Re: Bug#800406: RFS sayonara/0.8.2

Hi, >license.txt > * Removed license.txt > As some other distributions strictly want this file, I wanted to ask >if I may remove that file with a debian patch? no you shouln't ever remove that file. this is source of reject from ftpmasters. You don't have to install it with make install,

Re: AUTORM: bug closed but still marked for autoremoval

Hi Jerome You need to make the package migrate into stretch if you want the autoremoval to stop https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=singular=unstable armhf is not build anymore, so you can choose from: 1) fixing polybori 2) file a bug against ftpmasters to remove singular [armhf].

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aseqjoy/aseqjoy_0.0.2-1.dsc >I just upload to mentors. wonderful! >If use Files: * (for the upstream) and Files: debian/* (for mantainer) >and both have same license this raise the lintian warning. You shouldn't have any issue by doing

Bug#822613: RFS: dynamic-graph/3.0.0-1

control: owner -1 ! Hi, please fix the Pedantic lintian issues https://mentors.debian.net/package/dynamic-graph (e.g. no dep5 copyright, old compat level, typos, missing harderning flags) and then I'll have a look at the package. Il Lunedì 25 Aprile 2016 18:42, Rohan Budhiraja

Bug#822722: RFS: tldp/0.7.7 [ITP #822181]

Hi Martin, >OK, I can do that. Is that a requirement for submitting the >package? I added the bits and bobs that are not provided with >every system to allow testing of all documentation generation on any >platform or distribution. Test coverage is at 92%: > >

Bug#822613: RFS: dynamic-graph/3.0.0-1

Hi Andrey! >Your package has several lintian-detected problems of various severiuty, >but the one about embedded jQuery is a blocker one. You will need to fix >it before having a chance for the package to be uploaded. Please look into >other issues as well. Not embedding it might result in a

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi, >Done. I did a couple of nme runs in a sid chroot, and then fixed >lintian errors. It might be possible to compact the debian/copying >stanza, but my goal was maximum correctness so I didn't take any >risks. Lintian said that copyright entries for config/* weren't >necessary. Is this

Bug#813603: RFS: libcxl/1.3-1 [ITP] -- libcxl -- Coherent accelerator shared library

Hi, the package is already in Ubuntu, did you try to look at the packaging and see if it was similar? Gianfranco On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:53:47 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi,

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi, >Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848 >"as an RC bug on the package". I have reassigned it to ftpmasters, I don't think there is need to wait for the maintainer opinion, this is a binary without source. >I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

cribió: > On Fri, May 06, 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > <..> >> I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to >> tell ftpmasters >> where to look in the mail list for the license change. > > OK, to settle this I created a n

Bug#823606: RFS: sphinxcontrib-doxylink [ITP]

Hi, signed and uploading shortly! BTW it fails to build on ubuntu wily. of course not an issue at all, but you might want to look at the failure. Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 15:33, Ghislain Vaillant ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

Hi Nicholas, >I agree, however, upstream's official recommendation is to use a >version of btrfs-progs at least as new as the kernel. Every release >fixes some bugs, sometimes serious. For example, btrfs-progs-4.5 >fixes "subvol sync: fix crash, memory corruption", but the whole 4.5 >series

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Adam, >What's the problem? none, you are right! I read again your previous mail, and yes, there is no conflict assuming we use GPL2 only. I would appreciate however a new tarball, because I don't like having to tell ftpmasters where to look in the mail list for the license change.

Bug#823521: RFS: irstlm/6.00.05-1 -- IRST Language Modeling Toolkit

Hi Balint, so I presume you want to set yourself as owner of this bug, right? thanks for your work! Gianfranco Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 23:40, Balint Reczey ha scritto: Control: reopen -1 Luckily the upload got rejected, thus I did not interfere with the RFS

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Alexander, unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters... I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise they won't be coherent license-wise. this seems to be a blocker for now. g. Il Lunedì 2 Maggio 2016 21:27, Alexander Koenig

Bug#823575: RFS: asl/0.1.6-2 [RC]

sbuild or send to debomatic. No idea why I end up with a different orig tarball then, do you? Ghis On 06/05/16 09:08, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, signed and uploaded, but different orig tarball is *bad* > > > cheers, > > G. > > > Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 8:53, Ghis

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

control: tags -1 moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Hi, it would be nice to avoid having a possible and problematic version even in experimental. Specially because it might be source of data-losses to the end users. BTW, please ask xnox to comaintain the package, if you really want to help in

Bug#823575: RFS: asl/0.1.6-2 [RC]

Hi, signed and uploaded, but different orig tarball is *bad* cheers, G. Il Venerdì 6 Maggio 2016 8:53, Ghislain Vaillant ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "asl" * Package name: asl

Re: Bug#800406: RFS sayonara/0.8.2

w :) btw wrap-and-sort please :) (you just need to run the command) and between Description: and the start there should be a space (I downloaded the package from the ppa, not sure if the git is different) Gianfranco 2016-04-05 21:50 GMT+02:00 Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.i

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

Hi, >Okay, I can agree that compat 10 is unnecessery. But still someone >someday will have to do it. probably the maintainer, or you if MIA team orphan the package and you adopt it :) BTW maybe lets wait for compat 10 to become stable and then think about it :) >Sorry, can't locate any

Bug#823140: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-1 -- a deep learning framework [ITP]

Hi, >set(CFLAGS ...) which should be replaced by set(CFLAGS $(CFLAGS) ...) > >An upstream classic unfortunately. as upstream I did this once, and the side effect was something weird. when you run multiple times cmake .. the cflags gets appended multiple times, so you might end up in a really

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

Hi >I do not want to put a pressure on anyone, but if it is the only way >to make big changes to package, let's do it. I could understand that, but 1) lets avoid experimental features 2) lets try to keep changes minimal. I mean, a package refactor might be acceptable if the current packaging

Bug#823140: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-1 -- a deep learning framework [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Ghislain, thanks for the good review! I remember I looked at this package a while ago, so, if you (lumin) can fix what Ghislain pointed out, I'll be happy to do a new reivew and hopefully sponsor :) cheers, G. Il Lunedì 2 Maggio 2016 15:13,

Re: Mass-rebuilding packages

Hi, what I do in this case: reverse-depends -b dh-elpa |cut -f 2 -d " " > list for i in read list pull-debian-source $i pbuilder-dist sid build $i*.dsc (not bash code, but it is trivial to do ;) ) there are tools, but I never tried them :) https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds cheers, G.

Bug#818974: packaging

for now! cheers, G. > Hope this improves things. > > Many thanks, > Rod > > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 17:45 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi, quick answer: > > thanks for the fixes. > > > > > > some quick issues: > > copyri

Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, sorry for the lag >Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without manually relicensing them. I personally don't prefer, because only the author of each patch will be able to forward it

Re: [Mentors] upload via http fails with HTTP 403

the processing starts when the .changes file is uploaded. ftp://mentors.debian.net/ shows it is there now, so just wait for the queue to empty again and reupload. g. Il Venerdì 29 Aprile 2016 16:58, lumin <cdlumin...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 14:43 +, Gian

Re: [Mentors] upload via http fails with HTTP 403

>When it emerges the FTP upload is invalid, I won't receive mail. please read my first email then. g. Il Venerdì 29 Aprile 2016 16:45, lumin ha scritto: On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 16:15 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > > Did you upload the package with the same version number

Re: [Mentors] upload via http fails with HTTP 403

<cdlumin...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 13:53 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > 1) upload *source only* stuff > 2) no dcut is supported > > to fix, just upload -f also the changes file, at this point it will be > processed, the files removed

Re: [Mentors] upload via http fails with HTTP 403

Hi, 1) upload *source only* stuff 2) no dcut is supported to fix, just upload -f also the changes file, at this point it will be processed, the files removed from the queue and you will be able to repush the package. g. Il Venerdì 29 Aprile 2016 15:45, lumin ha

Bug#820407: RFS: smartmontools/6.4+svn4214-1~bpo8+1

Hi, oops sorry! thanks for understanding, G. Il Giovedì 28 Aprile 2016 18:30, Jonathan Dowland ha scritto: Hi Nicholas, On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:31:16PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi, I'm interested in maintaining a backport of this package to > Jessie. The RFS

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

according to db.d.o one maintainer has last action on 2011 and the other since 2014 maybe we can also start a MIA process? G. Il Giovedì 28 Aprile 2016 18:24, Jakub Wilk ha scritto: * Dmitry Bogatov , 2016-04-28, 08:18: > * Bump debhelper compat level (9

Bug#822856: RFS: dvtm/0.15-0.1 NMU

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, I'm unsure about the copyright of: forkpty-* and vt.* can you please doublecheck? I'm also unsure about the versioned debhelper override, who cares? cheers, G. Il Giovedì 28 Aprile 2016 14:21, Dmitry Bogatov ha scritto:

Bug#822722: RFS: tldp/0.7.7 [ITP #822181]

Hi! >Hello again Gianfranco (and lots of cc:), (dropped them, lets keep only the bug) >OK, I'll give that a stab. Do you have any example packages you >know that use this technique already? I could then use a working >one to ensure that I'm using a good model. nope :( nothing comes in

Bug#822722: RFS: tldp/0.7.7 [ITP #822181]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Martin, lets pick up this package! First a general note: I'm truly impressed about your work and your learning curve! Don't be sad for my review, the package works, so I guess the review is about minor issues and nitpicks! >control: reassign

Re: request more advice: lintian warnings and python-tldp + ldp-docbook-stylesheets

Hi, (note: from now on I'll answer to the RFS bug :) ) >OK, great. I called it python3-tldp, given that the preferred >Python support these days for Debian is Python3 (and I'm following >tox and other examples). yep >My package builds and tests against Python2, but I don't plan on

Re: request more advice: lintian warnings and python-tldp + ldp-docbook-stylesheets

Hi Martin, sorry for the lag >>For python-tldp (source) which creates python3-tldp (binary): >Rename the upstream or change the name of the source package in >debian/control to say 'tldp'? just the changelog and control file (Source section) the binary is good called python-tldp >OK. I

Re: Bug#816542: RFS: connman/1.31-0.1 [RC]

control: tags -1 pending control: tags -1 patch Hi, I followed up on 822393 and uploaded a patch on deferred/5. I did also import the new 1.32 release, dropping the two cherry-picks from the upstream git. the patch is the following Index: connman-1.32/src/firewall.c

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi, the packaging seems good now, I would like to ask you a final question: how do you feel about using the same license for debian packaging and upstream? (asking about changing GPL-3+ to MIT). Forwarding patches otherwise would be impossible without a relicense. and the copyright still needs

Re: Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

with a ping to ftpmasters about this issue. cheers, Gianfranco Il Martedì 26 Aprile 2016 23:07, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On Thursday 21 April 2016 10:16:29 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 19 April 2016 08:36:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi, >

Bug#822770: RFS: pidgin-sipe/1.21.0-1 -- Pidgin plugin for MS Office Communicator and MS Lync

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Jakub, can you please explain the changes below (to me or in changelog) -usr/lib/*/purple-2/libsipe.so usr/lib/purple-2 -usr/share/locale/* -usr/share/pixmaps/* -DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS := --enable-purple --disable-telepathy

Bug#822728: RFS: libtcod/1.6.0~pre1+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- graphics and utility library for roguelike developers

Hi Adam, >Sure, can do. I did most of the review already, and if we decide otherwise >wrt 1.6-pre1, can always unset. thanks a lot for that, it helps in avoiding double checking of packages :) and double reviews :D ># Note that 1.6 is bleeding edge and still needs polishing before it can >#

Bug#822728: RFS: libtcod/1.6.0~pre1+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- graphics and utility library for roguelike developers

Hi, some general notes: Adam, do you plan to sponsor the package? in this case can I set you as owner? :) Fabian, why are you trying to package an upstream snapshot? (not asking to package 1.5.1, I'm just wondering about why a new library should eventually enter Debian in a snapshot form)

Re: request more advice: lintian warnings and python-tldp + ldp-docbook-stylesheets

Hi Martin >I would like to get both my new package (python3-tldp) and a revised >ldp-docbook-stylesheets on the conveyor belt into the Debian >universe. ok >After trying to understand the flow of work and the current status >with these two packages, I have come up with the following plan. >

Bug#820733: Package Series

or your invaluable help. thanks to you! Gianfranco Il 13/04/2016 11:59, Gianfranco Costamagna ha scritto: > Hi again, > > stuff to do: > > fix lintian, make a real copyright file, fix flags, fix useless files, > convert the format to quilt... > > come back if you don't know how

Bug#814550: RFS: codecrypt/1.7.3-1 (ITP #814462)

Hi, >This was done roughly for the same reason as with GnuPG, that has the "gpg" >executable. Also I'm not quite a fan of using crypto without reading the >manual >thoroughly :] indeed :) >Anyway, is there some best place (other than documentations) to notify the >users? Possibly create a

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Nicholas, >Yes, I read this for my initial upload. When Gianfranco's requested >fixing piupart's warning I inferred that the manual was out of date >relative to the current/sid standard that piupart was checking for. oops, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. IIRC I asked to

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Christian, >activate update-initramfs do you think it is worth adding to the current NMU or it is better to leave it for a future upload? the change looks good, I think it has no side effects, but I would like to hear another opinion :) G.

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >First of all thank you very much for taking care of me. I had already >given up and left setop behind me. lets recover :) >Is it this one? > >I exactly followed all instructions from >

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

an opinion about what is wrong with this line "if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-initramfs ] && [ -e /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ]" sorry! Gianfranco Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 22:03, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On 15 April 2016 at 09:2

Bug#818974: packaging

files, files are not needed with new autoconf build system. Q: gpvdm source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.6 (current is 3.9.7)- as above A: Fixed. Q: I: gpvdm source: debian-watch-file-is-missing - well, even if you know when you'll make a new release, this is useful for anyway, as there a

Re: Review of firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hi, (just answering the alioth part) https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org this should be the maintainer and the account has to be created on alioth.d.o, and then join the group https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-mozext cheers, G. Il

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >There is no more info about it just as it is public domain, no more >license texts... What to write into paragraph then?? everything is a license, and public domain is a license too. https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License:%20public-domain/page_0 G.

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Still a copyright issue W missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright public-domain (paragraph at line 17) G. Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 21:33, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> ha scritto: On Monday 18 April 2016 19:09:49 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi > > >> 0.0.0~

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi >> 0.0.0~20150420 > >Ok, I change it to that string. as said by Jakub, 0~20150420 is already fine >I do not care about versioning scheme. If there is some convention I >will use it... wonderful >> or ask them to put some sort of versioning, > >I can ask, but I do not expect any change...

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi again >ok, so maybe this might be a question for -mentors.>did you try to make the >debhelper dependency more explicit? >e.g. >= 9.0.whatever > >IIRC some checks were added based on the debhelper version When building programs that handle untrusted data (parsers, network listeners,

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

Hi, >> BTW one single symbol file please>I recommend using the C++ support in >> dpkg-gensymbols to achieve this, >it is better than restricting particular symbols to particular arches >etc. this has to be read as: "one single symbol file that covers every architectures please" anyway,

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >You are looking at wrong file! We do not use Makefile.linux, but >CMakeLists.txt. And then cmake in /<>/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu >directory generate own Makefile, nothing from Makefile.linux. ok, so maybe this might be a question for -mentors. did you try to make the debhelper dependency

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

mmm maybe by doing something lie: 0.0.0~20150420 or ask them to put some sort of versioning, otherwise, how could them notify users about new releases? g. Il Lunedì 18 Aprile 2016 18:36, Pali Rohár ha scritto: And I have another question, how to version this package?

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

(also stormlib needs to have optional priority BTW) > >Files are under public domain. Mark then debian files under public >domain too? yes, if you are fine with that license. it is up to you, not to me :) >I'm not lawyer and really do not know how to check trademark violation >or similar

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi Pali, >Ehm... repacking is ugly! I agree here >Ok, I can ask, but I doubt that upstream will do that. This is windows >project and in windows world is PGP not supported by Visual Studio/MS. >(We can be happy that library working fine under linux with gcc :-)) asking is free :) >

Re: Seeking guidance re assisting with existing Debian package

Hi, MIA team is aware now. If you want to contribute, just send your package (source.changes) to mentors.debian.net and open an RFS bug to have an NMU in debian (the accept mail has a link for the RFS template). fix the RC bug, and the other bugs (optioally update to the new release), and

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

Hi, >source-contains-prebuilt-windows-binary storm_dll/storm.dll >==> Not possible, problem with original upstream tarball you can, google for "debian source" repack. Anyway, since this isn't a license violation, nevermind! >debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature >==> Not possible, upstream

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

Hi >I have no opinion about section. So change it to optional? I think you should >Because this package contains just text files, needed to build reverse >hash table with file names for old mpq archives. There is no need to >depend on something. ok >But package smpq depends on this package.

Bug#821260: RFS: python-adventure/1.4-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 a...@debian.org Hi Markus! >Yes, I would sponsor the package if we can resolve the remaining issues. (setting you as owner, to avoid double reviews by other potential sponsors) thanks for your work, and sorry for the noise! Gianfranco >> The vim comments at the bottom

Re: Ready for review: firefox-branding-iceweasel

Hi, some general nitpicks. You really should team-maintain it https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org should be the right place. licenses in debian/copyright needs to be verbose, not links you have to open an ITP bug, then upload on

Re: ldp-docbook-stylesheets; where to find, how to update

Hi Martin, >I am a Linux Documentation Project (LDP, a.k.a. TLDP) volunteer. *wonderful*! > * Non-Debian TLDP volunteer would like to update a package >ldp-docbook-stylesheets. > * Cannot find source code in Debian lands. > * Request Debian process guidance. non-debian means you

Bug#819395: RFS: stormlib-listfiles/2015-04-20-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo some questisons: std-version section extra? maybe optional? why this package is not depending on anything else? why exclude WOW? license of debian packaging is stricter than the upstream one, you might not be able to forward patches without

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

please also try to fix lintian and symbols http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/stormlib/9.20-1/lintian Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 18:16, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo *too* many embedded lib

Re: Seeking Sponsors for my package - capitan

and you should make it build against the new libpng http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/capitan/1.0.3-dfsg-1/buildlog this should have the needed information https://titanpad.com/libpng16-transistion thanks, G. Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 18:34, Gianfranco Costamagna

Re: Seeking Sponsors for my package - capitan

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, please fix something (all) of what Paul pointed, open an RFS bug and I'll have another look BTW please please depend on libpng-dev instead of libpng12-dev thanks. G. Il Lunedì 28 Marzo 2016 9:28, Paul Wise ha scritto: On

Bug#819394: RFS: stormlib/9.20-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo *too* many embedded libraries, please try to exclude them, or list the copyrights correctly. libtomcrypt libtommath bzip2 zlib lzma std-version is 3.9.8 please update watch file is broken "" needs to be changed static libraries --> why? let

Bug#819396: RFS: smpq/1.5-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo control: block -1 by 819394 Hi, the package looks good. g. Il Venerdì 8 Aprile 2016 13:33, Pali Rohár ha scritto: Hello, I'm still looking for a sponsor for package "smpq" and its dependences. Please look at bug 819396.

Bug#810012: RFS: averell/1.2.4-1 ITP 773793

Hi again, >There is only one binary which is installed with 'dh_install' >Upstream's 'make install' installs the binary in '/usr/local/bin' export prefix=/usr works in rules? I see this in makefile "prefix ?= /usr/local" (I didn't test the above) >Missing authors are from 'erlang.mk' which is

Bug#817949: RFS: niceshaper/1.2.2-1 [ITP]

Hi again, >niceshaper (1.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low *one* single entry. niceshaper (1.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low * Initial foo release closes: bar signature. that's all. >Done. New version of upstream (1.2.2) was created.Overwritable BINDIR variable >is introduced to Makefile, thus

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

know a good way to make it depend on the package providing that file) thanks, in case you have fixes let me know and I'll cancel the upload in deferred and quickly reupload. G. On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:09:06 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi,

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820297 cheers, G. Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 14:53, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: Hi Frederic, still another question: debian/rules.old <-- you might want to drop it a libsphde1 library that has a binary... usually

Bug#814921: RFS: sphde/1.1.0-1 [ITP] -- sphde -- Shared Persistent Heap Data Environment library

Hi Frederic, still another question: debian/rules.old <-- you might want to drop it a libsphde1 library that has a binary... usually libraries are installed by the dependencies, and the binaries are split in separate packages. please try to provide a package with the binary and the manpage,

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

build is failing. http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/icu4j/57.1-1/buildlog Il Venerdì 15 Aprile 2016 14:36, Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> ha scritto: Hi >I've added sections for Google and Unicode Inc. to d/copyright and

Bug#819188: RFS: icu4j/57.1-1

Hi >I've added sections for Google and Unicode Inc. to d/copyright and >uploaded it to mentors.debian.net. Could you please take a look again? >Thank you! still IBM missing. e.g. +/* Copyright IBM Corporation, 1996-2016. All Rights Reserved. */ +// copyright=" Copyright (c) IBM

Bug#820900: RFS: [ITP] python-hashids/1.1.0-1

Hi, >> check-all-the-things and lintian print a number of things that could >> be polished. > >What are you seeing on lintian? I hasn't showed anything besides apt-get install check-all-the-things -t experimental g.

Re: Bug#820879: How to avoid version restrictions for JS libraries (Was: Bug#820879: r-cran-shiny: uninstallable in sid: Depends: libjs-jquery (< 1.11.3+dfsg.0~) but 1.12.3-1 is to be installed)

Hi, I remember having used dh_linktree, but I forgot when and where does this helps? https://codesearch.debian.net/results/dh_linktree/page_0 in the first page there are some examples of fonts linked (the whole directory). HTH Gianfranco Il Mercoledì 13 Aprile 2016 22:10, Andreas Tille

Bug#820543: RFS: python-django-feincms [NMU] [RC]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Chris >I am looking for a sponsor to update the python-django-feincms package. >The package has 3 RC bugs, the earliest dating back to June 2014 (nearly >a year). > before uploading I have some issues to raise. first python-django-tagging needs

Bug#818921: RFS: python-neovim-gui/0.1.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Victor and James! >Upstream released python-neovim-gui_0.1.2. >That depends on python-neovim >= 0.1.6, which I already have packaged >and not uploaded, since python-neovim depends on neovim >= 0.1.3, >currently unreleased git master branch, which is changing. > >We could send the tagged

Bug#820733: Guidelines for sensible package synopsis (was: Bug#820733: RFS: Series/1.0 [ITP] -- Keep track of your favourite TV series)

Il 12/apr/2016 14:28, "Gianfranco Costamagna" <locutusofb...@debian.org> ha scritto: Hi Giorgio > > >http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > >this should help. > > >cheers, > >G. > > >Il Martedì 12 Aprile 2016 13:36, Giorgio Sartore

Bug#820733: Guidelines for sensible package synopsis (was: Bug#820733: RFS: Series/1.0 [ITP] -- Keep track of your favourite TV series)

Hi Giorgio http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers this should help. cheers, G. Il Martedì 12 Aprile 2016 13:36, Giorgio Sartore ha scritto: Hi all, thank you for your hints. I'll update the synopsis as soon as possibile. I know that I've uploaded the source

Bug#820165: RFS: libretro-genesisplusgx/1.7.4+git20160330 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Sergio, the copyright needs a complete rework. BSD-2 BSD-3 BSD zlib/libpng GPL-2 are only some of the missing licenses. please take care of them. sdl looks like an embedded library to me also tremor copyright holders are missing

Bug#807432: RFS: python-jellyfish/0.5.1-1 [ITP]

control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi >I'm quite certain that it is indeed a problem with the README (the >library was initially only available on Python 2, and the README.rst has >not gone through significant changes since then, even if Python 3 >support was introduced around 0.3.2). I'll follow up on

Bug#816192: RFS: proselint/0.3.5-1 [ITP] -- A prose linter

Hi, >Thanks, I will look into it. wonderful feeel free to also reject the new changelog entry >I will revert back again to `python3-proselint` from `proselint`, and >change again the git repo for the tags and pristine-tars, but this >means `proselint` should be dropped from NEW. done, with

Bug#807432: python-jellyfish_0.5.3-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

https://packages.debian.org/sid/python3-jellyfishoops so you have to rename/move it. cheers, G. Il Sabato 9 Aprile 2016 20:20, Debian FTP Masters ha scritto: Version check failed: Your upload included the binary package python3-jellyfish, version 0.5.3-1,

Bug#816192: RFS: proselint/0.3.5-1 [ITP] -- A prose linter

e "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/proselint/command_line.py", line 102, in timing_test for file in os.listdir(corpus_path): FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/corpora/0.1.0' g. Il Sabato 9 Aprile 2016 20:03, Gianfranco Costamagna <cos

Bug#820539: RFS: libretro-desmume [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libretro-desmume licenses are missing e.g. some Expat desmume/src/emufile.* desmume/src/arm_jit.h: GPL (v3 or later) desmume/src/instruction_attributes.h: GPL (v3 or later)

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi, >I've filed a bug and submitted a patch for debian-cd and have>contacted the >maintainers of partman-btrfs links to the updated >package on mentors and to a github repo, because jcristau on >#debian-installer said he preferred pulling from a git repo. How long >should I wait before filing

Re: Git-buildpackage question: tracking upstream git and tarballs

Hi, FYI borgbackup is following that style. cheers, G. Il Giovedì 7 Aprile 2016 17:49, Sean Whitton ha scritto: Hello, On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:25:08PM +0200, Raphaël Halimi wrote: > I'm not sure if this question belongs to -mentors or -devel, so I'll > post

Re: fed (fedit) seeking a linux home

a-1_source.changes: done. Successfully uploaded packages. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: I usually do >dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa > >dput mentors ../packagename_version_source.changes > >this should work. >

Re: fed (fedit) seeking a linux home

I usually do dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa dput mentors ../packagename_version_source.changes this should work. my ~/.dput.cf [mentors] method = ftp fqdn= mentors.debian.net incoming= . login = anonymous I use dput-ng, and I

Bug#820234: RFS: cligh/0.2-4 ITP

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, >Vcs-Browser: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/complexity.git >Vcs-Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/complexity.git please fix please note: std-version is 3.9.8 now. g. Il Mercoledì 6 Aprile

Bug#801262: closing RFS: ppsspp/1.1.1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator

FYI: libpng-dev is now provided by libpng16 in unstable. Transition started a few minutes ago, so I expect some uninstallabilities in the next few days, but ppsspp should become installable by the end of this week. cheers, G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#820196: RFS: dante/1.4.1+dfsg-1 -- new upstream version, packaging updates

damn, I saw debian-policy in deferred/10 or whatever, I wasn't aware it got accepted today :) thanks! >No, this package is still alive and well, it contains the "socksify" tool >that preloads the Dante libraries necessary to run a network program using >a SOCKS proxy - pretty much the main

Bug#820196: RFS: dante/1.4.1+dfsg-1 -- new upstream version, packaging updates

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Peter, changes are huge! lets see: some copyrights are missing # Copyright (C) 1994 X Consortium Radical Eye Software Internet Software Consortium. licensecheck * -r reports lots of missing licenses (BSD-4 as example) while your "other"

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >