Bug#832941: RFS: 4pane (debian: to exclusive)

On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, David Hart wrote: > However will it be accepted into debian? The project is moribund: apart from a > single commit 3 years ago, it's been unmaintained for 6 years. That was > supposed to give time for a rewrite which hasn't happened. I might be a good idea for

Bug#848993: marked as done (RFS: llmnrd/0.2.1-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:48:23 +0100 with message-id <20161224224823.ga20...@fatal.se> and subject line Re: Bug#848993: RFS: llmnrd/0.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #848993, regarding RFS: llmnrd/0.2.1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#832941: RFS: 4pane (debian: to exclusive)

Hello David, On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 07:53:09PM +, David Hart wrote: > Many thanks for the offer. I don't mind packaging Bakefile, and it shouldn't > be > difficult to do. > > However will it be accepted into debian? The project is moribund: apart from a > single commit 3 years ago, it's

Bug#832941: RFS: 4pane (debian: to exclusive)

Dear Sean, >Thank you for revising your work in light of my review. We're too late >to get 4Pane into stretch, so there's no longer any time pressure on >this review process. I know. It missed the jessie freeze too ;) >So I'd like to reply regarding only the Bakefile >issue, since that's the

Bug#848133: RFS: rdup/1.1.15-1.0

Am 24. Dezember 2016 12:57:37 MEZ, schrieb "Félix Sipma" : >Hi Tobias and Jose, > >I get your remarks Tobias, thanks again for your detailed reviews. > >If a NMU is out of scope for a lot of my changes, wouldn't be easier to >just >change the maintainer to QA (or me)? No

Bug#841066: marked as done (RFS: gnome-shell-extensions-pixelsaver/1.9-1, ITP: 829089 -- pixel saver extension for GNOME shell)

Your message dated Sat, 24 Dec 2016 18:13:07 +0100 with message-id <20161224171306.2j4mfxvlmel5p...@mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#841066: RFS: gnome-shell-extensions-pixelsaver/1.9-1, ITP: 829089 -- pixel saver extension for GNOME shell has caused the Debian Bug report #841066, regarding

Bug#832941: RFS: 4pane (debian: to exclusive)

Dear David, Thank you for revising your work in light of my review. We're too late to get 4Pane into stretch, so there's no longer any time pressure on this review process. So I'd like to reply regarding only the Bakefile issue, since that's the biggest blocker to uploading this. Once we've

Bug#849273: RFS: gemmlowp/0~20161216-gb56df4a-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Notes: * It is a Tensorflow dependency. * It is a header-only package with unit tests. * I plan to keep it in experimental for some time. * Its default build system is Bazel, I translated its original buildsystem into CMake for building the

Bug#848133: RFS: rdup/1.1.15-1.0

Hi Tobias and Jose, I get your remarks Tobias, thanks again for your detailed reviews. If a NMU is out of scope for a lot of my changes, wouldn't be easier to just change the maintainer to QA (or me)? No offense is intended, it's just that doing a NMU and then another upload with the other

Bug#848993: RFS: llmnrd/0.2-1 [ITP]

On Saturday 24 December 2016 11:38:01 Andreas Henriksson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:41:29PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 23 December 2016 14:46:53 Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > > You use DAEMON_OPTS in the default file, while sysvinit seems to > > > be standardizing on

Bug#848993: RFS: llmnrd/0.2-1 [ITP]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:41:29PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 23 December 2016 14:46:53 Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > You use DAEMON_OPTS in the default file, while sysvinit seems to be > > standardizing on DAEMON_ARGS to avoid the messy work of later > > migration of conffile