Bug#810536: RFS: roxterm/3.3.2-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the latest version of my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.3.2-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net

Bug#806898: RFS: roxterm/3.3.1-1

On 08/12/15 14:05, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 01:59:56PM +, Tony Houghton wrote: I must remember to change the level in my lintian options as well as fixing I believe (because I have a pbuilder hook that runs lintian for me, I rarely run it manyally) just dumping the

Bug#806898: RFS: roxterm/3.3.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the latest version of my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.3.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net

Bug#803395: RFS: roxterm/3.2.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Vicent and/or other potential sponsors, I am looking for a sponsor for the latest version of my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.2.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL

Bug#796261: RFS: roxterm/3.1.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Vicent and/or other potential sponsors, I am looking for a sponsor for the latest version of my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.1.5-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL

Bug#795298: #795298 RFS: roxterm/3.1.3-1

Oops, please wait until I change it to 3.1.4-1. I overlooked the appdata file in #795217. It contains some outdated content so I need to change it upstream.

Bug#795298: #795298 RFS: roxterm/3.1.3-1

On 12/08/15 19:39, Tony Houghton wrote: Oops, please wait until I change it to 3.1.4-1. I overlooked the appdata file in #795217. It contains some outdated content so I need to change it upstream. OK, 3.1.4-1 is ready now. The dget command is now: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian

Bug#795298: RFS: roxterm/3.1.3-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.1.3-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License

Bug#792200: closed by Vincent Cheng (Re: Bug#792200: RFS: roxterm/3.0.2-1)

Hi, I got emails saying that roxterm 3.0.1-1 and then 3.0.2-1 were uploaded and the RFS bugs closed (the latter on 13 July), but the latest version showing up in the archives is still 2.9.5-1. Has something gone wrong with the upload? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists

Bug#792200: RFS: roxterm/3.0.2-1

: 3.0.2-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+ Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: roxterm- Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - binaries roxterm-data - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

On 08/07/15 07:09, Vincent Cheng wrote: NameError: name 'reload' is not defined debian/rules:48: recipe for target 'override_dh_auto_clean' failed Oh, I didn't notice reload was python 2 only. And setdefaultencoding doesn't work any more in python 3 anyway. However, I was able to build you

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

On 07/07/15 09:21, Vincent Cheng wrote: UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc3 in position 836: ordinal not in range(128) debian/rules:36: recipe for target 'override_dh_auto_build' failed I've attached the full build log. I think the problem is that the PC you tried the bu

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

On 04/07/15 22:29, Vincent Cheng wrote: (If you have time, please upload an updated package to mentors so it's easier to discuss any further changes.) I've done that, hopefully it will be available by the time you read this. The Breaks/Replaces I've decided on are as follows: Package: roxterm

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

On 04/07/15 10:19, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: My thinking is that anybody still using roxterm-gtk2 has some good reason to do so and will not want to upgrade to a GTK3 version even if it means missing out on the latest features and bug fixes

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

On 02/07/15 21:09, Vincent Cheng wrote: Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Control: owner -1 ! Hi Tony, On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Tony Houghton wrote: I thought I had released 2.9.6-1 and 2.9.7-1 via sponsorship too, but for some reason the current version in unstable is still 2.9.5-1. Is the

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

On 02/07/15 20:49, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Tony, Sorry, just saw your roxterm RFS and realized that I actually never got back to you with your latest set of questions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: That won't cause problems due to the reversed dependencies

Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

On 17/06/15 04:56, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: What I found was that if roxterm-gtk3 is installed, but not roxterm (the old virtual package), dist-upgrade doesn't install the new roxterm package. I was expecting the 'Replaces: roxter

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

On 17/06/15 04:56, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > What I found was that if roxterm-gtk3 is installed, but not roxterm (the old virtual package), dist-upgrade doesn't install the new roxterm package. I was expecting the 'Replaces: rox

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

On 15/06/15 08:19, Vincent Cheng wrote: If these changes are inevitable, it's really up to you as to when you want to make them happen (I'd suggest that doing them early in the release cycle is better than later, however). I think these changes sound fine in principle, although a debdiff would c

Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) roxterm (virtual

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

On 10/06/15 12:53, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Tuesday 09 June 2015 17:22:30 Tony Houghton wrote: Depending on its size, it may be better to keep roxterm-common: this package is arch:all and this would avoid duplication these data for each arch. IIRC I was thinking of doing that a long time ago

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) roxterm (virtual

Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

I've decided to discontinue support for legacy libraries in roxterm and concentrate on GTK3 and vte-2.91 and I want to simplify the packaging because of this. The current/old version has these binary packages: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2,

Bug#771361: RFS: roxterm/2.9.5-1

On 29/11/2014 00:18, gregor herrmann wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:35:02 +, Tony Houghton wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". I have also posted an unblock request which is #771358. Should I merge these two "bugs"? Please add the requested

Bug#771361: RFS: roxterm/2.9.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". I have also posted an unblock request which is #771358. Should I merge these two "bugs"? * Package name: roxterm * Version : 2.9.5-1 * Upstream Au

Bug#762011: RFS: roxterm/2.9.4-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm * Version : 2.9.4-1 * Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.3-1 (was 2.9.1-1)

retitle 756634 RFS: roxterm/2.9.3-1 thanks On 08/08/14 09:48, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: Except that wasn't working for me, it said it was incompatible with source format 3.0 (Quilt) (see above). Or was it specifically my regex or synta

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

On 07/08/14 09:27, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Tony Houghton wrote: retitle 756634 RFS: roxterm/2.9.2-1 thanks I think I've managed to fix the build now so that the debian package can be built repeatedly. Most of the changes are upstream so there is a new ve

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

retitle 756634 RFS: roxterm/2.9.2-1 thanks I think I've managed to fix the build now so that the debian package can be built repeatedly. Most of the changes are upstream so there is a new version. Please use the new link: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_2.9.2-1.ds

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

On 04/08/14 21:58, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Tony Houghton wrote: On 04/08/14 07:11, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Eriberto Mota wrote: - Allow the content modification of the po/roxterm.pot. To make it, create the file debian

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

On 04/08/14 07:11, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Eriberto Mota wrote: - Allow the content modification of the po/roxterm.pot. To make it, create the file debian/source/options with this content[1]: extend-diff-ignore = "^po/roxterm.pot$" I did that, but I get th

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

On 04/08/14 07:11, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Eriberto Mota wrote: 1. Update DH from 7 to 9. Thanks for the feedback. I'm not quite sure what that bit means though. Do I just need to update Build-Depends to debhelper (>= 9)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-

Bug#756634: RFS: roxterm/2.9.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm * Version : 2.9.1-1 * Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL

Bug#739089: Subject: RFS: roxterm/2.8.2-1

from http://roxterm.sourceforge.net Changes since the last upload: * Re-enabled deprecated background options for now. A few people were upset about these options being disabled so I decided to keep them enabled until a vte without ther support arrives, or is about to arrive, in Debian. Reg

Re: Bug#735598: marked as done (RFS: roxterm/2.8.1-1)

Thanks for sponsoring it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140118142157.427e1...@realh.co.uk

Bug#735598: RFS: roxterm/2.8.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm * Version : 2.8.1-1 * Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2+

Add debug files to existing packages or add -dbg packages?

ROXTerm is going to need a new release soon and I'd like to include debugging symbols. It currently has binary packages roxterm-common (data files), roxterm-gtk3 (executables linked with GTK3 etc) and roxterm-gtk2 (linked with GTK2 etc). Should debugging symbols always be put in separate -dbg packa

Bug#710835: RFS: roxterm/2.7.1-1

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:09:46 -0300 Eriberto wrote: > Hey! Your package has lintian warnings. Please, see http://bit.ly/lintian > > You must add a message about transition from experimental to unstable > in debian/changelog. I suggest: "Uploaded to unstable", because > lintian will search by "to u

Re: Bug#710835: RFS: roxterm/2.7.1-1

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:09:46 -0300 Eriberto wrote: > Hey! Your package has lintian warnings. Please, see http://bit.ly/lintian > > You must add a message about transition from experimental to unstable > in debian/changelog. I suggest: "Uploaded to unstable", because > lintian will search by "to u

Bug#710835: RFS: roxterm/2.7.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my updated package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.7.2-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License

Bug#704494: RFS: roxterm/2.7.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my updated package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.7.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License

Re: Getting involved as a maintainer

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:02:44 -0300 Saulo Moraes wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to contribute with Debian, I am a professional developer but > will be better to start working as a maintainer. After check the "Debian > Packages that Need Lovin'" I have choose the "samsung-tools" as my first > expe

Re: Changelog etiquette for upstream patches

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:03:50 -0500 Ryan Kavanagh wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 03:54:24PM +0000, Tony Houghton wrote: > > As both the upstream and Debian maintainer for roxterm I'm unsure what > > to do about documenting a patch that was submitted

Changelog etiquette for upstream patches

As both the upstream and Debian maintainer for roxterm I'm unsure what to do about documenting a patch that was submitted by someone else to the upstream tracker. I've applied the patch upstream but don't know the best way to credit the author in debian/changelog. Include his name? Not his email ad

Migrating from experimental to unstable

Suppose I have a new version of my package available and I upload it to experimental during a freeze. After the freeze I'd like that new version in unstable, but I haven't made any changes in the meantime. Is there a migration process from experimental to unstable, or is it normal to bump the debia

Re: Bug#670176:

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:27:15 +0100 Nick Andrik wrote: > The problem is that I ran dput yesterday but the package dis not > appear in my packages on mentor (I didn't even receive an email). > I guess it got stuck somewhere in the incoming queue. > I read somewhere that it takes 6 hours to get unstu

Easy bugfix for roxterm: should it go into wheezy?

A bug has been found in roxterm: . I wouldn't consider it a high priority but the fix is very trivial, just adding a single line of code. Should I release this for wheezy? If so, how do I go about it? Should I open a debian bug and give it a certain prior

Bug#678552: RFS: roxterm/2.6.5-1

Pinging this. I guess it may already be too late to avoid some of the extra work needed to get it into testing after the freeze though :-(. On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:59:27 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > >

Bug#678552: RFS: roxterm/2.6.5-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.5-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net License : GPL2+

Re: How to build a source tarball that includes symbolic links?

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:19:05 +0200 David Lindelöf wrote: > As a *really temporary* workaround, is there a way I could have the > build system copy over the files to their proper locations, just for > building the package? And then delete them and reinstate the symbolic > links? Yes, in a Makefile

Re: How to build a source tarball that includes symbolic links?

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 05:42:56 +0200 David Lindelöf wrote: > The source of my project includes symbolic links to other source trees > (notably, the CppUTest framework and a library used by several of our > projects). When I call `dpkg-buildpackage` to build a debian package > out of my project, I've

Bug#674961: RFS: roxterm/2.6.4-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.4-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+

Bug#671651: RFS: roxterm/2.6.3-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.3-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+

Re: Bug#669401: RFS: roxterm/2.6.2-1 (was 2.6.1-1)

/r/roxterm/roxterm_2.6.2-1.dsc On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:03:13 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" > > * Package name: roxterm > Version : 2.6.1-1 > Upstream Author : Tony Houghton > URL : http

Bug#669401: RFS: roxterm/2.6.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.6.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton URL

Re: Can't upload to mentors.debian.net

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:52:47 +0200 Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > Le 18/04/2012 à 17:20, Tony Houghton écrivit : > > I can't upload my package (roxterm) to mentors.debian.net. [Snip] > You can also poke support@m.d.n if the upload still fails (the files are > gone, so it

Can't upload to mentors.debian.net

I can't upload my package (roxterm) to mentors.debian.net. I've set up my .dput.cf as suggested at . If I use the HTTP method I get "403 Forbidden" as soon as it tries to upload the .dsc file. The FTP method has partially succeeded but always times out (

Best use of bug tracker for a complicated situation

I maintain roxterm. The source package of that name generates a number of binary packages: roxterm-common, roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 and roxterm (a virtual package depending on roxterm-gtk3). A user has reported 2 bugs with slightly different symptoms, one for roxterm-gtk2 and one for roxterm-gtk

Bug#661389: RFS: roxterm/2.5.3-1 (was 2.5.2-1)

The latest version of this package is now 2.5.3-1: * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.5.3-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2+, LGPL-3+ Section : x11 It builds these binary packages

Bug#661389: RFS: roxterm/2.5.2-1

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:11:30 + Tony Houghton wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" > > * Package name: roxterm >Version : 2.5.2-1 It

Bug#661389: RFS: roxterm/2.5.2-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm" * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.5.2-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-

Re: RFS: quickrdp

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:42:23 +0100 Tobias Eliasson wrote: > On 01/30/2012 12:13 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > > The default value for "Locale telnet/Perl/SSH executable" dialogs > > appears to be "gnome-terminal". (??!) > It launches a terminal for launching the actual executable. It's not > rest

Re: RFS: nbc (2.5 th try)

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:32:46 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Slavko wrote: > > >   Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] > >  * URL             : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] > >  * License         : [fill in] > > Try reading your emails before

Re: RFS: roxterm 2.4.2-1 (was 2.4.1-1)

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:52:58 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Unfortunately there is still one missing build-dep: librsvg2-bin. I > have uploaded 2.4.2-1 with this fixed, please fix it in your > repository as well :) OK, I've corrected that my end too. Thanks a lot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb

Re: RFS: roxterm 2.4.2-1 (was 2.4.1-1)

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:12:41 +0100 Tobias Frost wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2012, 13:30 + schrieb Tony Houghton: > > > The debian packaging and upstream are in one repository and I didn't > > want the contents of the release tarball to be inconsistent with >

Re: RFS: roxterm 2.4.2-1 (was 2.4.1-1)

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:16:15 +0800 Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/05/2012 01:33 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > > Unfortunately I just discovered a bug in the Build-Depends stanza, > > so please ignore version 2.4.1-1 and upload 2.4.2-1 instead. > > > If that's an is

RFS: roxterm 2.4.2-1 (was 2.4.1-1)

Unfortunately I just discovered a bug in the Build-Depends stanza, so please ignore version 2.4.1-1 and upload 2.4.2-1 instead. I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.4.2-1 Upstream Author : Tony Hought

RFS: roxterm 2.4.1-1

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.4.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-2+ Section : x11 It builds th

Re: preserving user changes while managing configuration files

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:53:14 +0100 Dennis van Dok wrote: > On 23-11-11 10:27, Joseph Gunn wrote: > > > A popular way of accomplishing the task is to support > > "configuration subdirectories" > > > > It includes all "configuration files" in that directory. If you > > publish a name that you wil

Re: leechcraft (closes ITP bug, 33 days have passed)

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:23:06 +0200 Boris Pek wrote: > > This seems to be a bit excessive. There is no real use in having > > many tiny packages for every function; please keep in mind that > > this will make the Packages index even larger (which also affects > > users that do not even have the p

Re: Alternative dependencies

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:23:41 +0200 Michael Tautschnig wrote: > [...] > > Build-Depends: xsltproc | xmltoman | xmlto, docbook-xsl | xmltoman > > | xmlto > > This would be a correct rewrite to CNF, but ... > > > Or would it be better to choose one and stick to that for the sake > > of consistency

Alternative dependencies

What should you do if you have a dependency which can either use one package or two (or more) different packages. For example, roxterm's man pages can be built either with xmltoman, xmlto or xsltproc, but xsltproc additionally requires docbook-xsl. I don't think control file syntax supports groupin

Control file Vcs fields

I'm a bit confused about the Vcs fields in Control files. Many projects have the upstream code and debian packaging maintained separately and I'm not entirely sure what you're supposed to do with the Vcs fields in that case. Should they point to upstream or the packaging? How can tools, such as deb

Re: berlios closing; where should my projects escape to?

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:02:04 -0500 Paul Elliott wrote: > Perhaps this is offtopic, but there are so many packagers here, > perhaps I can find an answer. > > Berlios is closing, I have two small projects, GPLed, that use > subversion and publish tarballs, where should I go? > > I looked at sourc

Re: dh --parallel (was: Re: RFS: lebiniou)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:40:43 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Tony Houghton wrote: > > I think writing build scripts in a language like python is very nice > > (autoconf is too slow, let's use python, spot the irony :)) but I've >

Re: dh --parallel (was: Re: RFS: lebiniou)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:06:00 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Tony Houghton wrote: > > > I agree, but there's another big problem: autoconf. It runs far more > > tests than most projects need (especially when using glib which > > t

Re: dh --parallel (was: Re: RFS: lebiniou)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:02:04 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:31:06PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > You might want to use dh --parallel. > > I really wonder why it's not debhelper's default. I understand, it > can break old packages with buggy makefiles, but it'd be nice to

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:37:04 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Tony Houghton writes: > > >> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". > > Done. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:26:51 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:59:04 +0100 > Tony Houghton wrote: > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". > > > > * Package name: roxterm > >Version : 2.2.1-1 >

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:59:04 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". > > * Package name: roxterm >Version : 2.2.1-1 Hold that, I discovered corruption in the GtkBuilder definitions after release (looks like vi fi

RFS: roxterm (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.2.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-2+ Section : x11 It builds th

Re: mentors.debian.net moved to new hardware

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 01:08:33 +0200 Arno Töll wrote: > our (not so) old host running http://mentors.debian.net was replaced > right before by shiny new hardware. For you, as user you shouldn't > hopefully notice the switch. The new hardware is much more powerful and > has plenty of disk space. Hen

Re: Rejected experimental package (was Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package))

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:45:48 +0200 Arno Töll wrote: > No need to do. I already fixed that a few days ago [1]. However I didn't > merge our master branch to live (i.e. the deployment branch) yet. OK. Please post again when you do so I know when I can try again to upload roxterm. -- To UNSUBSCRI

Rejected experimental package (was Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package))

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:28:19 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > I think releasing to experimental would be the best option at the > moment, so I'll upload a new version later. I tried that and my package was rejected by m.d.n: You are not uploading to one of those Debian di

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:44:03 +0200 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Kan-Ru Chen , 2011-09-14, 11:29: > >> > >>That is, more or less, what's happening, so I'll move the bug to > >>libvte9. In case that takes a long time to fix should I manually > >>override the dependency? > > > >Yes you can, just put the

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

Sep 2011 10:23:05 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Tony Houghton writes: > > > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:36:54 +0800 > > Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > > > >> You sure you want to upload to unstable, right? Asking because it > >> was previously uploaded to experiment

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:36:54 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Hi Tony, > > You sure you want to upload to unstable, right? Asking because it was > previously uploaded to experimental. I think so, yes. I didn't really intend to send the previous version to experimental and wanted to go back to unstabl

RFS: roxterm (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.1.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL-3+ Section : x11 It builds th

experimental or unstable

The last release of roxterm went to experimental instead of unstable. TBH I forgot that I'd changed it to experimental at some point, but after release I thought perhaps it's just as well because of the major changes. However, I think this has resulted in few users noticing the new version and I th

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:47:15 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Tony Houghton writes: > > > Yes, this is a known bug (#632403) and that's the main reason I'm still > > providing a gtk2 package too. As soon as it's uploaded I'll mark the > > bug as af

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:12:30 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > Does roxterm-gtk3 have any functionality -gtk2 doesn't have? Unlike > QT/GTK, there isn't a big difference there and I quite fail to see > the reason to have both. It's a library rather than support for a > whole environment, you need to

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:50:46 +0800 Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > Only one problem when I tested the package. The gtk3 version, the > terminal window shrinks its width when I try to move it around. I don't > know if it's because of my window manager (awesome) or it also appears > on other environment. If y

RFS: roxterm (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "roxterm". * Package name: roxterm Version : 2.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-3 Section : x11 To access further i

Re: Solving lintian warnings for multi-package roxterm

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:51:11 +0100 Tony Houghton wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:41:33 +0200 > David Kalnischkies wrote: [Snip] > I'd rather keep the name "roxterm" for the GTK3 version if that's OK. > I don't really want the main package to be named aft

Re: Solving lintian warnings for multi-package roxterm

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:41:33 +0200 David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:39, Tony Houghton wrote: > > package too, eg to roxterm-gtk3. In the latter case would adding > > "Replaces: roxterm" cause it to automatically replace roxterm at > > apt-ge

Re: Solving lintian warnings for multi-package roxterm

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:30:55 +0300 "Andrew O. Shadoura" wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:19:44 +0100 > Tony Houghton wrote: > > > roxterm-legacy: binaries compiled and linked with GTK2 > > roxterm: binaries compiled and linked with GTK3 > > roxterm-common:

Solving lintian warnings for multi-package roxterm

I've split roxterm in to three packages: roxterm-legacy: binaries compiled and linked with GTK2 roxterm: binaries compiled and linked with GTK3 roxterm-common: All the other files roxterm-legacy and roxterm Conflict with each other and both depend on roxterm-common. I've got 3 lintian warnings:

Re: Using dh to build >1 binary package with different configure options

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:53:32 +1000 Karl Goetz wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:40:34 +0100 > Tony Houghton wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure I once read something about how to get a single > > source package to build multiple binary packages from the same > > source

Using dh to build >1 binary package with different configure options

A new release of roxterm is in the pipeline. I've made a lot of changes, mostly to replace libglade with GtkBuilder and to get it to work with gtk3. I'd ideally like to call it version 2 and have the clear distinction that version 1 was for gtk2 and version 2 is for gtk3. However, I suspect a lot o

  1   2   >