Bug#885979: RFS: kcheckers/0.8.1-4 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kcheckers" * Package name: kcheckers Version : 0.8.1-4 Upstream Author : Andi Peredri Artur Wiebe * URL

Bug#884740: pokemmo/1.4.3-1 [ITP] -- Multiplayer online game based on the Pokemon universe

Hi Guys, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package. https://mentors.debian.net/package/pokemmo Changes were made to the package version as revised by the sponsor. 1. Removed the file in 'src/pokemmo_bootstrapper.jar' and in 'd/copyright'. 2. Added in d/control: * Changed section for

Bug#884780: marked as done (RFS: piu-piu/1.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Mon, 1 Jan 2018 02:28:16 +0100 with message-id <20180101012816.lp2tpzusl4m5y...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#884780: RFS: piu-piu/1.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #884780, regarding RFS: piu-piu/1.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#884580: marked as done (RFS: pokemmo/1.4.3-1 [ITP] -- Multiplayer online game based on the Pokemon universe)

Your message dated Sun, 31 Dec 2017 22:20:18 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: pokemmo/1.4.3-1 [ITP] -- Multiplayer online game based on the Pokemon universe has caused the Debian Bug report #884580, regarding RFS: pokemmo/1.4.3-1 [ITP] --

Re: Help to clarify an issue

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 06:38:20PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > Can someone read the bug report[0] an give > > an second opinion? > > > > [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 > > > > We disagree when

Re: Help to clarify an issue

Em 31-12-2017 15:38, Mattia Rizzolo escreveu: > Hello, > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: >> Can someone read the bug report[0] an give >> an second opinion? >> >> [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 >> >> We disagree when an NMU is

Re: Built-Using usage question

Lukas Schwaighofer writes: > Ok, I expected as much. Any suggestions on where to put that? > /usr/share/doc/syslinux-efi/copyright seems like the obvious place (and > is mandated by policy §12.5) but if I understand the machine readable > format correctly, it doesn't

Re: Help to clarify an issue

Hello, On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > Can someone read the bug report[0] an give > an second opinion? > > [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 > > We disagree when an NMU is necessary and how > important the request is. wow - wtf.

Re: Built-Using usage question

Hi, On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:42:01 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: > I don't think you need to change anything about Built-Using. That > seems like exactly the sort of reason anticipated by DFSG > compliance. The clarification in Policy is because the previous > wording would have

Help to clarify an issue

Hi, I am having difficult to end a situation with duc Debian package. Can someone read the bug report[0] an give an second opinion? [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 We disagree when an NMU is necessary and how important the request is. Regards, Herbert

Bug#885715: RFS: libt3highlight/0.4.5-1 [ITP] -- Syntax highlighting library

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:21:25 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:07:07AM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:51:28 +0100, Adam Borowski >> wrote: >> >I wonder if it would be better to name the command-like tool

Bug#885710: RFS: libt3key/0.2.7-1 ITP #885595

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:17:12 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:32:05 +0100, Adam Borowski >> wrote: >> >It Build-Depends on a package named libxcb-dev that doesn't

Bug#885715: RFS: libt3highlight/0.4.5-1 [ITP] -- Syntax highlighting library

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:21:25 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:07:07AM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:51:28 +0100, Adam Borowski >> wrote: >> >I wonder if it would be better to name the command-like tool

Bug#885715: RFS: libt3highlight/0.4.5-1 [ITP] -- Syntax highlighting library

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:07:07AM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:51:28 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > >I wonder if it would be better to name the command-like tool package > >"t3highlight" instead of "libt3highlight-bin". Usually, libfoo-bin is for >

Bug#885710: RFS: libt3key/0.2.7-1 ITP #885595

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:32:05 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > >It Build-Depends on a package named libxcb-dev that doesn't exist. > > > >There's an alternate dependency on libx11-dev, but those are ignored for >

Bug#885710: RFS: libt3key/0.2.7-1 ITP #885595

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 21:32:05 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 01:30:46PM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libt3key". This is one of >> the dependencies of the Tilde text editor (#692512). >> >> * Package name

Bug#885715: RFS: libt3highlight/0.4.5-1 [ITP] -- Syntax highlighting library

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:51:28 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 01:43:56PM +0100, Gertjan Halkes wrote: >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libt3highlight". This is one >> of the dependencies for the Tilde text editor (#692512). >> >> * Package