Bug#833323: RFS: minetest-mod-mesecons/2016.07.09-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-mesecons" * Package name: minetest-mod-mesecons Version : 2016.07.09-1 Upstream Author : Mesecons Mod Developer Team and contributors * URL :

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Hi Paul, Quoting Sean Whitton (2016-08-03 06:20:26) > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:06:31PM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Sometimes a user gets a sbuild chroot so screwed up that it does not > > work anymore, and the user has no idea how to fix it, because he does not > > know what he did wrong. >

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:06:31PM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > Sometimes a user gets a sbuild chroot so screwed up that it does not > work anymore, and the user has no idea how to fix it, because he does not > know what he did wrong. > > He wants to start over from scratch. > > The problem is,

Re: same upstream version but different orig.tar.gz

Hello, On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:47:06PM -0300, Herbert Fortes wrote: > First I removed libAvKys/Plugins/VirtualCamera/ > directory. Generated a new .symbols file and > uploaded to experimental. Then I tested the > software. It did not run. An email to the upstream > was sent. > > Only

How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Sometimes a user gets a sbuild chroot so screwed up that it does not work anymore, and the user has no idea how to fix it, because he does not know what he did wrong. He wants to start over from scratch. The problem is, it is not documented the correct way to delete the chroot and tar ball.

Upload priorities for NEW packages (was: Bug#827933: RFS: yabar/0.4.0-3 [ITP])

Hello, On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:19:55AM +0200, Jack Henschel wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, neither Section 4.4 [1] nor > 5.6.17 [2] explain when which urgency should be used (so I just used > the lowest one). Is there documentation for this elsewhere? > [1]

Bug#827933: RFS: yabar/0.4.0-3 [ITP]

Hello, On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:19:55AM +0200, Jack Henschel wrote: > On 07/27/2016 03:28 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > > I can't sponsor the package, but I hope that the following review is > > useful to you. > Thanks for your very in-depth review, it is very helpful! No problem :) I noticed

Bug#833320: RFS: nbconvert/4.2.0-1 (ITP -- to experimental!)

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nbconvert" * Package name: nbconvert Version : 4.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Jupyter Development Team * URL : https://github.com/jupyter/nbconvert *

same upstream version but different orig.tar.gz

Hi, I am packaging a new version of webcamoid. This new version has some files with Ms-LPL license(nonfree). First I removed libAvKys/Plugins/VirtualCamera/ directory. Generated a new .symbols file and uploaded to experimental. Then I tested the software. It did not run. An email to the

Bug#833312: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.6.1-1~bpo8+1

On 2 August 2016 at 18:11, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > in any case, I would prefer to see it fixed in unstable. > BTW such errors are normal when using backports, so fixing a single package > is worse than no fix at all (specially when the fix is "problematic") > > I

Bug#833312: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.6.1-1~bpo8+1

Hi, >Oh man, I'd completely forgotten I'd made those modifications to my >tree! I never got a definitive answer to the discussion on the >following debian-backports thread. Could you please take a look at it >and let me know if I should a) keep these modifications b) drop them >c) change

Bug#833312: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.6.1-1~bpo8+1

Hi Gianfranco! On 2 August 2016 at 15:59, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >>I am looking for a sponsor for this updated backport of btrfs-progs. > > > I see some other changes other than the no-change bpo > > -Depends: btrfs-progs, ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends} >

Bug#833105: marked as done (RFS: vim-lastplace/3.0.2-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:02:41 + (UTC) with message-id <1090724302.14877341.1470175361905.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#833105: RFS: vim-lastplace/3.0.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #833105, regarding RFS: vim-lastplace/3.0.2-1 [ITP] to be

Bug#833316: marked as done (RFS: arrayfire/3.3.2+dfsg1-2)

Your message dated Tue, 2 Aug 2016 21:50:27 + (UTC) with message-id <1466820534.14722768.1470174627802.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#833316: RFS: arrayfire/3.3.2+dfsg1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #833316, regarding RFS: arrayfire/3.3.2+dfsg1-2 to be marked as

Bug#833315: RFS: nfft/3.3.2~rc2-2

Hi, >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nfft" done! G.

Bug#833316: RFS: arrayfire/3.3.2+dfsg1-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arrayfire" * Package name: arrayfire Version : 3.3.2+dfsg1-2 Upstream Author : ArrayFire Development Group * URL : http://arrayfire.com/ * License : BSD

Bug#833315: RFS: nfft/3.3.2~rc2-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nfft" * Package name: nfft Version : 3.3.2~rc2-2 Upstream Author : Prof. Dr. Daniel Potts * URL :

Bug#833312: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.6.1-1~bpo8+1

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi >I am looking for a sponsor for this updated backport of btrfs-progs. I see some other changes other than the no-change bpo -Depends: btrfs-progs, ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends} +Depends: btrfs-progs (= ${binary:Version}),

Bug#833312: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.6.1-1~bpo8+1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for this updated backport of btrfs-progs. Package name: btrfs-progs Version: 4.6.1-1~bpo8+1 It builds these binary packages: btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities btrfs-progs-dbg -

Bug#832153: marked as done (RFS: python-prov/1.4.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:34:38 +0100 with message-id and subject line uploaded to unstable has caused the Debian Bug report #832153, regarding RFS: python-prov/1.4.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#833188: marked as done (RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.3 [NMU])

Your message dated Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:44:43 + (UTC) with message-id <1046066043.14705580.1470156283045.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#833188: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.3 [NMU] has caused the Debian Bug report #833188, regarding RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.3 [NMU] to be marked as

Bug#833298: RFS: logdata-anomaly-miner/0.0.3-1 [ITA] -- lightweight tool for log checking, log analysis

Hi, >* Packaging fix: unowned directory after purge (Closes: #832347). > >PS: Would be thankful for any hints if my solution also written >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832347 is not the best or >not really Debianic. It seems fine, maybe you might have introduced some

Bug#833298: RFS: logdata-anomaly-miner/0.0.3-1 [ITA] -- lightweight tool for log checking, log analysis

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package " logdata-anomaly-miner": * Package name: logdata-anomaly-miner * Version: 0.0.3-2 * Upstream Author: Roman Fiedler * URL: https://launchpad.net/logdata-anomaly-miner

Bug#833188: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.3 [NMU]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:55:58PM +0200, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > Please do not upload right now, I am uploading an updated version to > mentors (updated patch metadata & clarified the changelog) Updated on mentor. It might take a few monutes for it to show up on the web interface, though.

Bug#833188: RFS: pam-u2f/1.0.4-0.3 [NMU]

Please do not upload right now, I am uploading an updated version to mentors (updated patch metadata & clarified the changelog) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#833105: RFS: vim-lastplace/3.0.2-1 [ITP]

Hi, On 02.08.2016 08:40, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I fully agree here, just a few questions about *where* to put this package. > http://www.vim.org/scripts/ > I think I don't understand. > what about adding it as a patch to the current vim-scripts package? >

Bug#833237: marked as done (RFS: node-es6-promise/3.2.2+ds-1 (ITP))

Your message dated Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:41:07 + (UTC) with message-id <825696279.14242597.1470130867194.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#833237: RFS: node-es6-promise/3.2.2+ds-1 (ITP) has caused the Debian Bug report #833237, regarding RFS: node-es6-promise/3.2.2+ds-1

Bug#827933: RFS: yabar/0.4.0-3 [ITP]

On 07/27/2016 03:28 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > 13. Why a 'low' upload urgency? Counterintuitively, this means that you > think the package is more likely than usual to be buggy and so it should > take longer to migrate to testing; it doesn't actually mean "less > important". Unless you think the

Bug#833105: RFS: vim-lastplace/3.0.2-1 [ITP]

Hi, >Ah ok, sorry. :-) I removed the package and uploaded it again as 3.0.2-1 . usually there is no need to remove the package on mentors >In the vim-policy[1] by the vim package team they recommend to use >vim-addon-manager. That means, install the debian package >vim-addon-manager (which is