Bug#819166: RFS: libsass-python/0.11.0-1 (new upstream release ; *urgent* : fix for FTBFS)

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, Gianfranco, I am looking for a sponsor for an upgrade of the package "libsass-python". This an upgrade of the previous version 0.9.3-1 which is marked for autoremoval on 29 March because of FTBFS on some platforms. I worked with

Bug#814806: RFS: libauxv/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- libauxv -- Auxiliary Vector Library library

Very good point James :) That warning was added end October 2015 and I started working on this in March 2015 without noticing the warning for my RFS. Thanks for having checked! F. On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 18:50:36 +, James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016

Package tracker complaint: Problems while searching for a new upstream version

Hi, since a while the package tracker pages of my packages warn "Problems while searching for a new upstream version [high]" See for an example the "action needed" part of: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libburn The debian/watch file has this content: version=3

Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:02:43 +0900 d...@debian.org wrote: > lintian(1) says: > > | Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. Oh, I have overlooked it. Thank you for your feedback. I'd been just convinced that "I should fix it" at that time. > BTW, I hesitate to upload

Bug#818735: RFS: qwtplot3d/0.2.7+svn191-10

Hi Mattia On Tuesday 22 March 2016 11:02:16 you wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:38:08AM +0100, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: > > Do you know of any package where only the a part is built for all > > architectures? > > none come to my mind. > You could do something similar to this (untested) >

Re: Package tracker complaint: Problems while searching for a new upstream version

* Thomas Schmitt , 2016-03-24, 13:39: since a while the package tracker pages of my packages warn "Problems while searching for a new upstream version [high]" Sounds like #818382. -- Jakub Wilk

Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:43 PM, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > If so, something like hal-compat software exists, (it also provides HAL > compatibility layer which is similar to hal-flash, but it does not > refer about flash DRM at all even though mainly used for it) - > does it acceptable for debian

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: debian-j...@lists.debian.org Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "icu4j" * Package name: icu4j Version : 57.1-1 Upstream Author : IBM * URL : http://www.icu-project.org * License

Bug#819181: RFS: cl-asdf/3.1.7 - Another System Definition Facility

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I have packaged the new upstream release 3.1.7 of the Common Lisp ASDF software: Package name: cl-asdf Version : 2:3.1.7-1 Upstream Author : Robert P. Goldman URL :

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

Control: block -1 by 819192 819193

Re: Packaging pythonpy

Hi, Can someone please help me on this one? I'm pretty close to finish the initial packaging work. After fixing the following issues, it will be a matter of adding a manpage and filling a RFS. * How to fix the "python-script-but-no-python-dep" lintian error? I've tried with and without pybuild

Bug#817949: RFS: niceshaper/1.2.1-2 [ITP]

Changes since the last upload: niceshaper (1.2.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * Remove, no longer needed, customized debian/postinst script. * The /var/lib/niceshaper directory is always removed on package purge. * Revise manual page. * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.7, no changes needed.

Bug#818184: RFS: hal-flash/0.3.3-1 [ITP]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 05:47:23PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > > I think there is no need to suppress pedantic reports. > > Maybe, but I think that it is a good manner to treat it explicitly. lintian(1) says: | Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. BTW, I