Bug#880412: marked as done (RFS: python-h5netcdf/0.5.0-1)

Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:20:26 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: python-h5netcdf/0.5.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #880412, regarding RFS: python-h5netcdf/0.5.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#880408: marked as done (RFS: python-pymeasure/0.5-1)

Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:20:28 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: python-pymeasure/0.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #880408, regarding RFS: python-pymeasure/0.5-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#880577: marked as done (RFS: shark/3.1.4+ds1-1 [RC])

Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:20:26 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: shark/3.1.4+ds1-1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #880577, regarding RFS: shark/3.1.4+ds1-1 [RC] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#880406: marked as done (RFS: python-bayespy/0.5.12-1)

Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:20:28 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: python-bayespy/0.5.12-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #880406, regarding RFS: python-bayespy/0.5.12-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#880405: marked as done (RFS: python-meshio/1.8.17-1)

Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:20:28 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: python-meshio/1.8.17-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #880405, regarding RFS: python-meshio/1.8.17-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#881644: RFS: codemirror-js/5.19.0

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal I am looking for a sponsor for a (team) update to codemirror-js. The current version in unstable is 5.4.0 (from July 2015). This update is not to the latest upstream version (currently 5.31.0), but to the most recent version (5.19.0, from September

Bug#881522: marked as done (RFS: fracplanet/0.4.0-6 [ITA])

Your message dated Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:57:56 +0100 with message-id <20171113195756.36rrd444zrhmg...@sk2.org> and subject line Re: Bug#881522: RFS: fracplanet/0.4.0-6 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #881522, regarding RFS: fracplanet/0.4.0-6 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that you

Re: How to determine the filename for dlopen()

Hi, Am 2017-11-13 13:23, schrieb wf...@niif.hu: I'm packaging a program which wants to dlopen() some library. It finds this library via pkg-config (PKG_CHECK_MODULES). How to best determine the filename to use in the dlopen() call? It should work cross-distro, for cross-compilation and

How to determine the filename for dlopen()

Hi, I'm packaging a program which wants to dlopen() some library. It finds this library via pkg-config (PKG_CHECK_MODULES). How to best determine the filename to use in the dlopen() call? It should work cross-distro, for cross-compilation and whatnot. Is it always safe to use the SONAME as