> Currently I can build it manually on my daily Debian experimental
> system (amd64) and another unclean chroot (amd64). However I'm
> still not sure whether the other can build it successfully like I do.
Preliminary lintian-clean binary packages are available on debomatic-amd64:
http://debomatic
Nicholas D Steeves:
> Hi Ben and readers of debian-mentors,
>
> Solution at bottom.
>
> [...]
>
> "export DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nodoc ; gbp buildpackage" does not work,
> although I expect "DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nodoc ; export
> DEB_BUILD_PROFILES ; gbp buildpackage" should.
>
Rather, I think there
Your message dated Wed, 05 Sep 2018 04:20:37 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: fsdiff/0.5-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #906064,
regarding RFS: fsdiff/0.5-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Hi Ben and readers of debian-mentors,
Solution at bottom.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 08:26:07PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:02:14AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Chris Lamb writes:
> >
> > > * You should probably avoid building the documentation too if the
> > >
Hi Chris,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:57:10AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Nicholas,
>
> > To address the last TODO list submitted for this package: I have not
> > yet pursued changes to lintian about the Informational message on
> > "wrong section". I will ask an Emacsen and Policy team member abo
Hello Yavor Doganov,
Thanks for working on improving this package. Please see comments below
(inline).
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 07:41:18PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
[...]
> I'm looking for a sponsor for a QA upload of "gnomint".
>
> * Package name: gnomint
>Version : 1.3.0-1
[.
Your message dated Tue, 4 Sep 2018 22:17:30 +0200
with message-id <20180904201730.z5z3uugepthyt...@fatal.se>
and subject line Re: RFS: simple-scan/3.30.0-1 RC
has caused the Debian Bug report #907986,
regarding RFS: simple-scan/3.30.0-1 RC
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "simple-scan"
Package name: simple-scan
Version : 3.30.0-1
Upstream Author : Robert Ancell
URL : https
control: retitle -1 RFS: tensorflow/1.10.1+dfsg-A1 [ITP]
control: tag -1 -moreinfo
Hello science team and mentors,
I did a right choice to write the python+ninja build system
from scratch (I call this build system TF-Shogun in the source code).
Now I started to sort out any possible FTBFS with do
Your message dated Tue, 04 Sep 2018 10:21:38 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: elpy/1.24.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #907914,
regarding RFS: elpy/1.24.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Awesome, thanks!
El mar., 4 de sep. de 2018 a la(s) 07:14, Andrej Shadura (and...@shadura.me)
escribió:
> On 3 September 2018 at 16:37, eamanu15 wrote:
> > Package: sponsorship-requests
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-scp".
>
>
On 3 September 2018 at 16:37, eamanu15 wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-scp".
After a bit of fiddling with the changelog, uploaded.
--
Cheers,
Andrej
Nicholas,
> To address the last TODO list submitted for this package: I have not
> yet pursued changes to lintian about the Informational message on
> "wrong section". I will ask an Emacsen and Policy team member about
> where the appropriate place to pursue this issue would be, because I
> belie
Nicholas,
> If you would still prefer that I not reply post-RFS, please let me
> know and I'll stop :-)
I don't have any problem with replies per se, I'm just getting the
impression from the verbosity of your responses that extensive
rationalisations dissecting your thought process that led to so
14 matches
Mail list logo
