rtmpdump_2.2e-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Hi maintainer! librtmp/* seems to be licensed under the terms of the LGPL 2.1+. Please add that to your copyright file. Best regards, Alexander === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our

Comments regarding libebml_1.0.0-1_i386.changes

Hi Maintainer! I'm going to accept your package, but could you please clarify the license of your deian/* files in a succeding upload? I guess you intended to license is under the terms of the GPL (as you refer to the GPL at the bottom of it). Best regards, Alexander

Bug#588554: jamin: diff for NMU version 0.97.14~cvs~81203-3.1

. + * debian/patches/1004_install_correct_dir.patch: Install files into +/usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 (Closes: #588554) + + -- Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:00:24 +0200 + jamin (0.97.14~cvs~81203-3) unstable; urgency=low * Revert to depend (not just recommend

Bug#588554: jamin: diff for NMU version 0.97.14~cvs~81203-3.1

Hi Jonas! Am 15.07.2010 15:34, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: On the contrary: your change is nice - please do upload without delay. Thanks, moved it to the 0-day queue. You are however much encouraged to apply the change directly to our git (debcheckout should work) - it is maintained in

Bug#588554: jamin: diff for NMU version 0.97.14~cvs~81203-3.1

Hi! Am 16.07.2010 14:41, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: You probably just need to use either -a or -u option to debcheckout. Ah, of course, I only did an anonymous checkout. Easiest is probably to start over with a fresh debcheckout. Tried that, now I get an other error:

Bug#588554: jamin: diff for NMU version 0.97.14~cvs~81203-3.1

Am 16.07.2010 15:30, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: We'll push your NMU changes after they emerge as source package in the archive. Thanks for the help, and (again) sorry for wasting your time trying to be even more helpful. No problem. At least I learnt a little bit about git ;) Best regards,

Bug#580120: mediatomb: diff for NMU version 0.12.0~svn2018-6.1

tags 580120 + patch tags 580120 + pending thanks Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for mediatomb (versioned as 0.12.0~svn2018-6.1) and uploaded it to DELAYED/7. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Regards. ___

Bug#580120: mediatomb: diff for NMU version 0.12.0~svn2018-6.1

) + + -- Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:52:21 +0200 + mediatomb (0.12.0~svn2018-6) unstable; urgency=low * Allow mediatomb to build against ffmpegthumbnailer 2.0 library. diff -Nru mediatomb-0.12.0~svn2018/debian/config.xml.dist mediatomb-0.12.0~svn2018/debian

Comments regarding ghostess_20100905-1_amd64.changes

Hi maintainer! I'm going to accept your package, but please rewrite your package description. The only thing I understood from it, is that it does soemthing with music (and even that is atually more a guess). Best regards, Alexander ___

rtirq_20090920-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

As requested by maintainer === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Comments regarding laditools_1.0~rc2+20100724.gitf4d4a2-1_amd64.changes

Hi maintainer(s)! I'm going to accept your package, but our ftp-trainee found a missing copyright holder in your copyright file. Please add him with your next upload: Please add Krzysztof Foltman w...@foltman.com as a copyright holder (for ladiconf). Best regards, Alexander, FTP Assistant

gwc_0.21.13~repack2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

As requested by maintainer === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Re: gwc_0.21.13~repack2-1_amd64.changes is NEW

Am 14.04.2011 01:10, schrieb Alessio Treglia: (new) gwc-dbg_0.21.13~repack2-1_amd64.deb extra debug there is a licensing issue with this package, please drop it. Done. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Comments regarding tetraproc_0.8.2-1_amd64.changes

Hi! Regarding your package description... May I assume that TetraProc converts the A-format signals from a tetrahedral Ambisonic microphone into B-format signals ready for recording. [..] makes sense to those, who are familiar with the topic? I have no idea, what it does (but am most likely also

Comments regarding tetraproc_0.8.2-1_amd64.changes

Hi again! Sorry for the second mail, but I just noticed a sourceless pdf file in your orig tarball: blockdiagram.pdf. As I'm not entirely sure, if the pdf is it's source (I'm note sure, but consider it possible), I would like to ask you to clarify it with upstream, but see no reasen to reject it

Re: vo-aacenc_0.1.0~rc1-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Hi! Am 19.04.2011 08:45, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: while I *highly appreciate* your timely acceptance of the vo-aacenc package (AAC is an MPEG specification after all), I still fail to see why very similar packages like lame are left unattended in the NEW queue for 9 months now! Do you

Comments regarding mp4v2_1.9.1+svn479~dfsg0-1_amd64.changes

Hi maintainer(s)! Please add the license and copyright holder of libplatform/prog/option.cpp to your debian/copyright. Best regards, Alexander ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

rtaudio_4.0.10~ds0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

As requested by alessio === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Comments regarding lv2_1.0.0~dfsg2-1_amd64.changes

Hi maintainer(s)! Just a minor remakr: All the files in the waflib directory contain a pointer to http://waf.googlecode.com/git/docs/wafbook/single.html#_obtaining_the_waf_file. However, that URL just gives a 404. Best regards, Alexander ___