Bug#910966: RFS: 4pane/5.0-2

2018-10-15 Thread Herbert Fortes
Hi, My final comments so I can upload the package: The history of debian/changelog is been changed. Please, keep the history. https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/4/4pane/changelog-5.0-1 diff -Nru 4pane-5.0/debian/changelog 4pane-5.0/debian/changelog --- 4pane-5.0/debian/changelog

Bug#910591: ITA: logdata-anomaly-miner -- lightweight tool for log checking, log analysis

2018-10-15 Thread Wurzenberger Markus
Dear Boyuan, I fixed all bugs you mentioned and lintian shows no more errors. Hence, it should be possible to continue with your review. Regards, Markus Wurzenberger -Original Message- From: Boyuan Yang Sent: Samstag, 13. Oktober 2018 01:56 To: Wurzenberger Markus Cc:

Bug#910895: marked as done (RFS: lirc/0.10.1-1)

2018-10-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:07:13 + (UTC) with message-id <1984692926.15172362.1539616033...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#910895: RFS: lirc/0.10.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #910895, regarding RFS: lirc/0.10.1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#911072: RFS: batctl/2018.3-1~bpo9+1 [BPO]

2018-10-15 Thread Sven Eckelmann
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my backport of package "batctl" for stretch-backports. It is required to use the netlink batadv commands which were introduced with newer kernel version. There were multiple members of the Freifunk

Bug#911071: RFS: batctl/2018.3-1~bpo8+1 [BPO]

2018-10-15 Thread Sven Eckelmann
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my backport of package "batctl" for jessie-backports-sloppy. It is required to use the netlink batadv commands which were introduced with newer kernel version. There were multiple members of the

Re: Problem with pristine-tar (which tarball should I commit?)

2018-10-15 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:02:51AM -0300, Samuel Henrique wrote: > * there's no pristine-tar commit of the upstream release 3.3.1 > * there was a NMU, so the last upload was 3.3.1-1.1 > * 3.3.1-1.1 was not committed on the packaging repository > * we committed changes before making sure the git

Re: Problem with pristine-tar (which tarball should I commit?)

2018-10-15 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:02:51AM -0300, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Result: > gbp:error: Pristine-tar couldn't verify > "supervisor_3.3.1.orig.tar.gz": pristine-tar: > /tmp/build-area/supervisor_3.3.1.orig.tar.gz does not match stored > hash (expected >

Problem with pristine-tar (which tarball should I commit?)

2018-10-15 Thread Samuel Henrique
Hello, Me and Stéphane are taking over the maintenance of supervisor[0] and I stumbled upon problems: * there's no pristine-tar commit of the upstream release 3.3.1 * there was a NMU, so the last upload was 3.3.1-1.1 * 3.3.1-1.1 was not committed on the packaging repository * we committed