Bug#831061: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-3

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Hi, I'd like to get new changes to the newLISP package uploaded. The changes are: * Silence a warning when compiling on GNU/kFreeBSD. When enabling builds on GNU/kFreeBSD, I forgot to forward-declare the prototype for strptime, which

Bug#829151: RFS: setcolortemperature/1.1-1 ITP

> On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna > wrote: > > sponsoring soon! > > thanks for your contribution to Debian! Thank you for sponsoring my package Gianfranco!

Cómo Exportar en la Venezuela de Hoy, Es Posible ?

[1] web [2] nuestros servicios forum [3] contacto servicios ofrecidos transmaquina transporte de carga y alquiler de maquinaria estimados srs. quedamos a sus ordenes como proveedores serios y motivados a prestarles un excelente servicio en toda venezuela. en caso de necesitar servicios

Re: libgdbm transition

* Tobias Frost , 2016-07-13, 21:17: You will have to file all the bugs manually, but I expect all the bugs will follow a similar template. You'll find mass-bug(1) from devscripts helpful on the filing part. Unlikely. mass-bug(1) produces almost series of almost-identical

Re: libgdbm transition

On 2016-07-13 01:35 +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Some time ago I made gdbm_1.12-3 into experimental, and since it is > incompatible with > gdbm-1.8 (new soname, separated compat library) I rebuilt all reverse > depedencies. > Here is my report: > > FAIL camldbm_1.0-2.dsc | PATCH >

Re: libgdbm transition

Am Mittwoch, den 13.07.2016, 11:33 +0100 schrieb James Cowgill: > You will have to file all the bugs manually, but I expect all the > bugs will follow a similar template. You'll find mass-bug(1) from devscripts helpful on the filing part. > > James --  tobi

Bug#830569: RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC]

Control: reopen -1 I have - added Breaks + Replaces in debian/control - fixed the copyright information for hamiltonian.py - enabled most tests - enabled hardening flags This should address the remaining issues the two of you found in the previous package.

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi Gianfranco, > TLTR, Tiago seems to be *completely* correct here, you didn't state the > package name, > so you might want to try to grasp a solution before reading this email. > > But *please* read it eventually, because the Python3 package is probably > broken > > > > I have packaged a

Bug#830569: marked as done (RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC])

control: reopen -1 reopening. G. Il Mercoledì 13 Luglio 2016 18:45, Debian Bug Tracking System ha scritto: Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:40:55 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC]

Bug#830569: marked as done (RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC])

Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:40:55 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC] has caused the Debian Bug report #830569, regarding RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi Tiago, > On 12 July 2016 at 16:46, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > This new version has support for python3, as > > said in setup.py, so I created debian/*.install > > files and edited debian/control and debian/rules. > > What are the contents of "debian/*.install" files? > > I

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi! TLTR, Tiago seems to be *completely* correct here, you didn't state the package name, so you might want to try to grasp a solution before reading this email. But *please* read it eventually, because the Python3 package is probably broken >I have packaged a Python library which has

Re: Packaging new upstream version of scid

Hi, >I have been working on packaging a new version of scid (4.6.2); the version in >Debian is outdated (from 2014). >I tried to contact Oliver, the actual mantainer, a month ago and haven't >received response yet. I tried it twice. The maintainer has an ongoing MIA process, and he didn't

Packaging new upstream version of scid

Hello! I have been working on packaging a new version of scid (4.6.2); the version in Debian is outdated (from 2014). I tried to contact Oliver, the actual mantainer, a month ago and haven't received response yet. I tried it twice. I did a NMU and the work can be reviewed on [0]. What should

Re: libgdbm transition

On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 07:35 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > > We do not have automation > > to rebuild packages and file FTBFS bugs, do we? > > Automated whole-archive rebuilds have been done (see e.g.  > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768691 ), but I > don't know whether

Re: libgdbm transition

It looks as MBF, but I would like someone more experienced to give advice. The transitions policy is here: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions We do not have automation to rebuild packages and file FTBFS bugs, do we? Automated whole-archive rebuilds have been done (see