Bug#855355: marked as done (RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA])

Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:50:21 + (UTC) with message-id <665435280.1555768.1487317821...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #855355, regarding RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#855171: closed by Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> (Re: Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1)

Hi Adam, (I didn't get your mail from you, just through the bug notification...) On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:06:04AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the sponsorship-requests package: > > #855171:

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo >But, if I am able to adopt this package, then I would move this under >debian's collab-maint project. where did the current maintainer orphaned the package? did he acked the changes to add you on uploaders list? He is a dm, why can't he sponsor

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: low Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "alot" Package name: alot Version : 0.5.1-1 Upstream Author : Patrick Totzke URL : https://github.com/pazz/alot License : GPL-3+,

Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: low Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nasm" Package name: nasm Version : 2.12.02-1 Upstream Author : "H. Peter Anvin" URL : http://www.nasm.us/ License : BSD-2-clause Section

Bug#841185: marked as done (RFS: genwqe-user/4.0.18-1 [ITP #826774])

Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:20:26 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: genwqe-user/4.0.18-1 [ITP #826774] has caused the Debian Bug report #841185, regarding RFS: genwqe-user/4.0.18-1 [ITP #826774] to be marked as done. This means

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Iban Eguia wrote: > already was a package named `super` in the Debian repositories. > > We first thought of changing our package name to something other than > `super`, but we then noticed that the package had not been updated in more > than 9 years, and we

Bug#855171: marked as done (RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1)

Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:03:27 +0100 with message-id <20170217020327.lfa422spznvx3...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #855171, regarding RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:23:30PM -0500, Iban Eguia wrote: > Debian by our package. As a summary, our package is written in Rust and > currently requires java-jre as a dependency, since it also packages some Java > projects we currently use for the analysis. All the project and dependencies > we

Re: Adding a new package to Debian

Did you contact with Robert Luberda, the package maintainer for "super"? Anyway, a more specific name should be better than "super", such as "super-aa" or "android-analyzer". __ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives.

Adding a new package to Debian

Dear fellow members of the Debian mentoring community. I am one of the maintainers of [SUPER Android Analyzer](http://superanalyzer.rocks/), an application to check an Android APK application for vulnerabilities. The software has lots of potential and has been added to some software

Bug#854656: RFS: roadfighter/1.0.0-1 [ITP] -- Relive a classic racing game with this remake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Thank you for your attention. I'll make changes. Em qui, 2017-02-16 às 02:08 +0100, Adam Borowski escreveu: > Control: tags -1 +moreinfo > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:00:38AM -0200, Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > >   I am looking for a sponsor

Re: Get current Standards-Version

__ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives. Mailing lists service administrator should fix this. El 16/02/17 a les 11:20, Gianfranco Costamagna ha escrit: > Hello, > >> W: ntfsundelete-tree source:

RFH: pyrit: FTBFS on i386, Python memory corruption?

Hello, I tried to debug this issue, but I didn't find anything useful http://bugs.debian.org/855166 the failure doesn't happen on local pbuilder sid i386 environment, neither on DebOMatic sid i386 environment (it should be really close to the one used on buildd). But I can reproduce it on

Re: Get current Standards-Version

Hello, >W: ntfsundelete-tree source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.0 >(current is 3.9.4) (this really depends on lintian version you are using, don't blindly trust it!) >Independently of what Lintian says, how can I detect Standards-Version >used in any Debian-like OS?

Get current Standards-Version

When checking files with Lintian, it shows: W: ntfsundelete-tree source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.0 (current is 3.9.4) Independently of what Lintian says, how can I detect Standards-Version used in any Debian-like OS? Thanks. -- __ I'm using this express-made address because

Re: ntfsundelete-tree for Debian

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:27:28AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Hello, how can I find somebody that can includes this software to Debian > official? https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

ntfsundelete-tree for Debian

Hello, how can I find somebody that can includes this software to Debian official? https://git.actiu.net/libre/ntfsundelete-tree Thanks. -- __ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at this list's archives. Mailing lists service

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:53:59PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:50:32AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > > > > > > should I wait with them? > > > > > > > With all packages already

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:50:32AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > > > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > > > > > should I wait with them? > > > > > > With all packages already existing in testing. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand this

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:47:23PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:41:13AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > > > > should I wait with them? > > > > > With all packages already existing in

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:41:13AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > > > should I wait with them? > > > > With all packages already existing in testing. > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand this really... > > What

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

Hi Andrey, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:33:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:29:02AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > > should I wait with them? > > > With all packages already existing in

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:29:02AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > I'm working on another (hamradio related) package(s)... Also > > > should I wait with them? > > With all packages already existing in testing. > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand this really... What part of it? The reasons

Bug#855171: RFS: tlf/1.3.0-1

Hi Andrey, thanks for the helpful answer, On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:30:23PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:18:44AM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > > However, are you sure you want this uploaded to unstable during freeze? > > > It > > > will make it really