Bug#895847: marked as done (RFS: pqiv/2.10.4-1 [ITA] -- Powerful image viewer with minimal UI)

Your message dated Fri, 27 Apr 2018 04:20:11 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: pqiv/2.10.4-1 [ITA] -- Powerful image viewer with minimal UI has caused the Debian Bug report #895847, regarding RFS: pqiv/2.10.4-1 [ITA] -- Powerful image viewer

Bug#883611: marked as done (RFS: auter/0.11-1 (ITP: Bug#880600))

Your message dated Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:20:29 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: auter/0.11-1 (ITP: Bug#880600) has caused the Debian Bug report #883611, regarding RFS: auter/0.11-1 (ITP: Bug#880600) to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#896995: RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.4-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ddccontrol" * Package name: ddccontrol Version : 0.4.4-1 Upstream Author : Miroslav Kravec * URL :

Bug#896115: marked as done (RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:57:41 -0400 with message-id <87efj1zw8a@sergiodj.net> and subject line Re: Bug#896115: RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #896115, regarding RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#896115: RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP]

> Hm, from what I've seen the package is pretty much the same as it was > when you submitted it. I'm using the following repository: > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-cerberus > > And I don't see the fixes I asked you to do. Maybe I'm looking at the > wrong place?

Bug#896115: RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP]

On Thursday, April 26 2018, Joel Cross wrote: > Hi Sergio, Hey, Joel, > Thanks for all the comments. I've addressed most of them and re-uploaded the > package. As for this one: Hm, from what I've seen the package is pretty much the same as it was when you submitted it. I'm using the

Re: Salsa repository request (link-grammar)

On Thursday, April 26 2018, Fabian Wolff wrote: > Dear mentors, Hey, Fabian, > I am currently preparing a QA upload for the link-grammar Debian > package. The link-grammar packaging Git repository is currently still > hosted on Alioth: > >

Bug#896115: RFS: python-cerberus/1.2-1 [ITP]

Hi Sergio, Thanks for all the comments. I've addressed most of them and re-uploaded the package. As for this one: > 2) On d/rules, there's no need to override dh_compress. It automatically excludes HTML files when compressing things. I read in the docs that HTML files are supposed to be

Salsa repository request (link-grammar)

Dear mentors, I am currently preparing a QA upload for the link-grammar Debian package. The link-grammar packaging Git repository is currently still hosted on Alioth: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/link-grammar.git I would like to migrate the repository to Salsa, but since I am

Re: Building a prospective 32 bit package on 64 bits.

Please don't start a new thread by replying to some existing email. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Albert van der Horst wrote: > A package for a Debian system must be buildable on the Debian it is intended > for. It depends. > So a new candidate DEC alpha packets must properly build

Bug#896988: RFS: nautilus-hide/0.2.3-3

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nautilus-hide" * Package name: nautilus-hide Version : 0.2.3-3 Upstream Author : Bruno Nova * URL :

Building a prospective 32 bit package on 64 bits.

I understand this much: A package for a Debian system must be buildable on the Debian it is intended for. Let's restrict our attention to a single architecture package. So a new candidate DEC alpha packets must properly build on Buster DEC alpha , or on a fake-root system. So far so good.

Bug#896985: RFS: nautilus-admin/1.1.6-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nautilus-admin" * Package name: nautilus-admin Version : 1.1.6-1 Upstream Author : Bruno Nova * URL :

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

control: tag -1 +moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Hi Dmitry, Thank you for this package. Here are some problems found in your package: 1. This package misses dependency libconfig-dev 2. Please fix the lintian warnings. e.g. W: odp-doc: privacy-breach-generic 3. debhelper compat level and

Bug#896970: RFS: odp/1.19.0.0-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist I am looking for a sponsor for my package "odp" * Package name: odp Version : 1.19.0.0-1 Upstream Author : Linaro / ODP community * URL : https://www.opendataplane.org/ * License : [fill in] Section