Bug#734611: RFS: libfixbuf/1.4.0 ITP -- Implementation of the IPFIX protocol

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package libfixbuf: * Package name: libfixbuf Version : 1.4.0-1 Upstream Author : Brian Trammell, Dan Ruef, Emily Ecoff * URL :

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fuseloop * Package name: fuseloop Version : 1.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Johny Mattsson * URL : https://github.com/jmattsson/fuseloop * License : BSD

Bug#734611: RFS: libfixbuf/1.4.0 ITP -- Implementation of the IPFIX protocol

Hi, Quoting Wookey (2014-01-14 01:59:22) +++ Johannes Schauer [2014-01-08 15:41 +0100]: I am looking for a sponsor for my package libfixbuf: OK. Looks sound to me. thanks for looking at it! A couple of minor points: You might want to include a watch file for new upstream releases. I

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 06:51:13) * I had to modify the hardening patch to get fuseloop to build, modified patch is attached. I think you forgot to attach your patch but notice that after informing upstream of the issue, they fixed it for fuseloop 1.0.2 which is

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 08:51:02) Sorry, that I forgot to attach it. Please find it attached in this email. thanks! What problem does that patch fix? The only differences in comparison to my patch that I can make out are: 1) you add -lpthread but `pkg-config --libs

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Hi, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 10:36:11) Actually what happens implicitly (at least on Ubuntu precise) is: $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $^ -o $@ which causes the compilation to fail, because the -l... should be after the object files (or source files in this case). Ah funny,

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Hi, Quoting The Wanderer (2014-01-22 15:14:34) Do things still work fine in Debian when using ld.gold (by installing the binutils-gold package) rather than ld.bfd? I know there's an important difference in ld.gold related to --as-needed (or possibly to - --no-as-needed, I don't recall

Bug#735182: RFS: fuseloop/1.0.1-1 ITP -- loopback mount using FUSE

Hi Ahmed, Quoting أحمد المحمودي (2014-01-22 08:52:43) At the end of the README it says to use mountlo, but there isn't such a utility in Debian. there is also no such utility in other distributions it seems. After some digging I found out that mountlo is a utility which uses fuse and a minimal

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package vcmi Package name: vcmi Version : 0.95-1 Upstream Author : Micha³ Urbañczyk

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-03-18 23:58:19) [I don't intend to sponsor this package. Sorry!] dont worry, I'm happy for any help that can improve my packaging! :) We don't have ³ or ñ in the Polish alphabet. :-P It should be: Michał Urbańczyk. Please update debian/copyright accordingly. Oh

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi Jakub, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-03-23 20:11:17) I don't think that the “After installing this package, …” instructions belong in the package description. I'd rather put them in README.Debian. Personally I didnt find myself reading README.Debian after package installation very often. I read

Re: Build-Deps

Hi, Quoting Daniel Lintott (2014-06-01 00:00:03) I've had a look at dose-builddebcheck, but this doesn't seem to have an option for running on a single package. dose-builddebcheck is what you are looking for and it can check a single package by using the --checkonly option. cheers, josch --

Re: Build-Deps

Hi, Quoting Daniel Lintott (2014-06-01 00:15:09) Okay... In fairness I haven't tried that as yet... But the option doesn't appear to mentioned in the manpage [0]. [0]

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pdf2htmlex * Package name: pdf2htmlex Version : 0.11+ds-1 Upstream Author : WANG Lu coolwan...@gmail.com * URL : http://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX *

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, wow, thanks a lot for looking into this! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 20:59:44) fix-spelling seems to be mainly about fixing the use - as minus sign in manpage... Could split the patch into two, one for hyphens, another for actual spelling mistakes? okay. Done. More typos I found:

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 23:48:15) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-07-11, 21:33: How did you find them? I ran codespell but that didnt find the ones you found. I read carefully the source code. :-) (I admit that vim's spell checking helped me a bit.) I just

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 11:50:39) It would guard against the possibility of losing source. But it could still happen that compatibility.js and compatibility.min.js versions (in /usr/share/pdf2htmlEX/) don't match. okay. Indeed that's undesirable. Is the non-minified version

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, wow, amazing that you are still investing your time in improving my packaging - thanks a lot! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 18:24:26) I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned is whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package. Indeed. I missed

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi again, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-13 20:24:00) Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a Debian directory Oops, I missed it. (Wouldn't it make sense to

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 00:26:09) uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs. I don't believe this is the case. And the .orig.tar you uploaded to mentors certainly contains debian/: indeed, you are right! I fixed it and the upstream tarball now comes without

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 21:21:15) Now --download-current-version is broken: $ uscan --download-current-version --destdir . uscan warning: In debian/watch no matching hrefs for version 0.11 in watch line https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/releases

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 09:46:58) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-07-17, 08:31: What do we do about debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle until #753772 is fixed? Ignore it or create an override? Either way works for me. okay then I'll leave

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 13:36:47) export HOME=`mktemp --dry-run` This sets HOME literally to `mktemp --dry-run`. I think you wanted to say: export HOME=$(shell mktemp --dry-run) oh shoot it's not shell, it's make... while that method will surely also yield a nonexistant home

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-19 23:38:14) Your d/copyright says: Files: * Copyright: 2012 WANG Lu coolwan...@gmail.com Shouldn't it be s/WANG Lu/Lu Wang/? The latter seems to be the spelling used in the code. upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me.

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-26 18:35:23) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-07-26, 12:37: upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me. Perhaps also update patch headers? Done. I used the (fairly incomplete) testsuite of pdf2htmlEX to run a DEP-8

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-28 23:08:11) I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked source tree. I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc --- schroot sid-amd64-sbuild` Both invocations

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-01 22:31:46) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-07-30, 07:24: I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked source tree. I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-04 23:03:54) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-08-02, 09:33: I'm not familiar enough with the kind of disaster that may happen when linking C++11 compiled code to C++98 libraries Crashes, I suppose. I also do not see any advised fix or how

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-18 16:55:20) I saw your package in mentors.debian.org and it has several Lintian messages. IMHO, to get a sponsor you must, at least, clear your package removing all possible messages. which Lintian messages are you referring to? There is one pedantic

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto Mota (2014-08-19 14:29:34) Hi Johannes. Thanks for your reply. sorry for my late reply but I was at the Debian Bootstrap sprint in Paris over the weekend and am moving to Sweden tomorrow, so I'm a bit tight on free time right now :) I understand your POV.

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Dariusz Dwornikowski (2014-08-23 11:04:09) Thanks for your work, but I think that your package should go to contrib, because in order to work it needs HoMM game, so it depends on something non free [1]. Installation instruction from upstream's web page clearly state that you

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi Eriberto, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-24 07:09:20) Thank you for elaborating on this and sorry for my dismissive last message. Ok. I just want help you. If you let me do it I will be grateful. your help is very much appreciated! My packaging can only get better with your help :) At the

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, iyou dropped the ITP bug as a recipient - was that intended? In case it was I only quoted the small part below. I hope that's okay? Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-25 16:01:36) 2014-08-24 17:22 GMT-03:00 Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de: But vcmi itself is GPL-2+ and both resources agreed

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-08-29 17:02:35) On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: the upstream of fuzzylite relicensed from apache 2.0 to LGPL 3.0 with the release of fuzzylite 5.0 (but not the versions prior to that). So if upstream should upgrade their copy

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-08-29 17:47:10) On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: Would this solve the license incompatibility between fuzzylite (apache 2.0) and vcmi (gpl2+)? Yes because the latest version (5.0) of fuzzylite (LGPLv3) is compatible with vmci (GPLv2

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Eriberto (2014-08-29 17:08:37) 2014-08-29 12:02 GMT-03:00 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: Please ask vmci upstream to remove the embedded copy of fuzzylite and depend on the system version. https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies I thought about it too. This is the best

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.95-1 [ITP]

Hi, Quoting Eriberto (2014-09-02 13:52:11) vcmi (GPL-2+) with fuzzylite (Apache 2.0) can't be distributed from upstream. It is the problem. IMHO, you can't make a -dfsg version because the source code is 'improper', can't be distributed. These two emails suggest otherwise:

Re: How to resolve circular build dependency?

Hi, Quoting Ole Streicher (2014-09-13 15:20:36) Am 13.09.2014 um 15:09 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo: On Sep 13, 2014 3:01 PM, Ole Streicher debian-de...@liska.ath.cx wrote: - the casacore needs the casacore-data package for unit tests - the casacore-data needs casacore to be build from the

Bug#766833: RFS: fuzzylite/5.0+dfsg-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fuzzylite * Package name: fuzzylite Version : 5.0+dfsg-1 Upstream Author : Juan Rada-Vilela * URL : http://www.fuzzylite.com/cpp/ * License : LGPL3 Section :

Bug#742077: vcmi will start using fuzzylite 5.0

Control: block -1 by #761075 Everybody rejoice \o/ Juan Rada-Vilela, the author of fuzzylite agreed to port the parts of vcmi that used the old fuzzylite to fuzzylite 5.0. He now finished his work and I submitted his patch to vcmi upstream: https://github.com/vcmi/vcmi/pull/45 According to one

Bug#742077: RFS: vcmi/0.97+dfsg-1

Hi, I just packed a new upstream release and am still looking for a sponsor :) Vcmi is a GPL2+ reimplementation of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game engine. It works with the (proprietary) assets from the original game CDs as well as with the GOG.com version. This is the third vcmi release I

Bug#766833: RFS: fuzzylite/5.0+dfsg-1 [ITP]

Hi Stephen, Quoting Stephen Kitt (2014-11-04 00:41:57) I've taken a look at the package and it seems fine, apart from the two points remaining from your exchanges with Jakub: * the hard-coded paths in src/Console.cpp * the spelling/grammar errors Regarding the latter, I prefer ... method

Re: Big data is needed for unit test

Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2014-12-01 17:03:39) Should I simply remove this test, or can I include the data file in the package ? Can you include more details about this data file? What data format is the file in? depending on the answer to this question it might be very simple to compress

Re: Re: Big data is needed for unit test

Hi, Quoting Corentin Desfarges (2014-12-02 17:29:12) Can you link to the file we are talking about? With the authorization of the responsibles of the project, I published the file here [2] [2] http://goo.gl/53sAzM this looks a bit weird. I guess this google thing allows you to inspect the

Re: not installed and installed , where they store?

Hi, Quoting Mohsen Pahlevanzadeh (2015-05-10 05:53:17) When i use : grep ^Status: /var/lib/dpkg/status , Unfortunately , i only get Status: install ok installed how sure are you of that? Did you just look at the first few hundred or did you really find all unique values? Try: grep

Re: why dpkg-buildpackage doesn't care my build targets in debian/rule

Hi, Quoting lumin (2015-05-22 06:31:34) override_dh_auto_clean: cp ./debian/my/Makefile.config.cpuonly ./Makefile.config dh_auto_clean # without following line the the source tree # would be not clean. Hence

Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home

Hi, Quoting Daniel Stender (2015-07-19 17:52:16) I'm looking for a convenient way to test build source packages against resp. on hurd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64 instead of setting up simple end user Qemu boxes and build within them. Sbuild and qemu-debootstrap somehow? there seems to be this:

Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home

Hi, Quoting gregor herrmann (2015-07-20 10:14:12) cowbuilder and qemu-debootstrap work for me (with armhf and armel, haven't tried with other architectures): http://info.comodo.priv.at/blog/cowbuilder_crossbuilds_for_raspbian.html The linked article

Re: Build on hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 ... at home

Hi, Quoting gustavo panizzo (gfa) (2015-07-21 08:05:47) On 2015-07-20 16:34, Johannes Schauer wrote: crossbuilding is not equal to native building. I think Daniel was looking for a way to test if their packages build natively on hurd-i386 or kfreebsd-amd64. But crossbuilding from linux

Re: conditionally require dependency

Hi Nico, Quoting Nico Schlömer (2015-10-24 20:04:19) > In [MOAB](https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/), we (optionally) depend on > a rather new version of the [Metis](https://packages.debian.org/sid/metis) > package, and that's what's enforced in our debian/control, too. I cannot see any

Re: conditionally require dependency

Hi Nico, Quoting Nico Schlömer (2015-10-26 00:47:54) > particularly those which have been released a while ago and are closed > to adding now packages now. packages can be added via backports. > > - if you were talking about a *build* dependency, then you can generate > these > > before

Re: Sbuild doesn't pick experimental over unstable

Hi, Quoting Daniel Stender (2015-07-10 09:32:19) The problem is, I can add experimental as extra repository (--extra-repository), but the dependency solver won't pick over the package in Sid and always pulls 1.9.0 [1]. Is this the way it's mend to work? Is there a way to cheat this? the

RE:Sbuild doesn't pick experimental over unstable

Hi, Quoting PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel (2015-07-10 10:54:20) Is it possible to configure this per chroot in order to avoir passing this command line each time ? No. But if bug #790354 (with patch) gets resolved, then you will able to pass a custom configuration file which you can then use to set

Re: don't use sbuild --dist/-d and other sbuild stuff (was: Re: Questions before my first upload attempt)

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-08-31 16:02:38) > * Johannes Schauer <jo...@debian.org>, 2015-08-31, 15:53: > >>From now on, "sbuild --dist sid --arch amd64 path/to/my.dsc" works. > > > >It must be mentioned that a common problem with sbuild is, that the

don't use sbuild --dist/-d and other sbuild stuff (was: Re: Questions before my first upload attempt)

Hi, Quoting Danny Edel (2015-08-21 13:43:41) > On 21/08/15 13:21, Danny Edel wrote: > > Once sbuild is setup > > Just to clarify. In this use case (using sbuild as close to buildd as > possible), the steps labeled "for personal use" in > https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild#Configuration > are *not*

Re: +dfsg extension with Files-Excluded: in d/copyright

Hi, Quoting Sebastiaan Couwenberg (2015-09-01 12:13:07) > Add the repacksuffix option, e.g.: > > version=3 > opts=\ > dversionmangle=s/\+dfsg//,\ > uversionmangle=s/$/+dfsg/,\ > repacksuffix=+dfsg \ > http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/FTP/software/lheasoft/fv/ \ > fv(.+\..+)_src\.tar\.gz > is the

Re: +dfsg extension with Files-Excluded: in d/copyright

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-09-01 12:22:22) > See #748465. Some people abuse debian/copyright for excluding files for > reasons unrelated to DFSG... so am I for my packages. The simple reason: just running "uscan" to check, download and repack upstream sources is just too simple and convenient

Re: "not-binnmuable-all-depends-any" problem exists for Multi-Arch: foreign, too?

Hi, Quoting Christoph Biedl (2015-09-30 08:25:50) > Personally, I'm not happy about adding extra magic to version numbers > to identify binNMUs and would rather introduce a way to define a range > of version numbers a package satifies, like in > > | Version: 5.25-3+b1# upper bound >

Re: "not-binnmuable-all-depends-any" problem exists for Multi-Arch: foreign, too?

Hi, Quoting gregor herrmann (2015-09-30 18:24:22) > The last thing I heard about versioned Provides is that not all pieces of the > infrastructure support it yet. (wanna-build or something was missing). > > I'd be more than happy to hear if this is all fixed by now. dose3 (which is used to

Bug#814859: RFS: runescape/0.1-1 [ITP] -- Set in a fantasy world of war, landscapes and sinister powers

Hi, On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:16:06 -0200 Carlos Donizete Froes wrote: > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape is it me or did the package vanish from mentors.debian.net? How

Re: debian/control: Multi-Arch: no

Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-02-11 15:16:01) > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:20:14AM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > libcdk5-dev was rejected by ftp-masters because > > it has 'Multi-Arch: no' on debian/control. > You could just omit the field, no need to use the explicit "no". While this

Re: Mass-rebuilding packages

Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2016-05-02 08:37:49) > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > Thanks for the responses, all. > > Another one is ratt (rebuild-all-the-things). > > I wonder if some of these should be merged together or removed. from this thread I gather that there are

Re: sbuild “Failed to fetch source files”

Hi, Quoting Ben Finney (2016-04-21 04:17:02) > I am using ‘sbuild(1)’ successfully for some packages. For one package, > though, I'm getting an error I don't understand: The source package is not > found by Sbuild. > > One version finds the source package correctly: > > = >

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Hi Paul, Quoting Sean Whitton (2016-08-03 06:20:26) > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:06:31PM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Sometimes a user gets a sbuild chroot so screwed up that it does not > > work anymore, and the user has no idea how to fix it, because he does not > > know what he did wrong. >

Bug#834262: RFS: pdfrw/0.2-3 [QA] -- PDF file manipulation library

Hi Sean, Quoting Sean Whitton (2016-08-13 23:30:54) > Changes since the last upload: > > * QA upload. > * Drop "Conflicts:/Provides:/Replaces: pdfrw" lines (Closes: #814289). > The pdfrw binary package is long gone and was never part of a release. > This fixes co-installing

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-08-05 09:49:11) > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:42:27AM -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Before I was getting a different error complaining > > that debfoster does not exist under "testing". BTW why does debfoster fail > > to exist under testing? > Because it was

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Hi Paul, Quoting Paul Elliott (2016-08-05 21:28:25) > OK this time I deleted the recommended files as before, but I noted there > were no other chroots in use. So I purged both sbuild and schroot with > apt-get and reinstalled. note that purging sbuild and schroot will not remove the chroots.

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

Hi Jordan, Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2017-02-17 11:11:35) > >I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into > >collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore. > > > lets review: > a) PAPT seems more appropriate > b) "alot (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=medium" > this

Re: How do you delete a sbuild an sbuild chroot and start over?

Hi, Quoting Paul Wise (2016-08-03 12:41:28) > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > The main issue here is, that it is not clear *where* the bug should be > > filed. > > Sbuild supports multiple backends. The probably most used one is the sch

Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?

Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-18 09:09:09) > Johannes Schauer wrote: > > [the need for Javascript] should be reported as a bug against the tracker. > > Submitted as > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838178 > and subscribed to it.

Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?

Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-17 17:51:16) > I saw the mouseover text "Toggle details", but the click only brought me to > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs# > because i have Javascript disabled. that should be reported as a bug against the tracker. Without Javascript, the default

Re: Multiarch hinter on package tracker: Shall i obey ?

Hi, Quoting Thomas Schmitt (2016-09-17 16:00:28) > i am preparing the Debian package for a new upstream release of libisofs > and see on its tracker page > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs > a new "action needed": > > "Multiarch hinter reports 1 issue(s)" > > The link points to >

Re: Writing outside of build dir

Hi! Quoting Christian Seiler (2016-11-26 01:30:59) > On 11/26/2016 01:59 AM, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > Could you point me to this policy? I'd like to learn more, but haven't > > been able to find it. > I just checked and it really isn't in there. Oh. This is odd. I just reported #845715 to

Re: Debian privacy policy

Hi, Quoting Ole Streicher (2016-11-17 10:11:42) > Paul Wise writes: > > AFAICT we don't have an official statement about this, but: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2008/02/msg00060.html [...] > > Is there a reason why it is not there? I guess because nobody wrote a

Re: Best GPG practices before sending computer to maintenance.

Hi, Quoting Charles Plessy (2016-11-12 06:06:13) > the laptop that I use mainly for Debian development will go to hardware > maintainance tomorrow. I will of course remove my .gnupg folder, but out of > curiosity I wonder if there are better practices. The mass storage is a SSD > that I am not

Bug#837798: RFS: libcgicc/3.2.16-0.1 NMU --

Hi, Quoting Thomas Pircher (2016-09-14 20:21:14) > Changes since the last upload: > >* Non-maintainer upload. >* New upstream release (closes: #833081, #811988, #798624, #645616). I once made a similar mistake in one of my packages and just listed all the closed bugs without writing

Re: What option should I now use to do source only builds

Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2017-03-18 08:53:21) > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 08:22:36AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > So just as with sbuild I don't see why anybody would want to *only* build > > the > > source package inside a chroot. Since the source package is the *input*

Re: What option should I now use to do source only builds

Hi, Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2017-03-18 07:58:56) > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 07:25:32AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > James Clarke wrote in https://bugs.debian.org/853886#10: > > > > > > "For source-only builds, I don't understand why you would want to > > > perform the build in a chroot.

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

Hi Ben, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-04-21 14:44:52) > How is this going? thanks a lot for the ping! > Jordan, have you made more changes that should be released? > > Johannes, are you waiting on any changes before you approve and upload > this package? Jordan and I were writing each other

Re: Request for sponsor for Runescape

Hi Carlos, Quoting Carlos Donizete Froes (2017-07-23 09:44:10) > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runescape" version 0.2 > > To access further information about this package: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/runescape > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/runescape the debdiff

Re: SBuild: Post-build fails to fetch some packages

Hi Ben, sbuild maintainer here. In these cases you can always file a bug but lets see if we can solve this here. Quoting Ben Finney (2017-07-01 13:08:17) > Andreas Moog writes: > > > Your sbuild-environment has outdated mirror information. For example > > the current

Re: SBuild: Post-build fails to fetch some packages

Hola, Quoting Ben Finney (2017-07-02 02:57:25) > > Secondly, just using --upgrade will do nothing unless you also --update the > > chroot. > That seems like a bug; why would ‘--upgrade’ silently do nothing? I > would think it should either complain that it's useless, or implicitly > turn on

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

Hi Jordan & Simon, Quoting Jordan Justen (2017-04-24 10:00:32) > On 2017-04-21 10:04:39, Jordan Justen wrote: > > On 2017-04-21 06:12:21, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > Quoting Ben Finney (2017-04-21 14:44:52) > > > > Jordan, have you made mo

Re: Sbuild & lxc problems

Hi Ross, sbuild maintainer here. :) Quoting Ross Gammon (2017-06-23 21:18:13) > I mainly use pbuilder/cowbuilder to build my packages, but I would > really like to try using the tool from pkg-ruby-extras, because I am > told it is very good for test building reverse dependencies and also > runs

Re: Cross-compiling a package that build-depends on Python

Quoting Łukasz Walewski (2018-02-05 21:19:27) > On 03.02.2018 14:23, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > All Build-Depends are treated as host architecture by default. In this > > case, it seems very likely that python is a build tool so you > > (implicitly) requested python for the wrong architecture.

Bug#1031284: RFS: wl-mirror/0.12.2-1 [ITP] -- output-mirroring tool for wlroots-based Wayland desktops

Hi Ferdinand, in #1012684 Antoine Beaupré said they'd be happy to sponsor you. Did They already contact you about that? Quoting Ferdinand Bachmann (2023-02-14 16:41:49) > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > >dget -x >

Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.

Hi Aidan, On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:52:26 +0100 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > I see you added this tool to the list of similar tools on the wiki so you > at least know about that list. So how is your tool better than other tools > on that list, or at least than the ones packaged in Debian? > Please