On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2017-10-05 21:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
>> I migrated the Debian packaging of tifffile from SVN to Git[1]. After
>> upgrading to the latest upstream version (dated 2017-09-14) I get:
>>
>> ...
>> x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -DNDEBU
Hi Ben,
Am Freitag, den 06.10.2017, 16:01 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
> Sascha Manns writes:
> You don't need to write it; UScan version 4 already knows a regex
> that
> matches the common version strings.
I tried out the following:
https://launchpad.net/@PACKAGE@/@ANY_VERSION@/@ANY_VERSION@/+down
Sascha Manns writes:
> What would be the correct regex for matching this?
You don't need to write it; UScan version 4 already knows a regex that
matches the common version strings.
See the ‘uscan(1)’ manual page; in short, use “@ANY_VERSION@” to match a
version string.
--
\ “By instruct
Hello list,
i have a tarball, who is placed on https://launchpad.net/ignore-me/0.x/
0.1.0/+download/ignore-me-0.1.0.tar.xz . It can got with wget.
0.x is the place for the series. It also can be 1.0, 1.1, 2.2 and so
on.
What would be the correct regex for matching this?
Greetings
Sascha
Your message dated Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:20:11 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: node-big-integer/1.6.22-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #862930,
regarding RFS: node-big-integer/1.6.22-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:45:25AM +, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the
> > maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're
> > taking steps to sa
Your message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2017 03:51:51 +0200
with message-id <20171006015151.zej773mcmm3uw...@angband.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#877784: Subject: RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #877784,
regarding RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you cla
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:56:39PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2017-10-05 21:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > It seems that the definition of GET_NEXT_CODE is just wrong - but
> > what would be correct?
>
> Remove the last backslash, or include a blank line after it. This
> prevents the "st
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
From: Sascha Manns
To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: RFS: ignore-me/0.1.0-1 [ITP]
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "
On 2017-10-05 21:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I migrated the Debian packaging of tifffile from SVN to Git[1]. After
> upgrading to the latest upstream version (dated 2017-09-14) I get:
>
> ...
> x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O2 -Wall
> -Wstrict-prototypes -fno-strict-ali
Hi Andreas,
On 10/05/2017 09:00 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> It seems that the definition of GET_NEXT_CODE is just wrong - but
> what would be correct?
So the code contains the following:
#define GET_NEXT_CODE \
code = *((uint32_t*)((void*)(encoded + (bitcount >> 3; \
if (little_endian
Hi,
I migrated the Debian packaging of tifffile from SVN to Git[1]. After
upgrading to the latest upstream version (dated 2017-09-14) I get:
...
x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
-fno-strict-aliasing -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/tifffile-2017091
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wxmaxima"
* Package name: wxmaxima
Version : 17.10.0-1
Upstream Author : Andrej Vopodivec
* URL : http://andrejv.github.io/
* License : GPL
Section
Your message dated Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:24:53 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: bzrmk/1.3.0-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #877401,
regarding RFS: bzrmk/1.3.0-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not th
Your message dated Thu, 05 Oct 2017 10:20:19 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #877659,
regarding RFS: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your email.
On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the
> maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're
> taking steps to salvage it, it wouldn't be a NMU (at le
16 matches
Mail list logo