Bug#830907: marked as done (RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.2 [NMU])

Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2016 22:12:37 + (UTC) with message-id <1175538016.5224578.1468534357617.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU] has caused the Debian Bug report #830907, regarding RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.2 [NMU] to be marked as

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

* Gianfranco Costamagna , 2016-07-14, 22:06: Typo: an QA upload -> an QA upload I fail to see differences... did you mean "a QA upload"? Oops. I meant: an QA upload -> a QA upload -- Jakub Wilk

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

Hi Jakub >Typo: >an QA upload -> an QA upload I fail to see differences... did you mean "a QA upload"? /me is not really sure about the correct wording :) G.

Re: Call for review: Improving RFS template for mentors.debian.net

* HAYASHI Kentaro , 2016-07-11, 23:07: Collect 'QA upload.' information by debianqa plugin https://github.com/debexpo/debexpo/pull/42 [...] As you suggested, it is simple to check Maintainer field. I got it. Thank you for feedback! Typo: an QA upload -> an QA upload

Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU]

X-Debbugs-CC: la...@debian.org Control: reopen -1 Control: retitle -1 RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.2 [NMU] Hi Gianfranco, It seems you signed and uploaded a package which does /not/ have the correct “Breaks” and “Replaces” dependencies. I uploaded a version 1.0.4-0.2 to mentors which sets those.

Re: Bug#823895: RFS: lsm/1.0.4-1

On 21-05-2016 12:21, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:09:14PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: >> On 21-05-2016 11:59, Adam Borowski wrote: >>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:31:49PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: But I don't think I need to write a documentation how to setup the

Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hi Gianfranco, Thanks again for reviewing this. I have to admit I wasn't aware special care has to be taken for moving files, now I know! In any case, I uploaded a new version to mentors.debian.net which takes your comments into account. Best, nicoo

Bug#830908: RFS: libu2f-server/1.0.1-1.3 [NMU]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:39:27PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > I opened an upstream ticket, lets see how they feel about this and in case > I'll sponsor > it (or please ping if they don't reply) Hi Gianfranco, Thanks for taking the time to review and

Bug#830908: marked as done (RFS: libu2f-server/1.0.1-1.3 [NMU])

Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:41:04 + (UTC) with message-id <1225764226.5016162.1468514464219.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU] has caused the Debian Bug report #830908, regarding RFS: libu2f-server/1.0.1-1.3 [NMU] to be

Bug#830907: marked as done (RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU])

Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:41:04 + (UTC) with message-id <1225764226.5016162.1468514464219.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU] has caused the Debian Bug report #830907, regarding RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU] to be marked as

Bug#830907: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.1 [NMU]

control: tags -1 moreinfo control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/Yubico/pam-u2f-dpkg/issues/3 control: owner 830908 ! control: owner -1 ! >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pam-u2f" lets see: --- pam-u2f-1.0.3/debian/libpam-u2f.manpages1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++

Bug#831325: marked as done (RFS: tunapie/2.1.19-1 [QA Upload])

Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:22:17 + (UTC) with message-id <613239052.4937621.1468509737454.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#831325: RFS: tunapie/2.1.19-1 [QA Upload] has caused the Debian Bug report #831325, regarding RFS: tunapie/2.1.19-1 [QA Upload] to be

Bug#831325: RFS: tunapie/2.1.19-1 [QA Upload]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tunapie" * Package name: tunapie * Version : 2.1.19-1 * Upstream Author : James Stone * URL : http://tunapie.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2.0

Re: more recent version with python3 support

> > I have some nitpicks :) > "usign" <-- typo > > "python" "python3" should be used with upper case "P" > > I did a debdiff between unstable and mentors, and I see many print that > aren't Python3 ready > > (not really sure if and when are used in the code) > -... print 'somefile', 'is

Re: [Pkg-opencl-devel] Problems with opencl in pbuilder (Was: Bug#831235: libhmsbeagle: FTBFS: Tests failures)

On 2016-07-14 13:49, Andreas Tille wrote: > make check-TESTS > make[5]: Entering directory > '/«BUILDDIR»/libhmsbeagle-2.1.2+20151220/examples/tinytest' > make[6]: Entering directory > '/«BUILDDIR»/libhmsbeagle-2.1.2+20151220/examples/tinytest' > FAIL: tinytest >

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi, >https://mentors.debian.net/package/django-notification >https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-notification/django-notification_1.2.0-1.dsc I have some nitpicks :) "usign" <-- typo "python" "python3" should be used with upper case "P" I did a debdiff between unstable and

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi, > BTW I see it in deferred/1, but you didn't push on git... :) > if you want to do it, I can see the changes (not that I'm a powerful > Python man, but I like to learn from other folks ;) ) > Good. I just did the upload to mentors: https://mentors.debian.net/package/django-notification

Problems with opencl in pbuilder (Was: Bug#831235: libhmsbeagle: FTBFS: Tests failures)

t; User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20160714 qa-ftbfs > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on > amd64. > > Relevant part (hopefully): > ... the really relevant part is make[4]:

Bug#831061: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-3

On Thursday, July 14 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>Additionally, I'd like to request DM rights for newLISP, if Gianfranco > >>is comfortable with it. There is at least one major task (porting >>newLISP to GNU/Hurd, which is almost complete) that will go in soon, and >>it would be nice to

Re: libgdbm transition

Hi Dmitry >FAIL camldbm_1.0-2.dsc | PATCH >FAIL courier_0.73.1-1.6.dsc >FAIL freeradius_2.2.8+dfsg-0.1.dsc | PATCH >FAIL ifmail_2.14tx8.10-22.dsc | PATCH >FAIL nis_3.17-34.dsc | FTPFS pre-history debhelper >FAIL ntop_5.0.1+dfsg1-2.1.dsc | FTBFS issues with rrd >FAIL

Re: more recent version with python3 support

Hi Herbert >Hey, thanks for spent some time with the package! thanks for updating it :) >But I am working on 1.2.0. I belive you got the last >version from git repository, 0.1.5. yeah, sure! BTW I see it in deferred/1, but you didn't push on git... :) if you want to do it, I can see the

Bug#831061: marked as done (RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-3)

Your message dated Thu, 14 Jul 2016 06:45:39 + (UTC) with message-id <2083486311.4449912.1468478739405.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#831061: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #831061, regarding RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-3 to be marked as done. This