Hi!
Hmm, i try reupload package to mentors again, but don't see it too.
May be this is because now package added into pkg-bacula git and i
change package maintainer field to "Debian Bacula packaging Group"?
git://git.debian.org/git/pkg-bacula/webacula.git
On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:34:39 +,
Hi Stephen,
>> I don't see the package at mentors. What happened ?
>
> It must have expired - I'm re-uploading it just now.
Have you received the mail with note that your package was deleted from m.d.n.?
If no it could be an imperfection of m.d.n., and it affects all of us.
Regards,
Boris
--
On 21/05/12 21:42, Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article <4fbab097.7080...@trendhosting.net>,
>> I wonder if that is justification to make a lintian-override for that
>> warning?
>
> If someone else can confirm that's the cause, then yes.
>
I've just gone ahead and added the override - there
On 2012-05-21 17:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 21/05/12 10:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> [...]
>>> - - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
>>> explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
>> I'm not sure you want to keep the current names for the lib a
On 22/05/12 09:57, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2012-05-21 17:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 21/05/12 10:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>> [...]
- - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
>>> I'm not sure y
Hi Thomas,
> Oh, and besides this, building your package twice fails.
> Precisely because the swfupload.swf file binary content
> changes, and dpkg-source can't do its job:
Ok, thanks for that hint. I always build my packages with
git-buildpackage and a separate build directory. So this
is never
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> noowner 669373
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
Removed annotation that Bug was owned by alger...@madhouse-project.org.
> tag 669373 - pending
Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
R
noowner 669373
tag 669373 - pending
thanks
Andy Hawkins writes:
> Gergely, Daniel has uploaded new packages for flactag (2.0.2-1) and
> libmusicbrainz5 (5.0.1-1). Are you still considering sponsoring flactag?
> Would you also consider sponsoring libmusicbrainz5? Now that its version
> number has
Hi,
In article ,
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
>
>> noowner 669373
> Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by alger...@madhouse-project.org.
>> tag 669373 - pendi
Andy Hawkins writes:
> Hi,
>
> In article ,
>Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
>>
>>> noowner 669373
>> Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
>> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by alger...@madhouse
On 22/05/12 11:03, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> noowner 669373
> tag 669373 - pending
> thanks
>
> Andy Hawkins writes:
>
>> Gergely, Daniel has uploaded new packages for flactag (2.0.2-1) and
>> libmusicbrainz5 (5.0.1-1). Are you still considering sponsoring flactag?
>> Would you also consider sponsor
http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate
I got a lintian warning
postinst-does-not-load-confmodule
so I added a line to source the module:
#!/bin/sh
. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
set -e
into my repro.postinst file
Now, the postinst hangs and doesn't return to the prompt
Hi Dmitry,
a few comments:
- neither debian/README.Source nor debian/changelog tells me on which git
commit this is based exactly. There have been several commits on April 25th...
- README.Source further states: "Unfortunately ReviewBoard itself requires
JQuery-UI version 1.6 which is not in d
Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:18 +
with message-id <20120522164418.ga26...@master.debian.org>
and subject line closing sponsorship-requests for packages uploaded to unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #669598,
regarding RFS: djblets/0.7~git20120402+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Collection o
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 673438 RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]
Bug #673438 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1-1 [ITP]
Changed Bug title to 'RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]' from 'RFS:
libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1-1 [ITP]'
> retitle
On 05/22/2012 06:35 PM, Christian Welzel wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>> Oh, and besides this, building your package twice fails.
>> Precisely because the swfupload.swf file binary content
>> changes, and dpkg-source can't do its job:
>
> Ok, thanks for that hint. I always build my packages with
> git-b
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 669720 RFS: reviewboard/1.7~git20120425.4be2b88+dfsg-1 [ITP] --
> Web-based code review tool
Bug #669720 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: reviewboard/1.7~git20120425+dfsg-1
[ITP] -- Web-based code review tool
Changed Bug title to 'RFS: review
Dear mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "gnustep-gui".
This upload fixes #672986.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnustep-gui/gnustep-gui_0.22.0-1.dsc
Changes:
gnustep-gui (0.22.0-1) experimental; urgency=low
* New major upstream release.
* debian/rules (v_base)
All,
One of things I decided to do as part of adopting the mrtg-ping-probe
package was to rewrite debian/copyright for DEP-5. The first thing I
noticed when I was doing that is that while the original
debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual source
COPYRIGHT file looks to be GP
> One of things I decided to do as part of adopting the
> mrtg-ping-probe package was to rewrite debian/copyright for DEP-5.
Thanks for taking care.
> The first thing I noticed when I was doing that is that while the
> original debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual
> source CO
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 16:47 -0400, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 14:18:52 -0400, Robert James Clay wrote:
> > The first thing I noticed when I was doing that is that while the
> > original debian/copyright was for GPL-2+ for all files, the actual
> > source COPYRIGHT file looks to be G
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Calling it +ds doesn't express anything.
+ds stands for "Debian Source" and is commonly used when dropping say
vast quantities of embedded code copies from upstream tarballs.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCR
Your message dated Wed, 23 May 2012 04:37:20 +
with message-id <20120523043720.ga31...@master.debian.org>
and subject line closing sponsorship-requests for packages uploaded to unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #673438,
regarding RFS: libjs-swfupload/2.2.0.1+ds1-1 [ITP]
to be marked as
Hi Boris,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:40:51AM +0300, Boris Pek wrote:
> >> I don't see the package at mentors. What happened ?
> >
> > It must have expired - I'm re-uploading it just now.
>
> Have you received the mail with note that your package was deleted from
> m.d.n.?
> If no it could be a
24 matches
Mail list logo
