Bug#951964: gkrellm-tz: diff for NMU version 0.8-1.1
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 9:44 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 10:04:09PM -0700, Andreas Jimmy Gredler wrote: > >> Thank you so much for taking care of this. Unfortunately I won’t be able to >> maintain this package anymore and was looking into the process of handing it >> over. Please let me know if you would be interested in maintaining it >> yourself. It did not require a lot of work in the past as there were not >> many releases. Otherwise I guess will file an RFA or O request. >> Thanks again. > > thanks, that's fine for me - I am using it and there is not much work > expected with it in the future. I will adopt it and make a maintainer > upload instead. Sorry for the late response, I somehow missed this email in my inbox. I really appreciate that you adopted the package, thank you very much. > What about your other packages? Unfortunately I won’t be able to maintain any of them in the near future :( > If you are looking for someone to adopt gkrellshoot, > I can also adopt that one. That would be great. It’s similar to gkrellm-tz in terms of very few releases so it also should not take up too much time to maintain it. Please let me know if you have any questions about the package. > For comgt I could only offer to submit an RFA or O bug for you. Thank you, I finally found the wiki page that I was looking for so I will probably file an O bug soon. Best, Jimmy
Bug#951964: gkrellm-tz: diff for NMU version 0.8-1.1
> On Apr 6, 2020, at 2:37 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Control: tags 951964 + patch > Control: tags 951964 + pending > > Dear maintainer, > > I've prepared an NMU for gkrellm-tz (versioned as 0.8-1.1) and > uploaded it to DELAYED/14. Please feel free to tell me if I > should cancel it. Hi Adrian, Thank you so much for taking care of this. Unfortunately I won’t be able to maintain this package anymore and was looking into the process of handing it over. Please let me know if you would be interested in maintaining it yourself. It did not require a lot of work in the past as there were not many releases. Otherwise I guess will file an RFA or O request. Thanks again. Best, Jimmy
Bug#821974: comgt: Build arch:all+arch:any but is missing build-{arch,indep} targets
On 11/11/2016 03:31 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Andreas "Jimmy" Gredler wrote... > >> Thank you for the patch. I will review the package to see if I can >> change it to dh-* in time or if it would be better to upload it with the >> patch only. > > Any progress on this? comgt has fallen out of testing in the meantime, > I was glad if it could return in due course. Hi, The package is almost done but I'm also reviewing if the patches mentioned in the other reports should be included or go to upstream. Best, Jimmy
Bug#821974: comgt: Build arch:all+arch:any but is missing build-{arch,indep} targets
On 07/28/2016 04:47 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: > tags 821974 + patch > thanks > > I also recommend switching to dh, but in the meantime, the attached > patch should work. > > Thanks. Hi, Thank you for the patch. I will review the package to see if I can change it to dh-* in time or if it would be better to upload it with the patch only. Best, Jimmy
Bug#792852: gcom: copyright file missing after upgrade (policy 12.5)
On 07/19/2015 04:38 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Package: gcom > Version: 0.32-2 > Severity: serious > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: piuparts > > Hi, Hi Andreas, Thank you so much for your bug report and all the details. [ ... ] > After the upgrade /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE/ is just an empty directory. > > This was observed on the following upgrade paths: > > lenny -> squeeze -> ... [ ... ] > Note that dpkg intentionally does not replace directories with symlinks > and vice versa, you need the maintainer scripts to do this. > See in particular the end of point 4 in > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-unpackphase I tried to find out what caused the problems but the package had a comgt.links file so the symlink should have been created and I'm pretty sure I verified that (but maybe not for lenny->squeeze). Or do you mean that the behavior of dpkg changed and that's why the symlink was not unpacked when using dpkg from squeeze? > But since this has been a transitional package since squeeze, > maybe it is easiest to just drop it and add unversioned Breaks+Replaces > against it to comgt to ensure the buggy package is removed on upgrades. Yes, that sounds like a great plan :) I will prepare a new package and also fix the open bugs. Best, Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
