Re: Fixing incorrect .orig

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 22:45:38 +, Wookey wrote: > Is there a suffix typically used for this situation of essentially > 're-done upstream source' (a bit like we use ds for 'debianised > source' or somesuch when it's been repacked, usually to remove > non-free things or non-source things)? I

Re: Fixing incorrect .orig

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:45:38PM +, Wookey wrote: > Anyway, the question is, what's the best way to fix this? I can't > upload a new .orig until the upstream part of the version number is > bumped - right?, because any -n debian suffix assumes the same .orig > for the base base version

Fixing incorrect .orig

For reasons of confusion and general incompetence I've ended up uploading a package where the .orig tarball is not actually the upstream .orig. It's a) the .orig plus the set of patches that would normally be in debian/patches, and b) one subdirectory (the important one) of the upstream

Bug#888527: RFS: hollywood/1.12-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "hollywood" * Package name: hollywood Version : 1.12-1 Upstream Author : Dustin Kirkland * URL : http://launchpad.net/hollywood * License : Apache-2

Bug#888526: RFS: dxf2gcode/20170925-5 [ITP] -- converts 2D drawings to G-code for CNC machines

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear Mentors/Sponsors, I am looking for a Sponsor for my package "dxf2gcode": https://mentors.debian.net/package/dxf2gcode It builds a single binary-all package also named dxf2gcode. More info is available at upstream's wiki here:

Bug#888453: marked as done (RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-2)

Your message dated Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:17:16 +0100 with message-id <20180126161716.tujc6p5qhu2r5...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#888453: RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #888453, regarding RFS: gnustep-back/0.26.2-2 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#888450: marked as done (RFS: gnustep-gui/0.26.2-2)

Your message dated Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:54:01 +0100 with message-id <20180126155401.kainvepsxwttj...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#888450: RFS: gnustep-gui/0.26.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #888450, regarding RFS: gnustep-gui/0.26.2-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#888473: marked as done (RFS: gmchess/0.29.6.1-1 [RC])

Your message dated Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:01:40 +0100 with message-id <20180126150140.plm2h3mbgnjik...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#888473: RFS: gmchess/0.29.6.1-1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #888473, regarding RFS: gmchess/0.29.6.1-1 [RC] to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#888246: marked as done (RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.3-1)

Your message dated Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:30:43 -0500 with message-id <87mv10n14c@curie.anarc.at> and subject line Re: Bug#888246: RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.3-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #888246, regarding RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.3-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#888246: RFS: ddccontrol/0.4.3-1

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Antoine Beaupre wrote: > I have found some minor issues in the package that I think should be > fixed. > > 1. the lintian-override is not necessary. binary-without-manpage is > just a warning, not an error, and we can live with it until

Bug#887595: RFS: xft/2.3.2-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Tobi, Julien downgraded the severity of #884176 to 'wishlist'. [1] So it looks like this could be 'wontfix'. That said, I'm still unclear whether Julien is going to fix this himself or not, as he never said. I can still do the NMU, but if it's going to get rejected, there seems little