Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Le Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Sean Whitton a écrit : > > "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright > information and distribution license in the file > /usr/share/doc/package/copyright." > > It then makes an *exception* to this verbatim rule: > >

Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]

Am 20.04.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Ben Finney: > On 19-Apr-2016, Markus Koschany wrote: >> thanks for your update. There are only a few things left before we can >> upload the package. > > Thank you for working with me on this. > >> My main concern is the adventure-common binary package because I >>

Re: Seeking Sponsors for my package - roadfighter

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 01:15 -0300, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > I would like to help in this case. Only make changes by sending upstream patches and getting them to release new versions. If they don't respond you can include the patches in the debian/patches/ directory. -- bye, pabs

Re: Bug#821270: RFS: firefox-branding-iceweasel/0.3.0 [ITP] -- Preserves Iceweasel branding for new Firefox packages

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:42:04AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 14:31 +, nord-stream wrote: > > > Technically a Firefox extension cannot change this. It's a .desktop > > file's job, I assume. But can we replace a .desktop file from another > > package? Adding extra files to

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hello, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:47:05AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > Yes, it should definitely be xul-ext-iceweasel-branding -- that's > > pkg-mozext policy for anything that appears in about:addons. dh_xul-ext > > assumes that your

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > Yes, it should definitely be xul-ext-iceweasel-branding -- that's > pkg-mozext policy for anything that appears in about:addons. dh_xul-ext > assumes that your package is called xul-ext-foo, and it will generate a > Provides: entry for

Bug#821270: RFS: firefox-branding-iceweasel/0.3.0 [ITP] -- Preserves Iceweasel branding for new Firefox packages

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 14:31 +, nord-stream wrote: > Technically a Firefox extension cannot change this. It's a .desktop > file's job, I assume. But can we replace a .desktop file from another > package? Adding extra files to be installed also complicates rules a > lot. I think this would

Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]

On 19-Apr-2016, Markus Koschany wrote: > thanks for your update. There are only a few things left before we can > upload the package. Thank you for working with me on this. > My main concern is the adventure-common binary package because I > don't believe that shipping advent.dat with an extra

Bug#817949: RFS: niceshaper/1.2.2-1 [ITP]

Hello, I've just uploaded 1.2.2-2 version. Changes since the last upload: niceshaper (1.2.2-2) unstable; urgency=low * Move iptables from Depends to Recommends. * debian/copyright: point out that src/libnetlink.* is GPL-2+ (not GPL-2). * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8, no changes

Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP], Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]

Hello Ben, thanks for your update. There are only a few things left before we can upload the package. My main concern is the adventure-common binary package because I don't believe that shipping advent.dat with an extra package is very useful at the moment. As a compromise I offer you help in

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hello, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:51:35PM +, nord-stream wrote: > I thought of creating packages named firefox-branding-iceweasel, > thunderbird-branding-icedove, etc. I am aware of the naming convention, > but these extensions are not much like extensions but just branding > packages. (In

Workaround for "Architecture: any [!armel !armhf]" in debian/control

Hi, background: on armel and armhf Qt is using OpenGL ES, but my package cgal does not support OpenGL ES (yet). The OpenGL functionality is only needed for some demos and their support library which are already in separate binary packages. Therefore I just want to not build the OpenGL-related

Bug#821837: RFS: openresolv/3.8.0-1 [ITA] - - management framework for resolv.conf

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "openresolv" * Package name: openresolv Version : 3.8.0-1 Upstream Author : Roy Marples * URL :

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hi, (just answering the alioth part) https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org this should be the maintainer and the account has to be created on alioth.d.o, and then join the group https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-mozext cheers, G. Il

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

On 18/04/16 20:20, Sean Whitton wrote: > The package is mostly fine. Here are some points: > > - binary package name should be xul-ext-iceweasel-branding or similar I thought of creating packages named firefox-branding-iceweasel, thunderbird-branding-icedove, etc. I am aware of the naming

Re: Bug#821270: RFS: firefox-branding-iceweasel/0.3.0 [ITP] -- Preserves Iceweasel branding for new Firefox packages

Fixed in Git. I will upload the new package with other proposed changes soon. On 18/04/16 18:47, Ben Finney wrote: > nord-stream writes: > >> It builds those binary packages: >> >> firefox-branding-iceweasel - Preserves Iceweasel branding for new Firefox >>

Bug#821171: RFS: growl-for-linux/0.8.1-2 [ITP]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 06:05:03PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > * Package name: growl-for-linux > Version : 0.8.1-2 It seems that upstream author already uploads this package into Ubuntu, Do you talk him about uploading this package into Debian? > * debian/copyright > -

Bug#821762: marked as done (RFS: ublock-origin/1.6.8+dfsg-1 -- general-purpose lightweight ads, malware, trackers blocker)

Your message dated Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:46:47 + (UTC) with message-id <392879146.4869563.1461059207271.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#821762: RFS: ublock-origin/1.6.8+dfsg-1 -- general-purpose lightweight ads, malware, trackers blocker has caused the Debian Bug report

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more >license texts... What to write into paragraph then?? everything is a license, and public domain is a license too. https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page_0 G.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

On Monday 18 April 2016 22:32:14 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Still a copyright issue > > W missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright > public-domain (paragraph at line 17) There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more license texts... What to write into paragraph