Bug#827715: RFS: muttprint/0.73-5.2 [NMU, RC] -- Pretty printing of mails

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:01:24PM +0900, Sean Whitton wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of muttprint, fixing a stretch RC > bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity). I use muttprint That is not correct. It is only RC since *2* days. "Severity set to 'serious' from

Bug#827715: RFS: muttprint/0.73-5.2 [NMU, RC] -- Pretty printing of mails

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Control: block 817591 by -1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of muttprint, fixing a stretch RC bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity). I use muttprint (along with several hundred others, according to popcon) and

Bug#827623: RFS: luakit/2012.09.13-r1-9 ITA -- fast and small web browser extensible by Lua

I have ran lintian against my .deb package and no warnings or errors were displayed. I have uploaded it *here . *Please review and give feedback. Thanks again Herminio On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. <

Bug#827487: marked as done (RFS: bytes-circle/2.2-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:41:50 +0200 with message-id <20160620034150.gb30...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#827487: RFS: circle/2.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #827487, regarding RFS: bytes-circle/2.2-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#827711: marked as done (RFS: sortmail/1:2.4-2 [QA, RC] -- simple mail sorter)

Your message dated Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:24:39 +0200 with message-id <20160620032439.ga30...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#827711: RFS: sortmail/1:2.4-2 [QA, RC] -- simple mail sorter has caused the Debian Bug report #827711, regarding RFS: sortmail/1:2.4-2 [QA, RC] -- simple mail sorter to

Bug#827711: RFS: sortmail/1:2.4-2 [QA, RC] -- simple mail sorter

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a spondor for a QA upload of sortmail, fixing a stretch RC bug. Although Hamish Moffatt suggested removing the package from Debian in his orphaning bug report, popcon reports there are users and upstream is active

Bug#814859: RFS: runescape/0.1-1 [ITP] -- Set in a fantasy world of war, landscapes and sinister powers

On Tuesday, June 07 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > 6)Please add some upstream metadata: https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata Hi Carlos, You asked for help on #debian-devel-br about the UpstreamMetadata part, and I didn't have a chance to reply before you left, so I'm sending this

Bug#814859: RFS: runescape/0.1-1 [ITP] -- Set in a fantasy world of war, landscapes and sinister powers

Hi, let's go package fixes. Please review my package. https://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape > > 1) you put dependencies under build-dependencies, but they seem to be more > > runtime dependencies Corrected the dependencies in d/control > > 2) you fixed the gpg key issue, but now you

Bug#827685: RFS: elpa-undo-tree/0.6.4-1 ITP

control: tag -1 +confirmed As a member of the Emacs packaging team, I've had a look at this, and it seems fine. Thanks Dmitry. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#827333: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-1 [ITP]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hi Andrey, Thanks for the review. Comments below. On Sunday, June 19 2016, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > The package generates quite a lot of lintian output: > > P: newlisp source: source-contains-prebuilt-java-object > guiserver/guiserver.jar This file is

Bug#827700: RFS: cplay/1.50-1 [NMU]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cplay" * Package name: cplay Version : 1.50-1 Upstream Author : Tomi Pieviläinen * URL : https://github.com/hukka/cplay * License

Bug#827333: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-1 [ITP]

* Andrey Rahmatullin , 2016-06-20, 00:25: W: newlisp: unusual-interpreter usr/bin/newlispdoc #!newlisp W: newlisp: unusual-interpreter usr/share/newlisp/util/syntax.cgi #!newlisp Out of these, the unusual-interpreter tags are blockers as I don't know how such shebangs could

Bug#827333: RFS: newlisp/10.7.0-1 [ITP]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Control: owner -1 ! The package generates quite a lot of lintian output: P: newlisp source: source-contains-prebuilt-java-object guiserver/guiserver.jar P: newlisp source: source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary qa-specific-tests/ffitest.dylib I: newlisp source:

Bug#827529: RFS: asciiquarium/1.1-1 [ITP #823693]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Control: owner -1 ! The package produces quite a lot of lintian output: W: asciiquarium source: syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright line 11: Duplicate field files. W: asciiquarium source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.6 (current is 3.9.8) I: asciiquarium source:

Bug#827528: RFS: libterm-animation-perl/2.6-1 [ITP: #823693]

You don't seem to have a separate ITP for this package, please fix this. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#825693: marked as done (RFS: nlohmann-json/1.1.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:57:46 +0500 with message-id <20160619175746.gk15...@belkar.wrar.name> and subject line Re: Bug#825693: RFS: nlohmann-json/1.1.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #825693, regarding RFS: nlohmann-json/1.1.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that

Bug#827623: RFS: luakit/2012.09.13-r1-9 ITA -- fast and small web browser extensible by Lua

I just want to give an update. I eliminated the on error that lintain was reporting and got the warnings down to 4. Once I clear all of them I will reload that package for review. rican-linux@debian-ppc:~/src$ lintian -c luakit_2012.09.13-r1-9_powerpc.deb W: luakit: hardening-no-relro

Bug#827685: RFS: elpa-undo-tree/0.6.4-1 ITP

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "elpa-undo-tree" * Package name: elpa-undo-tree Version : 0.6.4-1 Upstream Author : Toby Cubitt * Url :

Bug#827090: RFS: runit/2.1.2-4 ITP

> I've been there, done that. Many years ago, if interested search > history for the runit-init package. Today I don't think runit is the > right choice for integrating as init system into Debian. Would you be so kind to be more verbose/provide link? What is wrong for runit provide init? >

Bug#825532: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.6+20160526+ds-1 [ITP]

Dear G, Sorry for keeping you waiting. Packaging another library (libipset) just takes some time. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna < locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi again, > >>It's false positive. > > ack Thanks! >>> Replaces: shadowsocks (<< 1.5.3-2) >>> Breaks:

Re: Deterministic "ar" breaks build

(Cc'ing the reproducible-builds mailing list) On 06/19/2016 10:23 AM, Ole Streicher wrote on debian-mentors@: > since a while, the "ar" command is built with --enable-deterministic-archives, > which basiacally resets (among others) the timestamp to null. This has > the unfortune disadvantage,

Bug#827487: RFS: circle/2.2-1 [ITP]

> Where did the upstream tarball come from? There is no watch file, and > debian/copyright points to , > which doesn't have a release for version 2.2. It comes from that git and the URL @wordpress, which are both mine: I've upgraded to v2.2 for the

Re: Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi On Sun, 19 Jun, 2016 at 11:32, Pali Rohár wrote: PINGPong.fix what mentors complains about (license)And remove moreinfo tag  https://mentors.debian.net/package/stormlib-listfiles Gianfranco On Tuesday 24 May 2016 10:51:59 Pali Rohár wrote: > Hi! Now after month,

Re: Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

PING! On Tuesday 24 May 2016 10:51:59 Pali Rohár wrote: > Hi! Now after month, any news regarding this package? > > On Wednesday 27 April 2016 12:53:06 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi Pali and mentors, > > > > (redirecting the question to -mentors, because I don't have a > > strong opinion

Bug#827612: marked as done (RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-3 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library)

Your message dated Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:50:13 + (UTC) with message-id <31630806.9372795.1466326213792.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#827612: RFS: libcork/0.15.0+ds-3 -- simple, easily embeddable, cross-platform C library has caused the Debian Bug report #827612,

Bug#827641: marked as done (RFS: niceshaper/1.2.3-1 -- Dynamic Traffic Shaper)

Your message dated Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:38:18 + (UTC) with message-id <278889661.9522250.1466325498569.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#827641: RFS: niceshaper/1.2.3-1 -- Dynamic Traffic Shaper has caused the Debian Bug report #827641, regarding RFS: niceshaper/1.2.3-1

Deterministic "ar" breaks build

Hi, since a while, the "ar" command is built with --enable-deterministic-archives, which basiacally resets (among others) the timestamp to null. This has the unfortune disadvantage, that Makefiles that use this timestamp do not work correctly anymore. For example, my wcslib package has

Bug#827082: RFS: libredjackipset/1.1.1+20150311-1 [ITP] -- C library to store sets/maps of IP address

Dear mentors, I just updated again, and here's the change: - pick up a few bits (revert, etc) from git history to make the docs working All changes are pushed to branch pkg-test3 of my github: https://github.com/rogers0/libredjackipset Thank you and look forward to your sponsor! Cheers, --

Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Yes, as I consulted that section in Policy, I CC'd all of these messages to pkg-mozilla-maintainers list. I haven't received any response about it yet. Explaining the topic here again: * firefox-branding-iceweasel (Binary: xul-ext-iceweasel-branding), the package to restore Iceweasel experience,

Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Hello again nord-stream, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:27:28AM +, nord-stream wrote: > I've implemented dpkg-divert scripts and Iceweasel desktop icon works > beautifully for me with this change. > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/ I just checked the Debian

Bug#827528: RFS: libterm-animation-perl/2.6-1 [ITP: #823693]

Dear Niklas, To echo Sergio, this should definitely be maintained under the umbrella of the perl team. One of the team members should probably sponsor the upload. Did you use the dh-make-perl(1) tool to prepare the package? Consider running that tool and comparing its output with your