upload) and lacking copyright/license
information for:
- glances/outputs/static/js/modernizr.custom.js,
debian/missing-sources/modernizr.custom.js
- i18n/de/LC_MESSAGES/glances.po
Ok,
Hi,
Well, appearantly malat uploaded in the meantime...
Malat, this is great, but could you also drop a note to the BTS if you
are doing that to avoid double work, especially if there is activiy and
the owner of the RFS-bug has been set to indicate that someone is
working on it.. Thanks ;).
Optional!
Regards,
Eriberto
2014-08-26 8:29 GMT-03:00 jeanfi jea...@gmail.com:
On 08/26/2014 12:10 PM, Daniel Lintott wrote:
On 26/08/14 11:03, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
I am not DD, I cannot sponsor you package but have a question,
why is priority for psensor extra ? Should it not be
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libpar2
Package name: libpar2
Version : 0.4-4
Section : libs
It builds those binary packages:
libpar2-1 - Library for performing common tasks related to PAR recovery
Hello,
On 08/26/2014 10:40 PM, Eriberto wrote:
Optional!
Thanks for the confirmation.
I have committed the changed to GIT and re-uploaded the package to
mentors site.
Regards,
JeanFI.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Your message dated Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:24:42 +
with message-id e1xmumo-0001xw...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: mariadb-10.0/10.0.10-1 [ITP] -- Latest version of
worlds most popular non-Oracle database
has caused the Debian Bug report #745135,
regarding RFS:
Your message dated Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:24:42 +
with message-id e1xmumo-0001xh...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: stellarium-stars/1.4.0 [ITP] -- stellarium star
catalogues
has caused the Debian Bug report #744044,
regarding RFS: stellarium-stars/1.4.0 [ITP] -- stellarium star
25 matches
Mail list logo
