Bug#802848: RFS: gnome-twitch/0.1.0-1 [ITP]

Hi, (let me say, based on your answers I have difficulties in understanding how possibly your first package can be so good :) ) >I installed into debian/package because "man dh_auto_install" told me >that "[...]the files are installed into debian/package/ if there is only >one binary package.

Re: restund in debian

Hi, please open an RFS bug if you want to find a sponsor. Anyway, I looked at the package. the packaging rules file is really hacky, but looks good! I would appreciate a more sane upstream packaging system, but your workaround looks really nice ;) do you mind opening an RFS bug? cheers, G.

Re: restund in debian

tis 2015-10-27 klockan 11:15 + skrev Gianfranco Costamagna: > Hi, please open an RFS bug if you want to find a sponsor. > > Anyway, I looked at the package. > > the packaging rules file is really hacky, but looks good! > > I would appreciate a more sane upstream packaging system, but your

Re: cowbuilder/pbuilder: require newer version from experimental

On 10/27/2015 03:11 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > Hi, > > to build an "experimental" version of one of my packages, I need to > specify a package that is in unstable (1.0.5-1) and in experimental > (1.1~b1-1), and I need the experimental version here. > > With "cowbuilder --login --save-after-login",

Re: cowbuilder/pbuilder: require newer version from experimental

Alex Mestiashvili writes: >> What could be the cause that the dependency is not satisfied from >> experimental here? > may be a "cowbuilder --update" is missing ? No; I did this. I also tested that I can install it manually (with "apt-get

Re: cowbuilder/pbuilder: require newer version from experimental

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:11:08 +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > What could be the cause that the dependency is not satisfied from > experimental here? I'm using a preferences file in my experimental chroots: # cat /var/cache/pbuilder/amd64/experimental-base.cow/etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin:

Bug#803160: RFS: conman/0.2.7-1 [ITP]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32:54PM +0800, Yao-Po Wang wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "conman" Please help to fix the following lintian warning: I: conman source:

Re: cowbuilder/pbuilder: require newer version from experimental

Have you tried creating a new chroot that uses experimental? This at least used to work, and given that package downgrades are not supported, keeping separate chroots may be a better idea in the long run than switching one back and forth.

Bug#803187: RFS: drumgizmo/0.9.8.1-1 ITP

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "drumgizmo" * Package name: drumgizmo Version : 0.9.8.1-1 Upstream Author : Bent Bisballe Nyeng , Jonas Suhr Cristensen

Re: Package upload successful but not processed

* Tomasz Buchert , 2015-10-25, 17:50: this happened to me as well. When your key is expired you don't get *anything* back, it's just like that. Moreover it takes some time for your key to be included in the keyring: the new keyring is uploaded once every one/two months [1].

cowbuilder/pbuilder: require newer version from experimental

Hi, to build an "experimental" version of one of my packages, I need to specify a package that is in unstable (1.0.5-1) and in experimental (1.1~b1-1), and I need the experimental version here. With "cowbuilder --login --save-after-login", I have put the "experimental" distribution into

Bug#803160: RFS: conman/0.2.7-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "conman" Package name: conman Version : 0.2.7-1 Upstream Author : Chris Dunlap URL : https://github.com/dun/conman License : GPL3