Re: "License": public-domain

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:18 +0100 Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >Le 14 sept. 2017 9:45 AM, "Narcis Garcia" a >écrit : > >>In my humble opinion, Lintian should mark a warning when detecting >>this. This could make some developers and/or packagers to

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017, Breno Leitao wrote: >I am just doing a final review for the sponsor, and I found something >that annoys every developer, it seems that pragha does not re-builds >after an initial build. > >It builds fine for the very first time, but if you try to re-build, the >directory

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

On 10 Oct 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >On Fri, 06 Oct 2017, Breno Leitao wrote: >> >>This means that your clean rules is not cleaning everything that was >>generated during the build process. > >I'll prepare a new version with that fixed. Hi, Breno, Lukas

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >You seem to have missed to incorporate all the NMUs of >bash-completion... (atleast they where not part of the >debian/changelog) Is there any reason why you did not include those >changes? No reason, other than sheer inexperience. :) I'll look

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

load the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pragha/pragha_1.3.3-1.dsc Regards, Gabriel F. T. Gomes

Re: Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

Breno, Lukas (CC) pointed out some problems [1] with the packaging of Pragha. For instance, the fact that I did not open a RFS properly. I should have sent the RFS message to sub...@bugs.debian.org, not to #592985. This is a proper RFS (I think I got it right this time). :) [1]

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

Hi, Lukas, Thanks for the new round of reviews. You're making me learn a ton. :) On 24 Sep 2017, Lukas Schwaighofer wrote: >On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:15:41 -0300 >"Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabr...@inconstante.eti.br> wrote: >> >> In that same message [1], you sugg

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bash-completion" * Package name: bash-completion Version : 1:2.7-1 Upstream Author : Bash Completion Maintainers * URL :

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

Hi, Lukas, Thanks again for the explanations. You are a good professor! :) On 25 Sep 2017, Lukas Schwaighofer wrote: >If you want to keep using git-buildpackage, I'd suggest you do the >following: > >Add a file debian/gbp.conf with the following contents and commit it: >=== >[DEFAULT]

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

Hi, Andreas, Does this new version correctly addresses your concerns about the missing NMUs? (And are there any other NMUs which I might have failed to find?) Thank you, Gabriel On 23 Oct 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >On 10 Oct 2017, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > >>You seem to

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On 10 Oct 2017, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >You seem to have missed to incorporate all the NMUs of >bash-completion... (atleast they where not part of the >debian/changelog) Is there any reason why you did not include those >changes? Won't your updated version conflict with packages who now >ships

Re: Changes coming with VCS for Debian packaging (was: Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA])

On 30 Dec 2017, Ben Finney wrote: >"Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabr...@inconstante.eti.br> writes: > >> Not really. If I understood it correctly, anonscm.debian.org is >> alioth, which was being decomissioned when I started to work on >> this. > >The n

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On 22 Dec 2017, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >As promised, here's my review. Thank you! ^^ >The first thing I did was to "gbp >clone" your repository and build it locally. After that, I ran: > > lintian -EI --pedantic bash-completion_2.7-1_amd64.changes > >And noticed a few things worth

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On 29 Dec 2017, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >On Friday, December 29 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >> On 22 Dec 2017, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> >Yeah, that's right. I'm still using git.debian.org for my packages, >but I should change that as well. I changed to the

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On 29 Dec 2017, Vincent Blut wrote: >With this release, you can close #847971 too. ;-) Oh, great! :) I added this information to the changelog so that the bug gets closed automatically (I also resubmitted to mentors). Thanks. pgpvgCnbJ0Prk.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Changes coming with VCS for Debian packaging (was: Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA])

I have more updates to this RFS, which: - Fix most lintian warning (pedantic) [*]. - Fix a new bug report (just mark it as fixed, really) [1]. - Update debhelper version to 11. The new commits are in the repository [2]. The new package is on mentors [3][4]. I'm still looking for a

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA] (was: Changes coming with VCS for Debian packaging)

On 03 Feb 2018, Juhani Numminen wrote: > >Quick note regarding debian/rules (which I only read online). >https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bash-completion/blob/unstable/debian/rules > >debhelper(7) manpage tells me that autoreconf is enabled by default >since compat 10, which means that "--with

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On 05 Feb 2018, Juhani Numminen wrote: >I think you will also need to clean up the generated file, e.g. put it >into debian/clean. Indeed. All these changes are now pushed as: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bash-completion/commit/1bbccc5353cbe2bb85bc9f487a632cace01c8aa9 As usual, the file at

Re: Changes coming with VCS for Debian packaging (was: Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA])

On 31 Dec 2017, Andrew Shadura wrote: >On 30 December 2017 at 15:08, Gabriel F. T. Gomes ><gabr...@inconstante.eti.br> wrote: >> >> 2. Even though I read the discussions about salsa on debian-devel, I >> still do not know how to name the repository. When browsing th

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

The repository for the packaging of bash-completion is now hosted on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bash-completion/ The latest commit is not on the master branch, but on https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bash-completion/commits/unstable Mentors has been updated with a new build:

Re: Changes coming with VCS for Debian packaging (was: Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA])

On 02 Jan 2018, Andrew Shadura wrote: > >On 2 January 2018 at 02:17, Gabriel F. T. Gomes ><gabr...@inconstante.eti.br> wrote: >> >> When I created the repository in my own server, I named the >> repository bash-completion-debian.git. When I cloned it to >&

Help with removal of conffiles

Hi, mentors, I need help with the removal of obsolete conffiles in bash-completion. I think I understood what to do, but since I don't know how to reproduce the problem, I'm uncomfortable with the change. Below, I give a long description of the problem (feel free to skip it if it sounds

Re: Create repository under Debian workspace on Salsa

On 26 May 2019, Adam Borowski wrote: >On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:42:09PM -0300, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >> >> I suppose cloning it to Debian/ with the same name would be allright. > >Done. Thank you! ^^

Create repository under Debian workspace on Salsa

Hi, mentors, I'm working on a new package and I would like it to be under the Debian workspace on Salsa, but I don't have the rights to do it. Could someone do it for me? The project currently resides in: https://salsa.debian.org/gabrielftg-guest/pveclib I suppose cloning it to Debian/ with

Bug#930709: RFS: pveclib/1.0.1-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Hi, mentors, I have filled the RFS template below, but I have a few words beforehand. 1. I know we are under the freeze, so I was a bit wary to send the RFS now. On the other hand, I didn't actually find anything saying that I should wait for

Bug#930709: RFS: pveclib/1.0.1-1 [ITP]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:48:06 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > > Heck, just seconds ago, the package got uploaded with: > Maintainer: Gabriel F. T. Gomes > keyid: FD9CE2D8D7754B78AB279BBD2C3B436FEAC68101 > and I'm pretty sure that key EAC68101 is not yours. Hahaha, it to