Re: Package EOL checklist

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:34:00PM -0800, Joseph Herlant wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have a package that is not maintained by upstream anymore and I was > trying to find some sort of checklist on how to best manage its end of life. > > I can't find it in the documentation. Is it somewhere I missed?

Package EOL checklist

Hi guys, I have a package that is not maintained by upstream anymore and I was trying to find some sort of checklist on how to best manage its end of life. I can't find it in the documentation. Is it somewhere I missed? Here is what I had in mind: 1. Confirm with upstream that they dropped the

Bug#887403: Acknowledgement (RFS: budgie-extras/0.4.0-1)

Hi Herbert, no I wasn't aware of that lintian - I ran lintian -i -I --pedantic on my latest unstable but it didn't highlight that. Odd. However I have now corrected that in debian/rules. I have taken also the opportunity to refresh the source & build with the very latest fixes made by the

Bug#891430: marked as done (RFS: proxmoxer/1.0.2-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:21:08 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: proxmoxer/1.0.2-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #891430, regarding RFS: proxmoxer/1.0.2-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#891182: RFS: ssh-tools/1.4-1

Ah well, after some fiddling lintian stopped complaining... On 02/26/2018 08:20 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:23:35PM +0100, Sven Wick wrote: Yeah, I did. But when I tried to get rid of the warnings it complained about the whole control file. Didn't find this

Bug#890878: RFS: company-irony

Hello, On Mon, Feb 26 2018, Alberto Luaces wrote: > I have refreshed those fields. I have not still refreshed the > changelog date in order to wait for more potential changes. Thanks for fixing this. I'm not in a position to properly review this package, unfortunately. Sorry for suggesting in

Bug#890878: RFS: company-irony

Hi Alberto, On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:30:02PM +0100, Alberto Luaces wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: > > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, Feb 21 2018, Alberto Luaces wrote: > > > >> Thanks, Sean. It is now located at > >> > >> https://salsa.debian.org/aluaces-guest/company-irony > >> > >> I guess someone

Bug#890681: RFS: gexiv2/0.10.8-1 -- GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library

I see you updated your VCS from https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/gexiv2.git to https://salsa.debian.org/jcrain-guest/gexiv2 Do you want this project to use the Debian namespace instead? https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ That would allow commit access by all DD's. (I believe it's ok to

Bug#891182: RFS: ssh-tools/1.4-1

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:23:35PM +0100, Sven Wick wrote: > Yeah, I did. But when I tried to get rid of the warnings > it complained about the whole control file. > > Didn't find this "empty paragraph" Description: collection of various tools using ssh . > and how to get rid of the

Bug#891182: RFS: ssh-tools/1.4-1

Yeah, I did. But when I tried to get rid of the warnings it complained about the whole control file. Didn't find this "empty paragraph" and how to get rid of the "unindented list" warning On 02/26/2018 06:25 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:01:18AM +0100, Sven Wick

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote: > > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions > > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz. > > My fault, GitHub doesn't like '~' in file names so I have uploaded > the files with an '.' instead of '~'. I have uploaded a new

Bug#891182: RFS: ssh-tools/1.4-1

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:01:18AM +0100, Sven Wick wrote: > OK. It's done and uploaded to mentors Have you run lintian on it? Or at least looked at the mentors page? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#891005: RFS: gdbm/1.14.1-5

Hello >With all my respect, I am very relucant to solve problems of Ubuntu at >expense of Debian output. What exactly is wrong, Debian-wise, in package >we are discussing, apart the need to specify long list of architectures, >so I could fix it? this is not an "Ubuntu" problem, but something

Bug#890878: RFS: company-irony

Sean Whitton writes: > Hello, > > On Wed, Feb 21 2018, Alberto Luaces wrote: > >> Thanks, Sean. It is now located at >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/aluaces-guest/company-irony >> >> I guess someone else has to clone it under the team project folders, >> so I created that personal repository

Bug#891429: marked as done (RFS: urlwatch/2.8-1)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:20:24 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: urlwatch/2.8-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #891429, regarding RFS: urlwatch/2.8-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

Bug#891428: marked as done (RFS: minidb/2.0.2-2)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:20:25 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: minidb/2.0.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #891428, regarding RFS: minidb/2.0.2-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been