Bug#836316: marked as done (RFS: glbinding/2.1.1-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Tue, 06 Sep 2016 04:33:29 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: glbinding/2.1.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #836316, regarding RFS: glbinding/2.1.1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#777651: RFS: syncterm/1.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

El 16/08/16 a las 09:15, Gianfranco Costamagna escribió: > control: tags -1 moreinf > > Hi, > >>* Initial release (Closes: #739035) > lets try a review: Hi gianfranco! lets go: > > 1) std-version is 3.9.8 now fixed. > > 2) debhelper (>= 9), libncurses5-dev (>= 5.9), > unzip (>= 6.0),

Re: Advices for packaging a daemon of galileo

Dylan writes: > Some users request the possibility to install galileo as a daemon. I > do not want to run galileo as a daemon for my own use. So, I created a > new binary package "galileo-daemon" which configure galileo as a > daemon. Thank you for working to improve the

Advices for packaging a daemon of galileo

Hi, Galileo [1] is a python utility to securely synchronize a Fitbit device with the Fitbit web service. Some users request the possibility to install galileo as a daemon. I do not want to run galileo as a daemon for my own use. So, I created a new binary package "galileo-daemon" which configure

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

On 09/05/2016 08:59 PM, Muri Nicanor wrote: > On 09/05/2016 08:33 PM, Christian Seiler wrote: >>Since you depend on systemd.pc, which is part of the >>systemd package, just Build-Depend on systemd to make >>systemd.pc available. You won't need porterbox access >>to fix that issue.

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

Hi, On 09/05/2016 08:33 PM, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 09/05/2016 07:20 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:51PM +0200, Muri Nicanor wrote: >>> so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the >>> recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

On 09/05/2016 07:20 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:51PM +0200, Muri Nicanor wrote: >> so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the >> recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i don't have >> testmachines of? > Porterboxes. See

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:39:16PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > (I don't think every architecture has a porterbox machine, so some of them > might be out of possibility I think all release one have. > e.g. mips good, hppa not. I'm not sure it's worth one's time to test packages on

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

* Muri Nicanor , 2016-09-05, 19:07: so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i don't have testmachines of? Ask on porters' mailing lists (debian-hppa@, debian-mips@) for someone to test it for you.

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

Hi, >Porterboxes. See https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ about getting >access for non-DDs. or if you aren't a DM, and have some patches to test, send them to me and I'll try to do test builds. (note: my time is limited, so try to avoid ~100 patches to test, unless I can script them

Bug#836381: RFS: couchapp/1.0.2+dfsg1-1

Hi Gustavo >> INSTALL_REQUIRES = ['restkit==4.2.2', 'watchdog==0.6.0'] >> why is restkit manually listed in runtime dependencies? > >that's for setuptools, I could patch it out, but why? please read what I wrote :) python-restkit is a build-dependency, and listed in install_requires keyword.

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

On 05/09/16 18:20, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:51PM +0200, Muri Nicanor wrote: so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i don't have testmachines of? Porterboxes. See

Re: FTBFS: how to test fixes

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:51PM +0200, Muri Nicanor wrote: > so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the > recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i don't have > testmachines of? Porterboxes. See https://dsa.debian.org/doc/guest-account/ about getting access for

FTBFS: how to test fixes

hi, so, i've got my first two FTBFS bugs (on mips and hppa)- what the recommended way of testing fixes for architectures i don't have testmachines of? cheers, -- muri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: d/control: Depends on same version

hi, On 09/04/2016 11:03 PM, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 09/04/2016 09:40 PM, Muri Nicanor wrote: >> if i have source package foo-x.y that builds binary packages foo_x.y and >> libfoo_x.y, how can i declare a dependency from foo on libfoo where >> libfoo has to be the same version of foo? > > If

Bug#836350: marked as done (RFS: flycheck/29-1 -- modern on-the-fly syntax checking for Emacs)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:03:16 -0700 with message-id <20160905150316.xijha3bqm2xcl...@shortgeese.silentflame.com> and subject line Accepted has caused the Debian Bug report #836350, regarding RFS: flycheck/29-1 -- modern on-the-fly syntax checking for Emacs to be marked as done. This

Bug#836381: RFS: couchapp/1.0.2+dfsg1-1

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 03:23:58 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi, > > >I'm looking for an sponsor for my updated package couchapp > > > some questions before sponsoring or giving you DM > > 1) > > INSTALL_REQUIRES =

Bug#836763: marked as done (hdparm/9.48+ds-2)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:09:29 + (UTC) with message-id <1317895224.1352100.1473084569...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#836763: hdparm/9.48+ds-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #836763, regarding hdparm/9.48+ds-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#836763: hdparm/9.48+ds-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: mailatgo...@gmail.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "hdparm": * Package name: hdparm Version : 9.48 Upstream Author : Mark Lord * URL :

Bug#836749: marked as done (RFS: autoconf-archive/20160320-1)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Sep 2016 13:24:54 + (UTC) with message-id <145823428.1256271.1473081894...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#836749: RFS: autoconf-archive/20160320-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #836749, regarding RFS: autoconf-archive/20160320-1 to be marked as done.

Bug#836749: RFS: autoconf-archive/20160320-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "autoconf-archive" * Package name: autoconf-archive Version : 20160320-1 Section : devel It builds those binary packages: autoconf-archive - Autoconf Macro

Bug#836709: marked as done (RFS: 9wm/1.3.9-1)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:44:50 -0400 with message-id <1dba55d7-3e3d-43b9-81f3-c78306161...@gmail.com> and subject line has caused the Debian Bug report #836709, regarding RFS: 9wm/1.3.9-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this