Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.17.1-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Sorry, copy'n paste mistake.
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qastools/qastools_0.17.0-1.dsc
Current version is
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qastools/qastools_0.17.1-1.dsc
--
Your message dated Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:37:04 +0100
with message-id
CAMHuwoxxx2z-07h=SL-Ata8OoiDK3vgJBq670bv=6mpyfvt...@mail.gmail.com
and subject line Closing #658105
has caused the Debian Bug report #658105,
regarding RFS: qastools
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
A Debian user hinted that the painting was totally screwed in
experimental ( Qt 4.8 ).
That's fixed in the new package:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qastools/qastools_0.17.1-1.dsc
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Well, still true.
Btw. the ITP
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.17.0-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section : sound
It builds those binary
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.2-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section : sound
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.2-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section : sound
It builds
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
The current multipackage version is now uploaded to mentors.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.1-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
Am 15.12.2011 15:59, schrieb Sebastian H.:
It builds those binary packages:
qastools-common - QasTools: Common files
qastools-qasconfig - QasTools: ALSA configuration browser
qastools-qashctl - QasTools: High level Control Interface ALSA mixer
qastools-qasmixer - QasTools: ALSA mixer for
It builds those binary packages:
qastools-common - QasTools: Common files
qastools-qasconfig - QasTools: ALSA configuration browser
qastools-qashctl - QasTools: High level Control Interface ALSA mixer
qastools-qasmixer - QasTools: ALSA mixer for the desktop
I understand you want to
The naming scheme then would look like this:
qastools-common - QasTools common files
qasconfig - ALSA configuration browser
qashctl - High level Control Interface ALSA mixer
qasmixer - ALSA mixer for the desktop
Rebuilt and uploaded:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/qastools
dget -x
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
I see the point of having one source package for all the tools, but you
could still make several binary packages from there (as alsa-tools does,
though not for every single utility I must admit).
What's the size of these packages? what's their
Hi,
What's the size of these packages? what's their dependencies?
qasmixer is 1400 kB (give or take), and is around 230 kB. You can see
their dependency with 'apt-cache depends qasmixer qasconfig'.
A quick look from here looks like they are qtgui apps that uses
libasound ?
So? It's
On 2011-12-13, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
So? It's difficult for me to get your point when you're asking questions
without making any statement. I'd be grateful if you could clarify.
Hi
Depending on the answers, my statements would be different. In general,
I see to 'primary'
I haven't looked into the details, but I don't think you need to patch
your CMakelists.txt at all. Simply use debian/${package}.install files
to tell debhelper which files belong to which binary package (see
dh_install(1)).
That's looks even easier.
But together with the manpage fixes I
Am 13.12.2011 20:22, schrieb Sune Vuorela:
On 2011-12-13, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install
On 2011-12-14, Sebastian H. va...@gmx.de wrote:
I've made a quick build.
qastools-common_0.16.1-1_all.deb 23988 bytes
qastools-qasconfig_0.16.1-1_amd64.deb 61768 bytes
qastools-qashctl_0.16.1-1_amd64.deb 274986 bytes
qastools-qasmixer_0.16.1-1_amd64.deb 309520 bytes
versus
Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-12-13, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
So? It's difficult for me to get your point when you're asking questions
without making any statement. I'd be grateful if you could clarify.
Depending on the answers, my statements would be different. In
A few comments about your man pages:
- Your .TH line is wrong (you shouldn't use the command name and
section number a second time after the date); have a look at
/usr/share/man/man7/man-pages.7.gz for a better example.
- qasconfig and qashctl don't take any options; please
Sebastian H. wrote:
A few comments about your man pages:
- Your .TH line is wrong (you shouldn't use the command name and
section number a second time after the date); have a look at
/usr/share/man/man7/man-pages.7.gz for a better example.
- qasconfig and qashctl don't
So? It's difficult for me to get your point when you're asking questions
without making any statement. I'd be grateful if you could clarify.
Depending on the answers, my statements would be different. In general,
I see to 'primary' reasons for a package split in a package with kind of
A few comments about your man pages:
- Your .TH line is wrong (you shouldn't use the command name and
section number a second time after the date); have a look at
/usr/share/man/man7/man-pages.7.gz for a better example.
- qasconfig and qashctl don't take any options; please
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.0-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section : sound
It builds
Hi Sebastian,
Sebastian H. wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.0-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section
Hi Benoît
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer is, it makes
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer
Sebastian H. wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package qastools.
* Package name: qastools
Version : 0.16.0-1
Upstream Author : Sebastian Holtermann sebh...@xwmw.org
* URL : http://xwmw.org/qastools
* License : GPL-3
Section :
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer is, it makes package
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer is, it makes package
On 2011-12-13, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools instead of giving them
the choice. But maybe I'm missing something.
The short answer
Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-12-13, Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
Sebastian H. wrote:
Why regroup qasmixer and qasconfig into one package? Wouldn't it be
better having them Recommend each other? It doesn't seem like an
improvement forcing users to install both tools
33 matches
Mail list logo
