Your message dated Thu, 06 Sep 2018 04:20:27 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: python-dataclasses/0.5-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #895940,
regarding RFS: python-dataclasses/0.5-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Andrius Merkys writes:
> thanks for pointing this out. I was quite surprised that
> Provides/Replaces does not formally require the providing/replacing
> binaries to completely cover provided/replaced binaries.
> The reason I'm asking is the removal of binaries of blacs-mpi, which is
>
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for the update!
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've uploaded new 1.19.0.2-1 version to mentors.d.o.
> I've added manpages, fixed copyright info, fixed alternatives
> and enabled auto-tests. Could you please review it?
Hi,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 15:00:54 + (UTC)
Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello Kentaro,
> Can you please explain why you did depend on runtime to libjemalloc directly,
> without letting shlibs:Depends do the right thing?
>
> I had to apply this patch to Ubuntu, where jemalloc is updated,
Hi Niels,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:45:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
> Rather, I think there is a typo in changes.
>
> > ---
> > debian/changelog | 6 ++
> > debian/control | 4 ++--
> > debian/rules | 8 +++-
> > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
>
Control: owner -1 anar...@debian.org
On 2018-09-05 18:39:07, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rapid-photo-downloader"
Hi!
As the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rapid-photo-downloader"
Package name: rapid-photo-downloader
Version : 0.9.11-1
Upstream Author : Damon Lynch
URL
Your message dated Wed, 05 Sep 2018 16:22:57 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: budgie-desktop/10.4+git20180830.01.f2dbc215fdb-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #907664,
regarding RFS: budgie-desktop/10.4+git20180830.01.f2dbc215fdb-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> PS. after sending you the previous mail I thought to myself that a
> Recommends might be more suitable, so people can remove gconf2 again
> after upgrade is finished (and anyone not installing recommends gets
> their choice of not migrating their settings) just
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:50:56AM -0300, Herbert Fortes wrote:
> > Thanks Herver - due to the new binary with this upload (libbudgie-private0)
> > FTP-Master has rejected the package with this message
> >
> > "ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed
> >
> > binary:libbudgie-private0 is NEW."
> >
Thanks Herver - due to the new binary with this upload (libbudgie-private0)
FTP-Master has rejected the package with this message
"ACL dm: NEW uploads are not allowed
binary:libbudgie-private0 is NEW."
Can this be sponsored this time around please?
Uploaded to experimental.
But please
Hi Paul,
On 09/02/2018 12:44 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> The fields are defined in Debian Policy:
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#virtual-packages-provides
>
Hello Yavor Doganov,
thanks for your quick followup.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:22:23AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 07:41:18PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > > * debian/patches/gsettings-port.patch: New, migrate from GConf to
> > >
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 07:41:18PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > * debian/patches/gsettings-port.patch: New, migrate from GConf to
> > GSettings (Closes: #885817).
> With gsettings migration I guess you feel it's unwelcome to have
> a dependency on gconf2
Nicholas,
> > If it's an genuine exception that just happens to trigger the
> package regex, then a lintian override could be justified.
>
> Aha! Yes, I agree, that sounds like the best way forward. WRT to
> "genuine exception" shouldn't someone ACK the official section change
> in Bug #900212
> Currently I can build it manually on my daily Debian experimental
> system (amd64) and another unclean chroot (amd64). However I'm
> still not sure whether the other can build it successfully like I do.
Preliminary lintian-clean binary packages are available on debomatic-amd64:
16 matches
Mail list logo
