Bug#787801: marked as done (RFS: bwctl/1.5.4+dfsg1-1)

Your message dated Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:27:20 + with message-id e1zkuco-0002wt...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: bwctl/1.5.4+dfsg1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #787801, regarding RFS: bwctl/1.5.4+dfsg1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#794019: RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0

Hi Sven, Thanks for your work on this package. On 29-07-15 22:48, Sven Geggus wrote: * Package name: sfcgal Version : 1.1.0-2~exp1 It looks like someone may have sponsored the upload already, I got a bunch of 553 Could not create file messages from dput: Good signature on

Bug#793419: RFS: mirage/0.9.5.2-1 ITA

Hi Thomas, I will try help you. 1. d/control: mirage doesn't conflict with another package. Please, change the priority to optional. See more details here[1]. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities 2. d/menu: try to add a icon. Use the Gimp if you need

Bug#794019: RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Hello, I have just uploaded a slightly reworked sfcgal package which should now (hopefully) build on more than one architecture. * Package name: sfcgal Version : 1.1.0-2~exp1 Upstream Author : Mickael Borne (IGN), Hugo Mercier

Bug#794019: RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0

Sebastiaan Couwenberg schrieb am Mittwoch, den 29. Juli um 23:55 Uhr: Unless you've made mentors the default dput target, you need to specify it explicitly OK, I did not do specify it explicitly but I did now and also added mentors as the default host to my .dput.cf Sorry, It's not my day.

Bug#792774: RFS: filters/2.54 [ITA]

For some reason unknown to me, this message never reached me. I've just seen it on the BTS (and subsequently found it on -mentors@lists.d.o). Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: * Marius Gavrilescu mar...@ieval.ro, 2015-07-18, 15:16: * Package name: filters Version : 2.54

Bug#794019: RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0

On 29-07-15 23:33, Sven Geggus wrote: Sebastiaan Couwenberg schrieb am Mittwoch, den 29. Juli um 23:27 Uhr: Did you perhaps upload to ftp-master instead of mentors? Unfortunately I already closed the terminal where I did the upload, but I do definitely have mentors.debian.net in my

Bug#794019: RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0

Sebastiaan Couwenberg schrieb am Mittwoch, den 29. Juli um 23:27 Uhr: Did you perhaps upload to ftp-master instead of mentors? Unfortunately I already closed the terminal where I did the upload, but I do definitely have mentors.debian.net in my .dput.cf Would I be even able to upload to

Re: Are the build-arch and build-indep targets required?

* Ferenc Wagner wf...@niif.hu, 2015-07-29, 12:04: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules first says yes, by starting a paragraph as: build-arch (required), build-indep (required) Yes, they were made mandatory in version 3.9.4 in August 2012. See bugs

Re: Are the build-arch and build-indep targets required?

Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: * Ferenc Wagner wf...@niif.hu, 2015-07-29, 12:04: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules first says yes, by starting a paragraph as: build-arch (required), build-indep (required) Yes, they were made mandatory in version

Re: [help] how to sensibly work around if upstream fails to deal with SONAMES

Please CC-me, I'm not suscribed to mentors. Andreas Tille wrote: [snip] Thanks for the hint but I admit I'm not fully sure what exactly needs to be done to get the changed SONAME in the case of dcmtk. I guess I need to tweak the cmake files somehow - but how? I always promised myself to

Bug#794019: marked as done (RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:55:19 +0200 with message-id 55b959d7.50...@xs4all.nl and subject line RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0 [uploaded] has caused the Debian Bug report #794019, regarding RFS: sfcgal/1.1.0 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#787802: RFS: i2util/1.2-2

Hallo Vincent, On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 03:29:32PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: Your changes look ok, but I've noticed that libi2util-dev builds a static library that's installed into a multiarch-specific path (because you're using dh compat level 9), but your package isn't actually

[help] how to sensibly work around if upstream fails to deal with SONAMES

Hi, is there some default behaviour to deal with situations discussed in this bug log: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754583#12 I think we should bump SONAME but is there any sensible way to not conflict with further upstream changes? Kind regards Andreas. --

Re: [help] how to sensibly work around if upstream fails to deal with SONAMES

Hi Andreas On Wednesday 29 July 2015 10:07:50 Andreas Tille wrote: is there some default behaviour to deal with situations discussed in this bug log: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754583#12 I think we should bump SONAME but is there any sensible way to not conflict

Are the build-arch and build-indep targets required?

Hi, https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules first says yes, by starting a paragraph as: build-arch (required), build-indep (required) but a couple of paragraphs later is also says: Both binary-* targets should depend on the build target, or on the

Re: Are the build-arch and build-indep targets required?

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:04:10PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: build-arch (required), build-indep (required) but a couple of paragraphs later is also says: Both binary-* targets should depend on the build target, or on the appropriate build-arch or build-indep target, *if

Re: [help] how to sensibly work around if upstream fails to deal with SONAMES

Hi Gudjon, On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 01:09:30PM +0200, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: Hi Andreas On Wednesday 29 July 2015 10:07:50 Andreas Tille wrote: is there some default behaviour to deal with situations discussed in this bug log: