Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors
I am looking for a sponsor for my package ethstatus:
* Package name: ethstatus
Version : 0.4.4
Upstream Authors : Gabriel Montenegro johnpetru...@users.sourceforge.net
* URL :
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
As part of the upcoming SpatiaLite transition am I looking for a sponsor for
my package freexl.
Please refer to the thread on debian-gis@ for more information on this
transition:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
As part of the upcoming SpatiaLite transition am I looking for a sponsor for
my package readosm.
Please refer to the thread on debian-gis@ for more information on this
transition:
Thanks for your help.
Gitorious watch service will be nice on alioth, but I don't know if is possible.
Anyway, I will try to contact upstream gitorious team, to add this feature.
Best regards.
--
Cordialement,
Blanc Pierre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
for the geoip-database package I would like to add a watch file. The
problem is: there are no real releases, so I am manualy monitoring the
required files.
Is it possible to get the upstream version of the remote file based on
it's modified tag? e.g.:
Hi,
I did sponsor this package but have two remarks:
1. I see no real point to choose *-0.3 as version number (instead
of say *-0.1)
2. I'd be in favoud of maintaining the package in collab-maint.
Kind regards and thanks for your work on this
Andreas.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at
Your message dated Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:59:54 +0200
with message-id 525e8dca.4040...@xs4all.nl
and subject line Upload sponsored
has caused the Debian Bug report #726512,
regarding RFS: freexl/1.0.0f-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Your message dated Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:59:52 +0200
with message-id 525e8dc8.50...@xs4all.nl
and subject line Upload sponsored
has caused the Debian Bug report #726514,
regarding RFS: readosm/1.0.0b+dfsg1-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. I have split it into
separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. This saves
around 100 MB when deploying to a fresh server. Could someone check it and
approve
Is my understanding correct, in that the upstream author needs to add
the OpenSSL exception to the upstream license before I can package?
I tried twice to contact upstream to add that exception, but didn't get
any response:
https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen/issues/36
Does that mean, the package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Richi Lists ricu...@gmail.com schrieb:
Or can I add the excpetion myself, assuming since the author chose to
link agains openssl, he is ok with it?
Definitely not. Upstream did not link against it - you do that.
- -nik
-BEGIN PGP
On 10/16/2013 10:21 AM, Dominik George wrote:
Richi Lists ricu...@gmail.com schrieb:
Or can I add the excpetion myself, assuming since the author chose
to link agains openssl, he is ok with it?
Definitely not. Upstream did not link against it - you do that.
The upstream README on GitHub
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I can see where this might not be enough to allow adding the license
exception without an explicit statement from upstream, but at least to
my eye, it does seem to contradict the notion that upstream did not
link against [OpenSSL].
Maybe
On 10/16/2013 11:08 AM, Gert Wollny wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I can see where this might not be enough to allow adding the
license exception without an explicit statement from upstream, but
at least to my eye, it does seem to contradict the notion that
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:44:50PM +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
Hi,
for the geoip-database package I would like to add a watch file. The
problem is: there are no real releases, so I am manualy monitoring
the required files.
Is it possible to get the upstream version of the remote file
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:18:20PM +0200, Richi Lists wrote:
Is my understanding correct, in that the upstream author needs to add
the OpenSSL exception to the upstream license before I can package?
... which also requires consent of all copyright holders
I tried twice to contact upstream to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Gert Wollny gw.foss...@gmail.com schrieb:
The real issue is, who linked the binary that gets distributed, and
therefore, who has to comply with the GPL, and this is not the upstream
author. To rephrase Dominik's comment: Upstream did not link
Hello,
On 16/10/13 17:27, Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:44:50PM +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
Hi,
for the geoip-database package I would like to add a watch file. The
problem is: there are no real releases, so I am manualy monitoring
the required files.
Is it possible
Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de writes:
That said, I my personal opinion is that doing the above is plain
nonsense from a FOSS point of view, and if upstream's intention is to
produce open software, they have to respond to the license issue.
Unfortunately, upstreams don't necessarily see it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org schrieb:
Dominik George n...@naturalnet.de writes:
That said, I my personal opinion is that doing the above is plain
nonsense from a FOSS point of view, and if upstream's intention is to
produce open software, they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks Andreas:-)
1. Unless I missed something, mentors.debian.net forces subsequent
uploads to have the version incremented. So that would mean doing it
right first time!
2. Good idea. I will start the process right away.
Regards,
Ross
On
Your message dated Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:24:00 +
with message-id e1vwtta-0002ns...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: gramps/3.4.1-0.3 [NMU]
has caused the Debian Bug report #719920,
regarding RFS: gramps/3.4.1-0.3 [NMU]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:24:00 +
with message-id e1vwtta-0002ng...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: nlopt/2.3+dfsg-2 [RC]
has caused the Debian Bug report #717822,
regarding RFS: nlopt/2.3+dfsg-2 [RC]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 2013-10-16 at 18:02:14 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
1. Unless I missed something, mentors.debian.net forces subsequent
uploads to have the version incremented. So that would mean doing it
right first time!
it's not mentors that forces it, it's dput: if the package hasn't
been uploaded to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2013 08:04 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
On 2013-10-16 at 18:02:14 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
1. Unless I missed something, mentors.debian.net forces
subsequent uploads to have the version incremented. So that
would mean doing it right
Your message dated Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:23:33 +
with message-id e1vwf7v-xv...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: libsfml/2.1+dfsg-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #721369,
regarding RFS: libsfml/2.1+dfsg-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
26 matches
Mail list logo
