Bug#852375: RFS: dash-el/2.13.0-1~bpo8+1

Hi Sean, On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > dash-el 2.13.0-1.1 is set to migrate to stretch in 5 days. If that > happens before this gets processed out of backports-NEW, it would be > rejected by the backports ftp-masters. > > Since 2.13.0-1.1 is very likely the

Bug#849489: marked as done (RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA])

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:38:12 -0700 with message-id <20170124013811.pbhxwctclzh5v...@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#849489: RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA] has caused the Debian Bug report #849489, regarding RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA] to be marked as done. This means

Bug#852377: RFS: tikzit/1.0-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tikzit" * Package name: tikzit Version : 1.0-1 Upstream Author : Aleks Kissinger * URL : http://tikzit.sourceforge.net/ * License :

Bug#852375: RFS: dash-el/2.13.0-1~bpo8+1

control: owner -1 ! Dear Nicholas, dash-el 2.13.0-1.1 is set to migrate to stretch in 5 days. If that happens before this gets processed out of backports-NEW, it would be rejected by the backports ftp-masters. Since 2.13.0-1.1 is very likely the version of dash-el that will be frozen in

Bug#849489: RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA]

In all honesty I don't think I'll have any more free time until June, so it would probably be better to close the bug On 24 Jan 2017 01:00, "Sean Whitton" wrote: > Dear David, > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:33:49AM +, David Davies-Jones wrote: > > I'm really sorry

Bug#849489: RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA]

Dear David, On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:33:49AM +, David Davies-Jones wrote: > I'm really sorry but my time has evaporated, I'm no longer able to fix > the problems with this. That's fine. There is no need to apologise. If you will have time after Debian Stretch is released, we could upload

Bug#849489: RFS: darksnow/0.7.1-1 [QA]

Hello I'm really sorry but my time has evaporated, I'm no longer able to fix the problems with this. On 28 December 2016 at 22:56, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello David, > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:53:00PM +, David Davies-Jones wrote: > > I shall go through it with

Bug#852371: marked as done (RFS: udftools/1.3-1)

Your message dated Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:52:30 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#852371: RFS: udftools/1.3-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #852371, regarding RFS: udftools/1.3-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#852375: RFS: dash-el/2.13.0-1~bpo8+1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my backport of "dash-el". It is a prerequisite for a bpo of magit 2.x (really nice emacs interface for git). I have received Hajime Mizuno, the maintainer's, blessing to maintain a bpo of dash-el. I

Bug#852371: RFS: udftools/1.3-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "udftools" * Package name: udftools Version : 1.3-1 Upstream Author : Pali Rohár * URL : https://github.com/pali/udftools * License

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library [...] needed by [...]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:25:24PM +, Nico Schlömer wrote: > to the CMake config, it all seems to configure and build fine. That is > until dpkg-shlibdeps enters the stage (right before installation): It's not "right before installation". The build process has nothing to do with installing

dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library [...] needed by [...]

Hi everyone, Still struggling with the binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath [1] here. After having added ``` -DCMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_RPATH:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH:BOOL=OFF ``` to the CMake config, it all seems to configure and build fine. That is until dpkg-shlibdeps enters the stage

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:12:01PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Andrey, do you agree with me? you started the review, I don't want to steal > your package > or break rules too much :) I didn't look into the packaging, only into the diff between versions, feel free to continue reviewing

Re: Fwd: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what?

Hi, >OK, I see your point. > >In my usual, provocative style: To me, this means that the bug should be >closed without further actions unless there is more input. or change to usr/share, that seems a saner approach. Your call, I don't have an opinion here! G.

Re: Fwd: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what?

On 23/01/17 18:03, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: hello, Hi! However I think the .dist files should be installed in /usr/share and copied from there instead of being installed in /etc. This is of course the Right Thing to do. Will implement, thanks! This is nice, however I think this

Re: Fwd: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what?

hello, >> However I think the .dist files >> should be installed in /usr/share and copied from there instead of being >> installed in /etc. > >This is of course the Right Thing to do. Will implement, thanks! This is nice, however I think this "workaround" should be dropped post-Stretch

Fwd: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what?

oops, happened to send the reply to James as a PM... here it comes, it was actually meant for the list Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Adequate reports obsolete conffiles: and now what? Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:40:10 +0100 From: Alec Leamas To: James

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Hello >This makes me angry and disappointed. I reported >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841445 many months ago and >posted "ping replies" and nothing was done to resolve it - either by the >maintainer, who was missing-in-action and not for the first time - or by a >different

Bug#852270: marked as done (RFS: farmhash/0~20161014-g92e897b-2)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:18:39 + (UTC) with message-id <945492406.18801373.1485188319...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#852270: RFS: farmhash/0~20161014-g92e897b-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #852270, regarding RFS: farmhash/0~20161014-g92e897b-2 to be marked as

Bug#852304: marked as done (RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:22:14 + (UTC) with message-id <1920977075.18941252.1485188535...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#852304: RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #852304, regarding RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#846785: marked as done (RFS: golang-github-restic-chunker/0.1.0-1)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:57:51 +0100 with message-id and subject line RFS: golang-github-restic-chunker/0.1.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #846785, regarding RFS: golang-github-restic-chunker/0.1.0-1 to be marked as done. This

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:56:37 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Oh, and as this NMU doesn't deserve a short delay, it will miss stretch > and so should be uploaded to experimental until the freeze is over, unless > I'm miscalculating. > This makes me angry and disappointed. I

Bug#851756: RFS: telegram-desktop/1.0.0-2

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:07:34PM +0300, Коля Гурьев wrote: > I've putted the current changes back to [1]. > > I would appreciate your advice about my debian/rules. What can I improve it? > > [1] > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/t/telegram-desktop/telegram-desktop_1.0.0-1.dsc

Bug#852319: marked as done (RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:39:22 + (UTC) with message-id <1828715187.18831021.1485185962...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#852319: RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #852319, regarding RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Control: retitle -1 RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-0.1 NMU On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:52:06 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > should I send a new NMU request based on that or can this ticket be reused > > for it as well?

Bug#852319: RFS: patat/0.4.7.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "patat": patat - Terminal-based presentations using Pandoc Package: patat Version: 0.4.7.1-1 Upstream Author: Jasper Van der Jeugt Homepage:

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: > should I send a new NMU request based on that or can this ticket be reused for > it as well? You can reuse this RFS ticket for the package you just uploaded, you should retitle it though. And you still need to follow the NMU

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Oh, and as this NMU doesn't deserve a short delay, it will miss stretch and so should be uploaded to experimental until the freeze is over, unless I'm miscalculating. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Hi Andrey, On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:25:11 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > Please read and follow > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu > > Your debian/patches/debian-changes is full of conflict markers, this

Bug#852304: RFS: groonga/6.1.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "groonga" * Package name: groonga Version : 6.1.5-1 Upstream Author : Groonga Project * Url : http://groonga.org/ * Licenses:

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Please read and follow https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu Your debian/patches/debian-changes is full of conflict markers, this is unacceptable and also means you did something wrong. B-D changes are not reflected in d/changelog.

Bug#852295: RFS: freecell-solver/4.8.0-1 NMU

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "freecell-solver" * Package name: freecell-solver Version : 4.8.0-1 Upstream Author : Shlomi Fish * URL :

Re: Backporting shibboleth-sp2 2.6.0+dfsg1-4 to jessie: dh-systemd, piuparts and lintian errors

On 21/01/17 09:32, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > Shall I upload the backport, or do you plan to add anything else? Yes, please upload it. :) I updated the debian/jessie-backports branch with the contents of the package on mentors. Etienne signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature