Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dtkwm"
* Package name: dtkwm
Version : 0.1.0~20170815-1
Upstream Author : Deepin Technology Co., Ltd.
* URL : https://www.deepin.org/
* License
Your message dated Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:50:06 + (UTC)
with message-id <1392866842.2383144.1502783406...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#872019: RFS: dcm2niix/1.0.20170724-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #872019,
regarding RFS: dcm2niix/1.0.20170724-1
to be marked as done.
This means
Follow-up after uploading new version 1.5.2-1.
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/parlatype
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/p
Found a way to suppress/fix the warnings.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Dennis
wrote:
> Ah. missed the compat level because I changed the it to version 10 in the
> debian/control file. Next upload will have debian/compat of 10, and
> debian/control has "Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 10
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:55:57PM -0600, Stephen Dennis wrote:
> Ah. missed the compat level because I changed the it to version 10 in the
> debian/control file. Next upload will have debian/compat of 10, and
> debian/control has "Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 10.0.0), binutils (>=
> 2.28.0), autot
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin
wrote:
> Are you sure you need autotools-dev?
>
Removing.
> By the way, binutils (>= 2.28.0) is wrong, as 2.28-1 is not >= 2.28.0.
>
Fixing.
> So now to talk about the dpkg-shlibdeps warningsI think the problem
> is really dh_makeshlibs
Dear list,
Gianfranco, who usually kindly offers me reviews and also actually
uploads my lirc packahes is in a well deserved holiday.
During his holiday, we have a new bug in the recently uploaded
lirc-0.10..0-1. It's kind of bad, a FTBS in packages compiled against
lirc. It surfaced in the
You already filed an RFS and you haven't answered the feedback there.
Also, why are you calling this a NMU?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
Thanks for feedback! I seem to have lost some chunk of messages, or
possibly I just missed your reply and removed it. Sorry for that.
That said, here we go:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:26:47 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin
wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> Why does the report title say "NM
Thanks Andrey.
I've revised the packaging as follows:
New changelog:
* New upstream release
* Packaging Changes
- remove all unneeded triggers
- debian/control: standards version 4.0.1
- debian/control: Add build dependency sassc
- debian/control: add minimum meson version to
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:33:48PM +0100, foss.freedom wrote:
> - Merge changelog for 10.2.9-3 Stretch bug-fix release;
> v10.2.9-3 is a hotfix for Stretch released after the v10.3.x
> series was uploaded to testing
10.2.9-3 is not in stretch.
We don't upload to testing.
We don't pr
Control: retitle -1 RFS: lirc/0.10.0-2
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:32:55PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Why does the report title say "NMU"?
>
> Perhaps it shouldn't - large parts of the debian workflow is still a mystery
> for me.
Please read
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-referen
thanks.
I have doubled checked the bug number in the 10.2.9-3 release - this
was released to unstable whilst 10.3 was in experimental. I've
updated the changelog to reflect this.
I've pulled the budgie 10.4 release notes from the upstream
announcement and added it to the changelog-announcement.t
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:01:12 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:32:55PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > > Why does the report title say "NMU"?
> >
> > Perhaps it shouldn't - large parts of the debian workflow is still
a mystery
> > for me.
> Please read
> https://www.d
14 matches
Mail list logo
