Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

Hi >>what about bumping compat/debhelper level to 10, remove autoreconf from >>rules/control >That's causing the build to fail for some reason. I'll look into it. > a quick look seems to show a progress when removing debian/autoreconf file.

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

On December 20, 2016 4:19:01 PM EST, Tobias Frost wrote: >Uploaded! > >Tobi Thanks!

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

On December 20, 2016 8:01:28 AM EST, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >what about bumping compat/debhelper level to 10, remove autoreconf from >rules/control >file? > >G. That's causing the build to fail for some reason. I'll look into it. Bill

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

Hi Tobias,>Can be done the next time :) >Uploaded! thanks! :) and happy ;) G.

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:01:28 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: tags -1 moreinfo > control: owner -1 ! >  >  >  > >  * Remove autotools-dev dependency due to using dh-autoreconf >  >  > what about bumping compat/debhelper level to 10, remove autoreconf from rules/control > file?

Re: Packaging from Git

Dear Narcis, I am an upstream maintaining a Debian package. Frankly, I think you're overcomplicating things. In particular, I strongly recommend ignoring git-buildpackage, simply because it was not designed with your situation in mind. I suggest using a single branch, and building with

Bug#848039: marked as pending

On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 20:52 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: > Hi Gishlain, Ghislain... > On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:55:16 + Ghislain Antony Vaillant mail.com> wrote: > > --- > > commit d614b5737b305b2fd2c8a93b66fed59c6e8022d8 > > Author: Ghislain Antony Vaillant > >

Bug#848039: marked as pending

Hi Gishlain, On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:55:16 + Ghislain Antony Vaillant wrote: > --- > commit d614b5737b305b2fd2c8a93b66fed59c6e8022d8 > Author: Ghislain Antony Vaillant > Date:   Mon Dec 19 20:48:33 2016 + >  > add missing bug closure in

Bug#848912: RFS: node-file-sync-cmp/0.1.1-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Tags: l10n Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "node-file-sync-cmp" * Package name: node-file-sync-cmp Version : 0.1.1-1 Upstream Author : Martin Geisler (http://geisler.net/) * URL

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 07:14:17PM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > You mean I really need to maintain 2 branches of code (master*+*debian)? I didn't say that, you can put debian/ into your upstream sources. > Then I imagine these are my steps to do: > $ wget --no-check-certificate -O

Re: Packaging from Git

You mean I really need to maintain 2 branches of code (master*+*debian)? Then I imagine these are my steps to do: $ wget --no-check-certificate -O ntfsundelete-tree_1.0.0.orig.tar https://git.actiu.net/libre/ntfsundelete-tree/repository/archive.tar?ref=master $ tar xf

Bug#848039: marked as pending

tag 848039 pending thanks Hello, Bug #848039 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at: http://git.debian.org/?p=python-modules/packages/python-prov.git;a=commitdiff;h=d614b57 --- commit

Bug#848039: marked as pending

tag 848039 pending thanks Hello, Bug #848039 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at: http://git.debian.org/?p=python-modules/packages/python-prov.git;a=commitdiff;h=d614b57 --- commit

Bug#848698: RFS: imagemagick/8:6.9.7.0+dfsg-1 [RC,Security][experimental]

I will upload it today/tomorrow. /l

Bug#848039: marked as done (RFS: python-prov/1.5.0-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:05:11 + with message-id and subject line Bug#848039: fixed in python-prov 1.5.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848039, regarding RFS: python-prov/1.5.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#847458: marked as done (RFS: clues-emacs/1.0.1-1 ITP)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:04:34 + (UTC) with message-id <1861142705.752559.1482249874...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#847458: RFS: clues-emacs/0~2014.09.23.69d873c-1 ITP has caused the Debian Bug report #847458, regarding RFS: clues-emacs/1.0.1-1 ITP to be marked as

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:48:30PM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Currently, I'm editing files directly with GitLab web interface. > For the moment, I only want "packaging from git": > Git -> Packaging helper (single direction sense) Well, you don't really need helpers, you can just checkout the

Re: Packaging from Git

Currently, I'm editing files directly with GitLab web interface. For the moment, I only want "packaging from git": Git -> Packaging helper (single direction sense) Thanks. __ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't masked enough at lists.debian.org

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:25:20PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > It also suffers from treating quilt as a god rather than an abomination > it is. Using version control checked into another version control is a > disaster. gbp-pq -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#848128: marked as done (RFS: rear/1.19+dfsg-1 ITP: rear -- Bare metal disaster recovery and system migration framework)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:08:11 + (UTC) with message-id <1465236959.668549.1482246491...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848128: RFS: rear/1.19-1 ITP: rear -- Bare metal disaster recovery and system migration framework has caused the Debian Bug report #848128, regarding

Re: Packaging from Git

On 20/12/16 15:25, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:00:20AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: Hello, I'm trying to maintain a small project in my public Git, and to have an easy way to build a package for Debian OS obtaining a good/clean result. Even just using git directly

Bug#847350: RFS: golang-github-minio-minio-go/2.0.2+dfsg-1

Hi, >Are you OK with the package in the current form? Could you sponsor it? The >sooner it hits sid, the sooner I can submit a RFS for restic. it went in sid :) thanks Dmitry! G.

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:00:20AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Hello, I'm trying to maintain a small project in my public Git, and to > have an easy way to build a package for Debian OS obtaining a good/clean > result. > After this, I will try to deploy my APT repository or contact some >

Re: Packaging from Git

I made a single file in ShellScript. To walk to Debian inclusion, somebody suggested me to publish it in a control version system (as Git). I've deployed this GitLab instance and now I only want to sure this is packageable. At this point, I prefer a single branch (master?) if it's possible, to use

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

control: tags -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 ! > * Remove autotools-dev dependency due to using dh-autoreconf what about bumping compat/debhelper level to 10, remove autoreconf from rules/control file? G.

Re: Packaging from Git

On 20/12/16 13:21, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 01:10:03PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: I have been struggling with this myself. My current approach - One separate branch for the debian packaging - In that branch, add the release branch as a git submodule - In the

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 01:10:03PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > I have been struggling with this myself. My current approach > > - One separate branch for the debian packaging > - In that branch, add the release branch as a git submodule > - In the debian branch, check in and tag the

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:57:21PM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Maintaining debian-branch, upstream-branch and pristine-tar... Does it > mean that I'll need to replicate "master" branch to those 3 sub-branches > each time I wan to apply an update? Working with the upstream git repo is covered at

Re: Packaging from Git

On 20/12/16 12:57, Narcis Garcia wrote: Maintaining debian-branch, upstream-branch and pristine-tar... Does it mean that I'll need to replicate "master" branch to those 3 sub-branches each time I wan to apply an update? Same for each upstream/ subdirectories? I have been struggling with

Re: Packaging from Git

Maintaining debian-branch, upstream-branch and pristine-tar... Does it mean that I'll need to replicate "master" branch to those 3 sub-branches each time I wan to apply an update? Same for each upstream/ subdirectories? __ I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses

Bug#848499: marked as done (RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.7-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:59:55 + (UTC) with message-id <1045344783.351601.1482231595...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848499: RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.7-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848499, regarding RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.7-1 to be marked as done. This

Bug#848340: marked as done (RFS: smpq/1.6-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:58:03 + (UTC) with message-id <1693066236.344050.1482231483...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848340: RFS: smpq/1.6-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848340, regarding RFS: smpq/1.6-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#848867: RFS: xalan/1.11-6

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xalan" * Package name: xalan Version : 1.11-6 Upstream Author : Steven J. Hathaway * URL : https://xalan.apache.org/xalan-c/index.html * License

Bug#848593: marked as done (RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:31:32 + (UTC) with message-id <2053827099.307270.1482229893...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848593: RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848593, regarding RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1 to be marked as done.

Bug#848402: marked as done (RFS: budgie-desktop/10.2.9-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:20:44 + (UTC) with message-id <1036076111.299122.1482229244...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848402: RFS: budgie-desktop/10.2.9-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848402, regarding RFS: budgie-desktop/10.2.9-1 to be marked as done. This means

Re: Packaging from Git

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:00:20AM +0100, Narcis Garcia wrote: > Can the Git content be bad? Lack of files? Unnecessary files? Bad structure? Yes. gbp requires a special repo structure, see file:///usr/share/doc/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.intro.html#GBP.REPOSITORY -- WBR, wRAR

Packaging from Git

Hello, I'm trying to maintain a small project in my public Git, and to have an easy way to build a package for Debian OS obtaining a good/clean result. After this, I will try to deploy my APT repository or contact some sponsor for Debian official repository. I'm executing this but I don't

Bug#848500: marked as done (RFS: mercurial-extension-utils/1.3.1-1)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:07:23 + (UTC) with message-id <1800562117.277409.1482228443...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848500: RFS: mercurial-extension-utils/1.3.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #848500, regarding RFS: mercurial-extension-utils/1.3.1-1 to be marked