Re: general question about quilt patch handling

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > If the changelog says 'removing/updating foo support because blah > no longer available' then there is no need to say 'and I refreshed > all my patches' too - that's just as anspect of makig it work > nicely. Perfect, thanks so I won't mention

Bug#806806: RFS: arrayfire/3.2.0+dfsg1-4

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arrayfire" * Package name: arrayfire Version : 3.2.0+dfsg1-4 Upstream Author : ArrayFire Development Group * URL : http://arrayfire.com/ * License : BSD

Re: general question about quilt patch handling

+++ Werner Detter [2015-12-01 13:01 +0100]: > Hi, > > > Have you got any reason not to simply refresh your patches? > > Something like: quilt pop -a; while quilt push; do quilt refresh; done > > well, there is no reason. I'm asking because this is the first time > I have this topic. Sure,

Bug#806806: marked as done (RFS: arrayfire/3.2.0+dfsg1-4)

Your message dated Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:35:25 + (UTC) with message-id <1649718264.22463063.1448994925728.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#806806: RFS: arrayfire/3.2.0+dfsg1-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #806806, regarding RFS: arrayfire/3.2.0+dfsg1-4 to be marked as

Bug#806801: marked as done (RFS: clfft/2.8-2)

Your message dated Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:35:25 + (UTC) with message-id <1649718264.22463063.1448994925728.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#806806: RFS: arrayfire/3.2.0+dfsg1-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #806801, regarding RFS: clfft/2.8-2 to be marked as done. This

Bug#806815: RFS: lirc/0.9.4-devel-0.1 [NMU] -- Linux Infrared Remote Control

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lirc": * Package name: lirc Version : 0.9.4-devel Upstream Author : Christoph Bartelmus et. al. * URL : http://sf.net/p/lirc * License : GPLv2 and

Re: general question about quilt patch handling

Werner Detter writes: >> For example, if 3.patch has not been forwarded upstream yet, then I >> would definitely modify it (instead of creating a new patch). > > I've modified 3.patch - in the course of the modification one line has > been deleted (perl "use"

Bug#806801: RFS: clfft/2.8-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clfft" * Package name: clfft Version : 2.8-2 Upstream Author : Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. * URL : https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clFFT * License :

Re: Problem with buid in AMD64

Hi Andrey 2015-11-30 23:34 GMT-05:00 Andrey Rahmatullin : > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:51:12PM -0500, Daniel Echeverry wrote: >> My package doesnt build in amd64 >> http://paste.debian.net/hidden/7253bf53/, I want to know, if I need >> add -fPIC flag only amd64 or in any arch in

Re: general question about quilt patch handling

Hi, > Have you got any reason not to simply refresh your patches? > Something like: quilt pop -a; while quilt push; do quilt refresh; done well, there is no reason. I'm asking because this is the first time I have this topic. Sure, refreshing all patches would be probably the best - but do I

Bug#806788: RFS: clblas/2.8+ds1-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clblas" * Package name: clblas Version : 2.8+ds1-2 Upstream Author : Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. * URL : https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clBLAS * License

Bug#806788: marked as done (RFS: clblas/2.8+ds1-2)

Your message dated Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:17:45 + (UTC) with message-id <1856424092.21970833.1448975865348.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#806788: RFS: clblas/2.8+ds1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #806788, regarding RFS: clblas/2.8+ds1-2 to be marked as done. This

Re: general question about quilt patch handling

Werner Detter writes: >> Have you got any reason not to simply refresh your patches? >> Something like: quilt pop -a; while quilt push; do quilt refresh; done > > well, there is no reason. I'm asking because this is the first time > I have this topic. Sure, refreshing

Bug#806797: RFS: adjtimex/1.29-6 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "adjtimex" * Package name: adjtimex * Version : 1.29-6 * Upstream Author : Steven S. Dick , James R. Van Zandt * URL :

Re: Problem with buid in AMD64

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:03:45AM -0500, Daniel Echeverry wrote: > >> My package doesnt build in amd64 > >> http://paste.debian.net/hidden/7253bf53/, I want to know, if I need > >> add -fPIC flag only amd64 or in any arch in the configure? > > All shared libraries should be compiled with -fPIC.