Bug#842588: marked as done (RFS: photo-booth/1.0.1~rc1-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:29:03 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: photo-booth/1.0.1~rc1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #842588, regarding RFS: photo-booth/1.0.1~rc1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#835274: marked as done (RFS: bcron/0.10-4 )

Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:29:03 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: bcron/0.10-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #835274, regarding RFS: bcron/0.10-4 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

Bug#850664: marked as done (RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:37:30 -0700 with message-id <20170112043730.tfojaeovamiud...@hephaestus.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#850664: RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #850664, regarding RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3 to be marked as done. This means

Bug#850607: Re: Bug#850607: RFS: flask-login/0.4.0-1 [ITA]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:48:18PM +1100, Carl Suster wrote: > Ok I added these headers in git under a new unreleased changelog entry so > they'll be picked up next time there's a release. Great work :) -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#850487: RFS: terminaltables/3.1.0-1 [ITP]

I have uploaded a new package to mentors and git which now builds successfully in a sid chroot with sbuild when given colorclass as an --extra-package. I would ideally like this in unstable, but since colorclass is already in NEW targeting experimental, and this package depends on that one, my

Restoring old package version

terminology was affected by the RC bugs flooding issue mentioned in the recent email on the Strech freeze status. In [1], it says to upload the old version. I'm not clear on what I need to do - should I open an RFS with the old version from snapshot.d.o? Thanks, Ross [1]:

Re: Restoring old package version

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > terminology was affected by the RC bugs flooding issue mentioned in the > recent email on the Strech freeze status. terminology doesn't seem to be affected by any RC bug. What are you talking about? > In [1], it says to upload

Bug#850918: RFS: rear/2.00+dfsg-1 ITP: rear -- Bare metal disaster recovery and system migration framework

Hello Frederic Bonnard, On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:28:19AM +0100, Frederic Bonnard wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, Gianfranco, > first best wishes to you all for this new year, health, success ; > especially in you Debian area :) . > > I am looking

Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Help with watch file for ecopcr needed

Hi Andreas, [...] > Any idea how to properly download the upstream source tarball with > uscan? could you please try: opts=filenamemangle=s/.*\.tar\.gz\?ref=ecopcr_v?(\d\S+)/ecopcr-$1\.tar\.gz/g \ https://git.metabarcoding.org/obitools/ecopcr/tags?sort=updated_desc

Bug#850678: marked as done (RFS: gnome-shell-extension-show-ip/4.0.1-2 [ITP])

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:21:58 +0100 with message-id <2017042158.ga27...@fatal.se> and subject line Re: RFS: gnome-shell-extension-show-ip/4.0.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #850678, regarding RFS: gnome-shell-extension-show-ip/4.0.1-2 [ITP] to be marked as done.

Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Help with watch file for ecopcr needed

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:16:38PM +0100, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: > > Any idea how to properly download the upstream source tarball with > > uscan? > > could you please try: > > opts=filenamemangle=s/.*\.tar\.gz\?ref=ecopcr_v?(\d\S+)/ecopcr-$1\.tar\.gz/g > \ >

Re: Restoring old package version

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:54:52PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > 2. 0.9.1-really-0.7.0-1 -- fugly but will go away once 0.9 stabilizes. This is ingenious. Thanks for sharing. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Preference for build or debhelper installing systemd unit files?

Niels Thykier writes: >> My question, in the case where the same organization/people are >> responsible for both the software and the debian packaging, is whether >> there is a preference of which method is used. > If you are (working on/with) upstream and doing the

Bug#851068: RFS: mathicgb/1.0~git20170104-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mathicgb": * Package name: mathicgb Version : 1.0~git20170104 Upstream Author : Bjarke Hammersholt Roune and Mike Stillman * URL :

Help with watch file for ecopcr needed

Hi, upstream of ecopcr has added release tags at my request in their local gitlab instance. I think I adapted d/watch[1] accordingly but when doing uscan --verbose --force-download it just says uscan info:=> Package is up to date for from

Bug#850821: RFS: inkscape-open-symbols/1.0-1

On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > While from technical point of view it looks good, I'm afraid there's a > license problem: you're mixing GPL-2 and GPL-3+. I believe this is not a > problem between symbol sets -- there's mere aggregation without derivation > or linking, but this

Bug#850821: RFS: inkscape-open-symbols/1.0-1

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:32:59PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: > On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > While from technical point of view it looks good, I'm afraid there's a > > license problem: you're mixing GPL-2 and GPL-3+. I believe this is not a > > problem between symbol sets --

Re: Restoring old package version

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:09:10PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > terminology doesn't seem to be affected by any RC bug. What are you > talking about? Oh you're right, I messed up - I thought 848370 was severity serious, but it's only important. Thanks, Ross signature.asc Description: PGP

Debian packaging for packages that provide the same files

This question is related to components Dell EMC (my current employer) are contributing to the Linux Foundation's openswitch project. Dell is contributing platform independent packages that depend on a platform specific package that provides configuration files. For our own internal use, we've

Preference for build or debhelper installing systemd unit files?

This question is related to components Dell EMC (my current employer) are contributing to the Linux Foundation's openswitch project. With debhelper, systemd unit files can be installed by a package's build (ie. the Makefile installs them in $DESTDIR/lib/systemd/system/...) or they can be put in

Bug#850821: RFS: inkscape-open-symbols/1.0-1

On 2017-01-11 18:59+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:32:59PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: >> On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >>> While from technical point of view it looks good, I'm afraid there's a >>> license problem: you're mixing GPL-2 and GPL-3+. I believe

Re: Debian packaging for packages that provide the same files

J.T. Conklin: > [...] > > A complication is that each platform config package installs the same > set of files, so the normal package build technique of having all files > being installed to a common staging directory and each package's files > being selected by the debian/.install doesn't work.

Bug#850918: RFS: rear/2.00+dfsg-1 ITP: rear -- Bare metal disaster recovery and system migration framework

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, Gianfranco, first best wishes to you all for this new year, health, success ; especially in you Debian area :) . I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rear". This is an upgrade to previous 1.19 and it fixes a FTBFS bug. Extract

Bug#850821: RFS: inkscape-open-symbols/1.0-1

Control: tag -1 +moreinfo On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:00PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "inkscape-open-symbols". > inkscape-open-symbols - Open source SVG symbol sets that can be used as > Inkscape symbols > > Package: inkscape-open-symbols >

Re: Patch upload not showing up in deferred queue

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 06:51:56PM -0600, Taylor Kline wrote: > So how do non-DDs help out with providing patches? By attaching patches in the bugs. The ability to actually upload the packages is the whole distinction between DD and external contributors. -- regards,

Bug#847941: RFS: libvecpf/1.1.0-1 ITP: libvecpf -- Vector Printf Library

Hi Tobias, Gianfranco. Tobias, Thierry agreed and I change the owner, I hope it's better now. Any of you would have time to review the package? I added Gianfranco as is my usual sponsor, but I forgot to Cc him in my initial request. Thanks, F. On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:12:06 +0100, Tobias Frost

Bug#850495: marked as done (RFS: safe/0.4-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:22:31 +1100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#850088: ITP: safe -- password strength checking library for Python has caused the Debian Bug report #850495, regarding RFS: safe/0.4-1 [ITP] to be marked

Bug#850664: RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3

Hi Gianfranco, Thanks for your comments! what about calling 2to3 in setup.py? I somehow overlooked that this was possible. That's much more sensible than what I was doing. and you can patch the code with a retro-compatible code if you can't find a way that works with both python2 and

Bug#850942: RFS: pydbus/0.6.0-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pydbus" * Package name: pydbus Version : 0.6.0-1 Upstream Author : Linus Lewandowski * URL : https://github.com/LEW21/pydbus * License :

Bug#850928: RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1

Control: owner -1 ! Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:34:18AM +0100, Julien Puydt wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-3d-armor" o/ > Vcs-Git: > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-games/minetest-mod-3d-armor.git > IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Bug#850928: RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "minetest-mod-3d-armor" * Package name: minetest-mod-3d-armor Version : 0.4.5-1 Upstream Author : Stuart Jones * URL :

Bug#850821: RFS: inkscape-open-symbols/1.0-1

On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > Control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:38:00PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "inkscape-open-symbols". >> inkscape-open-symbols - Open source SVG symbol sets that can be used as >> Inkscape

Re: Preference for build or debhelper installing systemd unit files?

J.T. Conklin: > My question, in the case where the same organization/people are > responsible for both the software and the debian packaging, is whether > there is a preference of which method is used. > > --jtc Hi, If you are (working on/with) upstream and doing the packaging, I believe

Re: Debian packaging for packages that provide the same files

Niels Thykier writes: >> A complication is that each platform config package installs the same >> set of files, so the normal package build technique of having all files >> being installed to a common staging directory and each package's files >> being selected by the

Bug#850928: RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1

Hi, On 11/01/2017 11:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: IMPORTANT NOTICE: d/copyright doesn't correspond to what you find in 0.4.5's LICENSE.md and README.md files (notice the plural) : it corresponds to the clarifications I obtained from upstream, which have been committed to their repository but

Re: Patch upload not showing up in deferred queue

Dear Taylor, On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 06:51:56PM -0600, Taylor Kline wrote: > Ooh okay. Thank you  > > So how do non-DDs help out with providing patches?  My last e-mail was overly curt. Sorry about that. As others have said, you can just submit the patch to the bug. You will generally be

Re: Debian packaging for packages that provide the same files

On 2017-01-11 14:25 -0800, J.T. Conklin wrote: > Niels Thykier writes: > And now that I've refreshed my memory by reading > (https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dother.en.html#install), > I see that *.install files can specify both the source and destination >

Re: Bug#850789: Patch upload not showing up in deferred queue

Hi Taylor, >So if I'm getting this correctly, only providing the output of nmudiff is >enough, without needing to upload anything? yep, also finding a sponsor or waiting for a maintainer upload, but in this case the patch is enough I think :) G.

Re: Restoring old package version

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:09:10PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > In [1], it says to upload the > > old version. I'm not clear on what I need to do - should I open > > an RFS with the old version from snapshot.d.o? > > That

Bug#850607: marked as done (RFS: flask-login/0.4.0-1 [ITA])

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:11:08 -0700 with message-id <2017071108.gdn7n5hh5t7ao...@hephaestus.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#850607: RFS: flask-login/0.4.0-1 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #850607, regarding RFS: flask-login/0.4.0-1 [ITA] to be marked as done.

Bug#850664: RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3

control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello Carl, I think you forgot to `git push` :) Also, it would be good if you could use the Forwarded: header to indicate whether your patches have been sent upstream or not. This is especially useful in team-maintained packages. If you add this now, don't forget

Re: Bug#850789: Patch upload not showing up in deferred queue

I see, thank you, Gianfranco. So if I'm getting this correctly, only providing the output of nmudiff is enough, without needing to upload anything? On Jan 11, 2017 1:36 AM, "Gianfranco Costamagna" wrote: control: tags -1 patch >It's not useful for me to spare the

Bug#851097: RFS: par2cmdline/0.6.14-2 -- PAR 2.0 compatible file verification and repair tool

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for "par2cmdline": Package name: par2cmdline Version : 0.6.14-2 Upstream Author : Ike Devolder et al. URL : https://github.com/Parchive/par2cmdline License : GPL-2+

Bug#850928: marked as done (RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:16:21 +0100 with message-id <20170112001620.xdqg6bzn4croy...@mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#850928: RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #850928, regarding RFS[ITP]: minetest-mod-3d-armor/0.4.5-1 to be marked as

Bug#850664: RFS: python-pynzb/0.1.0-3

Control: tag -1 -moreinfo Hi Sean, I think you forgot to `git push` :) Oops! Done. Also, it would be good if you could use the Forwarded: header to indicate whether your patches have been sent upstream or not. This is especially useful in team-maintained packages. If you add this now,

Bug#850942: RFS: pydbus/0.6.0-1

control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Alberto, On 11-01-2017 10:12, Alberto Caso wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pydbus" > I just did a quick review on your package and below are some details that could be