Bug#813624: RFS: ismrmrd/1.3.2-2 [RC]

Too late sorry. Although the failure on armhf is for a different reason than all the others. I'll try to investigate where the following error in armhf cames from: fatal error in "test_acquisition_header": memory access violation at address: 0xbec5461a: invalid address alignment Thanks for

Bug#813624: RFS: ismrmrd/1.3.2-2 [RC]

Hi, > Hi, please not it still fails on armhf. I know it was uploaded, this was a typo "please note" not "please not" :) I mean, please look at the build failure left on this arch ;) thanks a lot! Gianfranco

Bug#813624: RFS: ismrmrd/1.3.2-2 [RC]

Hi, please not it still fails on armhf. thanks G. Il Mercoledì 3 Febbraio 2016 20:45, Ghislain Vaillant ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ismrmrd" * Package name: ismrmrd

Bug#813404: marked as done (RFS: groonga/5.1.2-1)

Your message dated Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:38:21 +0900 with message-id <20160205063821.ga22...@lilith.infoblue.home> and subject line Re: Bug#813404: RFS: groonga/5.1.2-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #813404, regarding RFS: groonga/5.1.2-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

public-domain in the debian/copyright

hello mentors lintian say that about one party for my archive by copyright "The files paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references a license, for which no standalone license paragraph exists" but in the manual of the copyright that if license is public-domain "the remaining lines

Re: Bug#813215: RFS: ripit/4.0.0~beta20140508-1

* Elimar Riesebieter [2016-01-30 14:56 +0100]: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ripit" > > * Package name: ripit >Version : 4.0.0~beta20140508-1 >Upstream Author :

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

solved thanks 2016-02-04 11:41 GMT-02:00 Gianfranco Costamagna < costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it>: > Hi, does this helps? > https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License%3A%20public-domain/page_0 > > > cheers, > > G. > > > Il Giovedì 4 Febbraio 2016 14:37, Gustavo S. L. ha >

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

Hi, does this helps? https://codesearch.debian.net/results/License%3A%20public-domain/page_0 cheers, G. Il Giovedì 4 Febbraio 2016 14:37, Gustavo S. L. ha scritto: hello mentors lintian say that about one party for my archive by copyright "The files paragraph in the

Bug#813489: RFS: libhinawa/0.7.0-1 [ITP]

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:46:01PM +0900, HAYASHI Kentaro wrote: > libhinawa (0.7.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium Close ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/813474 > * Team upload. You are listed as Uploaders: field, so "Team upload" line is not needed. See: https://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload --- >

Test suite needs script built after dh_auto_test is run

Hello, I'm packaging a Python application, ocrmypdf [1], that has a test suite run by py.test. Most of the tests fail because they try to call the /usr/bin/ocrmypdf script. This script doesn't exist until after debhelper has run setup.py, which generates it using its "entry points script"

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

+++ Gustavo S. L. [2016-02-04 11:37 -0200]: > hello mentors > > lintian say that about one party for my archive by copyright "The files > paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references a license, for > which no standalone license paragraph exists" Right. I hit this recently for

RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "setop": * Package name: setop Version : 0.1-1 Upstream Author : Frank Stähr * URL : * License : GPL-2+

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

2016-02-04 14:50 GMT-02:00 Wookey : > +++ Gustavo S. L. [2016-02-04 11:37 -0200]: > > hello mentors > > > > lintian say that about one party for my archive by copyright "The files > > paragraph in the machine readable copyright file references a license, > for > > which no

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

"Gustavo S. L." writes: > Thanks Wookey, > I did this: "License: public-domain > No license required for any purpose; the work is not subject to copyright > in > any jurisdiction. > " What Lintian is trying to do (maybe not phrased as well as possible) is to prod you into

Re: public-domain in the debian/copyright

"Gustavo S. L." writes: > I did this: "License: public-domain > No license required for any purpose; the work is not subject to copyright > in > any jurisdiction. > " That's merely an assertion. The policy for declaring “public-domain” specifies that the paragraph needs to