Digital Marketing Proposal

[kumud.rataur]

DearSir\Madam,We are a Social Media marketing agency from New Delhi, India.We 
are a team of 145+ experienced social media professionals who can establish 
your company as a brand.We have been serving US, AUS, UK and Canadian agencies 
since last 3+ years now. We are seeking good business relations with you and 
your company. We love to adopt your best practices and will be happy to provide 
our technical assistance/guidance/recommendations as and when required. We will 
be happy to provide detail quotation/budgeting and proposal. Our technical team 
will support you to WIN project for both of us, technical team will also answer 
technical queries, share references and recommendations with you.We are ready 
to share our portfolio and case studies, if you feel interested.   Take a look 
at our offerings –  Facebook· Facebook a/c Page & Fan Page Set-up·  
   Theme Related Cover Photo· Facebook Groups posting· Facebook 
Likes Twitter· Twitter a/c Set-up· Tweets on profile· 
Background Photo upload according to theme/business· Twitter Followers 
improvement  Linkedin· Linkedin a/c Set-up· Post content on 
profile or company page.· Company page creation· Theme Related 
Cover Photo· Increase the Connections  Google Plus· Google + 
a/c Set-up· Posts content on profiles· Theme Related Cover 
Photo implementation· Increase Followers and Circles  Pinterest·
 Pinterest a/c Set-up· Pinterest Boards creation· Pinterest 
Updates/Month· Followers increment I personally believe “No Project is 
too big or too small”.We will utilize our skills and years of experience to 
maximize your ROI.I am excited to hear from you. Cheers!!  Thanks & 
Regards,Kumud  ___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: hydrogen packaging

[Jaromír Mikeš]

Hi,

2016-11-26 0:15 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
> On 25/11/16 17:15, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> 2016-11-25 17:13 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :

>> If this is ok solution than done.
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2016-August/053680.html
>
> I didn't know about the filter option, but yes that looks like a good
> solution.

Ok ... it is also new for me and I like it ... I think I will adopt it
on many other packages too.

>>> -- d/hydrogen.install
 usr/share/hydrogen/data/img
>>> It seems that the only reason for putting this in hydrogen instead of
>>> hydrogen-data is the SVG icon?
>>
>> Yes
>
> I don't think you should ship the entire data/img directory in the
> hydrogen package just for this. Either only install that one svg and
> move everything over to the -data package, or duplicate the svg since
> it's only 9kB.

Ok ... I thought that icon make sense to be installed in binary package
but as hydrogen package can't be installed without hydrogen-data package
all img dir is now moved to -data package.

Fixed.

best regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: libgig 4.0.0 qsampler 4.2.0 gigedit 1.0.0

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2016-11-25 17:36 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
> On 23/11/16 22:44, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> 2016-11-23 23:14 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
>>> On 23/11/16 22:02, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
 Ok ... fixed now :) libgig builds fine ...
 I also tried build qsampler ... it builds but will need some patch to
 fix search for libgig/SF.h ... quite should be easy
>>>
>>> If qsampler needs a patch, you've done something wrong. Moving the
>>> libraries should have had no affect on other packages (unless they are
>>> actually hard coding the lib path). Why have the headers changed?
>>
>> qsampler search for libgig/SF.h ... till now (with old libgig) it was
>> never found ( it wasn't exist) and qsampler was build without this
>> fuctionality
>> SF.h is new header provided by new libgig 4.0.0 ... and now all header
>> are moved from usr/include/libgig to usr/include/
>>
>> You still think I have done something wrong?
>
> OK I've had another look and I think I understand the confusion here:
> upstream have decided to move the headers from /usr/include to
> /usr/include/libgig without adjusting anything else to cope with that.
>
> Your method would work here, but I think you should ask upstream what
> they want here since changing it later is a PITA. The options are:
>
> All headers in /usr/include, all references to them loose the 'libgig/'
> prefix.
>
> All headers in /usr/include/libgig, all references must have a 'libgig/'
> prefix (including the headers themselves).
>
> All headers in /usr/include/libgig, all references loose the 'libgig/'
> and -I/usr/include/libgig is added to the pkg-config file.

Answer somehow came from upstream itself before posting to him ...
as he reviewed my patch 05-fix-include-dir.patch

> as far as I remember the previous Debian maintainer of libgig, I think he said
> the header files should be bundled in a subdirectory according to Debian
> policies, and the the subdirectory name should reflect the library version
> (i.e. /usr/include/libgig4/gig.h, etc.). The motivation was to be able to
> install i.e. two different versions of the same library (i.e. in this case
> i.e. libgig3-dev, libgig4-dev) which would otherwise cause a file conflict.
> But obviously I am not up to date regarding latest Debian policies.

What would be best from debian point of view?

/usr/include/libgig4/gig.h or /usr/include/libgig7/gig.h

to reflect rather soname than release?

Or just /usr/include/gig.h and not allow two versions installed together?

your opinion James?

best regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: hydrogen packaging

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

On 25/11/16 17:15, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2016-11-25 17:13 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
>> On 25/11/16 00:59, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>> 2016-11-24 23:38 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
 -- d/changelog
> +  * Exclude .gitignore file from upstream tarball.
 Can this be removed now?
>>>
>>> You mean from changelog or removing .gitignore file?
>>
>> Oh I thought you reverted this stuff but I see that you haven't (just
>> removed the ~repack suffix).
>>
>> If you haven't worked out yet, I am of the opinion that repacking an
>> orig tarball for the purposes of making git-buildpackage easier to use
>> is unacceptable.
>>
>> See devref 6.7.8.
> 
> If this is ok solution than done.
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2016-August/053680.html

I didn't know about the filter option, but yes that looks like a good
solution.

>> -- d/hydrogen.install
>>> usr/share/hydrogen/data/img
>> It seems that the only reason for putting this in hydrogen instead of
>> hydrogen-data is the SVG icon?
> 
> Yes

I don't think you should ship the entire data/img directory in the
hydrogen package just for this. Either only install that one svg and
move everything over to the -data package, or duplicate the svg since
it's only 9kB.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: mixxx1.8 but tittle says its 2.0 !!!

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

Please CC the multimedia team on all emails.

On 25/11/16 21:08, snipe wrote:
> snipe@zbuff:~/Transferências/mixxx$ apt-cache policy mixxx
> mixxx:
>   Instalado: 1.11.0~dfsg-4
>   Candidato: 1.11.0~dfsg-4
>   Tabela de Versão:
>  2.0.0~dfsg-4~bpo8+1 0
> 100 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ jessie-backports/main amd64
> Packages
>  *** 1.11.0~dfsg-4 0
> 500 http://ftp.pt.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
> 500 http://httpredir.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64
> Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> snipe@zbuff:~/Transferências/mixxx$ /usr/bin/mixxx -h | head -n1
> Mixxx digital DJ software v1.11.0 - Command line options
> snipe@zbuff:~/Transferências/mixxx$ 

Ok so you have mixxx 1.11 - what exactly is the problem?
"says its 2.0" - where does it say this?

> im trying to compile from the source, mixxx2.0 but i'm stucked here:

This is a completely different question to the one you were asking before.

Why are you compiling mixxx yourself? Mixxx 2.0 is already in
jessie-backports.

[...]
> snipe@zbuff:~/Transferências/mixxx$ sudo scons

Where did you get this source from? If you got it from upstream, ask
there not here. If you got it from Debian, you should build it using
dpkg-buildpackage.

[side note: you should never ever build stuff using sudo]

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Looking for uploader: qstopmotion

[Adrian Knoth]

On 11/25/2016 09:43 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Forgot to mention: please add a signed debian/2.3.2-1 tag now that the
> package has been uploaded.

That's done now. Signed and pushed.


Cheers

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: mixxx1.8 but tittle says its 2.0 !!!

[James Cowgill]

On 25/11/16 18:29, snipe wrote:
> well i m pretty sure !
> 
> please provide me the link for 2.0 to see if its the same

Like I said, there is no 2.0 for jessie - but there is a 2.0 in
jessie-backports, are you referring to this?

Please give the output of:
 apt-cache policy mixxx
 /usr/bin/mixxx -h | head -n1

James

> A Sex, 25-11-2016 às 16:07 +, James Cowgill escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 25/11/16 15:19, snipe wrote:
>>> Mixxx package is wrong version from the real, says its 2.0 but its 1.8
>>> fix please for jessie ! many tks 
>>
>> Jessie doesn't even claim to have Mixxx 2.0 and 1.8 is 6 years old. Are
>> you sure you've got this package from Debian?
>>
>> James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Personal Assitant and Administrative officer needed

[adni9]

Hello,

I'm looking for someone who can handle my business & personal errands
at his/her spare time as I keep traveling a lot. Someone who can offer
me these services mentioned below:

* Mail services (Receive my mails and drop them off at UPS or USPS)
* Shop for Gifts
* Bill payment (pay my bills on my behalf, access to the funds would
be provided by me)
* Sit for delivery (at your home) or pick items up at nearby post
office at your convenience.
*Handling and monitoring some of my financial activities.

Let me know if you will be able to offer me any or all of these
services and 10% of my income weekly would be your weekly payment.


If you will be available for this job position ,send me a confirmation
e-mail and send me your details like complete
name/address/country/state/ city/zip/phone or you could even attach
your resume.I do have a pile up of work and a number of unattended
duties which you can assist me with soon.

Please,note that this job does not require any financial obligation of
any sort from you as I would be catering for all expenses.

I look forward to hear from you.

Sincerely,
Mr.Larry Mark.

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Bug#845419: Removed package(s) from unstable

[Debian FTP Masters]

We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:

zynaddsubfx |2.5.4-2 | armel
zynaddsubfx-dbg |2.5.4-2 | armel
zynaddsubfx-dssi |2.5.4-2 | armel

--- Reason ---
ROM; uses std::future
--

Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a bug.
The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
it).  Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next
dinstall run at the earliest.

Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.

Bugs which have been reported against this package are not automatically
removed from the Bug Tracking System.  Please check all open bugs and
close them or re-assign them to another package if the removed package
was superseded by another one.

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 845...@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at https://bugs.debian.org/845419

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: hydrogen packaging

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2016-11-25 17:13 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
> On 25/11/16 00:59, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> 2016-11-24 23:38 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
>>> On 13/11/16 20:23, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
 2016-11-13 19:20 GMT+01:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> thank you for your time to review this ... more issues than I thought ;)
>>
>>> Here's a review:
>>>
>>> -- d/changelog
 +  * Exclude .gitignore file from upstream tarball.
>>> Can this be removed now?
>>
>> You mean from changelog or removing .gitignore file?
>
> Oh I thought you reverted this stuff but I see that you haven't (just
> removed the ~repack suffix).
>
> If you haven't worked out yet, I am of the opinion that repacking an
> orig tarball for the purposes of making git-buildpackage easier to use
> is unacceptable.
>
> See devref 6.7.8.

If this is ok solution than done.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2016-August/053680.html

>>> -- d/rules
 +   cp data/doc/manual_en.html data/doc/manual_en.html.bak
 +   touch data/doc/manual.docbook data/doc/tutorial.docbook
 $(MAKE) -C data/doc
 touch $@
 +   mv data/doc/manual_en.html.bak data/doc/manual_en.html
>>>
>>> Doesn't restoring manual_en.html defeat the purpose of rebuilding the
>>> documentation?
>>
>> Exactly ...
>
> I was suggesting that you remove the cp and mv.

done!

best regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

liblivemedia 2016.11.17-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Debian testing watch]

FYI: The status of the liblivemedia source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

  Previous version: 2016.11.06-1
  Current version:  2016.11.17-1

-- 
This email is automatically generated once a day.  As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive
later changes on the next day.
See https://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information.

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: libgig 4.0.0 qsampler 4.2.0 gigedit 1.0.0

[James Cowgill]

On 23/11/16 22:44, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2016-11-23 23:14 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
>> On 23/11/16 22:02, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>> Ok ... fixed now :) libgig builds fine ...
>>> I also tried build qsampler ... it builds but will need some patch to
>>> fix search for libgig/SF.h ... quite should be easy
>>
>> If qsampler needs a patch, you've done something wrong. Moving the
>> libraries should have had no affect on other packages (unless they are
>> actually hard coding the lib path). Why have the headers changed?
> 
> qsampler search for libgig/SF.h ... till now (with old libgig) it was
> never found ( it wasn't exist) and qsampler was build without this
> fuctionality
> SF.h is new header provided by new libgig 4.0.0 ... and now all header
> are moved from usr/include/libgig to usr/include/
> 
> You still think I have done something wrong?

OK I've had another look and I think I understand the confusion here:
upstream have decided to move the headers from /usr/include to
/usr/include/libgig without adjusting anything else to cope with that.

Your method would work here, but I think you should ask upstream what
they want here since changing it later is a PITA. The options are:

All headers in /usr/include, all references to them loose the 'libgig/'
prefix.

All headers in /usr/include/libgig, all references must have a 'libgig/'
prefix (including the headers themselves).

All headers in /usr/include/libgig, all references loose the 'libgig/'
and -I/usr/include/libgig is added to the pkg-config file.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: hydrogen packaging

[James Cowgill]

On 25/11/16 00:59, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2016-11-24 23:38 GMT+01:00 James Cowgill :
>> On 13/11/16 20:23, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>> 2016-11-13 19:20 GMT+01:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> thank you for your time to review this ... more issues than I thought ;)
> 
>> Here's a review:
>>
>> -- d/changelog
>>> +  * Exclude .gitignore file from upstream tarball.
>> Can this be removed now?
> 
> You mean from changelog or removing .gitignore file?

Oh I thought you reverted this stuff but I see that you haven't (just
removed the ~repack suffix).

If you haven't worked out yet, I am of the opinion that repacking an
orig tarball for the purposes of making git-buildpackage easier to use
is unacceptable.

See devref 6.7.8.

>> -- d/rules
>>> +   cp data/doc/manual_en.html data/doc/manual_en.html.bak
>>> +   touch data/doc/manual.docbook data/doc/tutorial.docbook
>>> $(MAKE) -C data/doc
>>> touch $@
>>> +   mv data/doc/manual_en.html.bak data/doc/manual_en.html
>>
>> Doesn't restoring manual_en.html defeat the purpose of rebuilding the
>> documentation?
> 
> Exactly ...

I was suggesting that you remove the cp and mv.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: mixxx1.8 but tittle says its 2.0 !!!

[James Cowgill]

Hi,

On 25/11/16 15:19, snipe wrote:
> Mixxx package is wrong version from the real, says its 2.0 but its 1.8
> fix please for jessie ! many tks 

Jessie doesn't even claim to have Mixxx 2.0 and 1.8 is 6 years old. Are
you sure you've got this package from Debian?

James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Bug#845654: libjack0: generated dependencies not tight enough for jack_port_rename

[James Cowgill]

Package: libjack0
Version: 1:0.125.0-1
Severity: serious
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: reassign -2 libjack-jackd2-0 1.9.10+20150825git1ed50c92~dfsg-1
Control: retitle -2 libjack-jackd2-0: generated dependencies not tight enough 
for jack_port_rename

Hi,

The shlib dependencies generated by libjack0 are not tight enough for
packages which use the jack_port_rename API from jack 0.125.0. I've
just seen this when trying to run the new (not yet in unstable) version
of hydrogen on an older system.

Packages using jack_port_rename still get a dependency like:
libjack-jackd2-0 (>= 1.9.5~dfsg-14) | libjack-0.116

If an old libjack (eg from jessie) is installed, reverse dependencies
fail with:
undefined symbol: jack_port_rename

Bumping the version of libjack-jackd2-0 is easy, but bumping
libjack-0.116 is not because it's a virtual package. I think we could
either used versioned provides or have libjack0 provide an two virtual
packages.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Processed: libjack0: generated dependencies not tight enough for jack_port_rename

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> clone -1 -2
Bug #845654 [libjack0] libjack0: generated dependencies not tight enough for 
jack_port_rename
Bug 845654 cloned as bug 845655
> reassign -2 libjack-jackd2-0 1.9.10+20150825git1ed50c92~dfsg-1
Bug #845655 [libjack0] libjack0: generated dependencies not tight enough for 
jack_port_rename
Bug reassigned from package 'libjack0' to 'libjack-jackd2-0'.
No longer marked as found in versions jack-audio-connection-kit/1:0.125.0-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #845655 to the same values 
previously set
Bug #845655 [libjack-jackd2-0] libjack0: generated dependencies not tight 
enough for jack_port_rename
Marked as found in versions jackd2/1.9.10+20150825git1ed50c92~dfsg-1.
> retitle -2 libjack-jackd2-0: generated dependencies not tight enough for 
> jack_port_rename
Bug #845655 [libjack-jackd2-0] libjack0: generated dependencies not tight 
enough for jack_port_rename
Changed Bug title to 'libjack-jackd2-0: generated dependencies not tight enough 
for jack_port_rename' from 'libjack0: generated dependencies not tight enough 
for jack_port_rename'.

-- 
845654: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845654
845655: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845655
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

libyami-utils_1.0.1-1_amd64.changes is NEW

[Debian FTP Masters]

binary:libyami-utils is NEW.
binary:libyami-utils is NEW.
source:libyami-utils is NEW.

Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.

Packages are routinely processed through to the archive, and do feel
free to browse the NEW queue[1].

If there is an issue with the upload, you will receive an email from a
member of the ftpteam.

If you have any questions, you may reply to this email.

[1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Processing of libyami-utils_1.0.1-1_amd64.changes

[Debian FTP Masters]

libyami-utils_1.0.1-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
  libyami-utils_1.0.1-1.dsc
  libyami-utils_1.0.1.orig.tar.gz
  libyami-utils_1.0.1-1.debian.tar.xz
  libyami-utils-dbgsym_1.0.1-1_amd64.deb
  libyami-utils_1.0.1-1_amd64.buildinfo
  libyami-utils_1.0.1-1_amd64.deb

Greetings,

Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

mixxx1.8 but tittle says its 2.0 !!!

[snipe]

Mixxx package is wrong version from the real, says its 2.0 but its 1.8
fix please for jessie ! many tks 


___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

hi greatings

[snipe]

Greatings !

Hope everything else is ok , this package says its 2.0 but its 1.8v
inside tks



___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

[Debian FTP Masters]

Accepted:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:42:47 +
Source: libopenmpt
Binary: openmpt123 libopenmpt0 libopenmpt-dev libopenmpt-doc
Architecture: source
Version: 0.2.7386~beta20.3-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers 

Changed-By: James Cowgill 
Description:
 libopenmpt-dev - module music decoding library based on OpenMPT -- development 
fil
 libopenmpt-doc - module music decoding library based on OpenMPT -- 
documentation
 libopenmpt0 - module music decoding library based on OpenMPT -- shared library
 openmpt123 - module music decoding library based on OpenMPT -- music player
Changes:
 libopenmpt (0.2.7386~beta20.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * New upstream release.
Checksums-Sha1:
 fe8c9dc2e2742a95e27961c841afc5cac024b532 2456 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.dsc
 c02c436ba8201056b5fdd6d11bb0b1e9d68e0003 1267363 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3.orig.tar.gz
 f66ff75f3ad4527e70d391508011429c2c72c989 8156 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.debian.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
 b46bf6edb52ba2b5aeb4d02394fa86c4a37afc46220fdf65f9d1e9b18309bc10 2456 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.dsc
 a6a7e6da1ae66e1cf46985ee92c182e50652d71b96135e9fa6048e132d844753 1267363 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3.orig.tar.gz
 abdc95745886cdc801619ca02cbb839867d3f457d28a2951e9911d1a86857ccf 8156 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.debian.tar.xz
Files:
 c13bda281afe65cccac6c337bc834e12 2456 libs optional 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.dsc
 2180d8a17bc5433e63202dbb92ddb730 1267363 libs optional 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3.orig.tar.gz
 ebdfe83e204bf7e926cda34e4230848e 8156 libs optional 
libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.debian.tar.xz

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=ZDaa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Processing of libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1_source.changes

[Debian FTP Masters]

libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
  libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.dsc
  libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3.orig.tar.gz
  libopenmpt_0.2.7386~beta20.3-1.debian.tar.xz

Greetings,

Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Looking for uploader: qstopmotion

[Michael Stapelberg]

Forgot to mention: please add a signed debian/2.3.2-1 tag now that the
package has been uploaded.

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Michael Stapelberg 
wrote:

> Uploaded.
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Knoth 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:27:56PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>>
>> > Please fix the latter warning about the missing doc-base, though.
>>
>> [x] Done.
>>
>> > It does, but not all flags. Notably, bindnow isn’t enabled by default
>> (but
>> > triggers a lintian warning). Can you test+apply the following change
>> please?
>>
>> [x] Done.
>>
>> >  %:
>> > -   dh $@ --buildsystem=cmake
>> > +   dh $@ --buildsystem=cmake --parallel
>>
>> [x] Done.
>>
>>
>> PTAL
>>
>> --
>> mail: a...@thur.de   http://adi.thur.de  PGP/GPG: key via
>> keyserver
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michael
>



-- 
Best regards,
Michael
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers