Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-06-03 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
control: tags -1 moreinfo Setting moreinfo until the blocking bug is resolved. G. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-03-04 Thread Ed Schouten
2016-03-05 8:31 GMT+01:00 Paul Wise : > If there is a dependency between libcloudabi and cloudabi-reexec then > both must be properly packaged and in the archive. > > I recommend you package the whole stack including the toolchain, > runtime library, cloudlibc etc. As explained in bug 814430[1], I

Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-03-04 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Ed Schouten wrote: > Got it. Then I think for now the best thing to do would be to ship > this package without cloudabi-reexec until I can think of an easy way > to fully comply with that. > > I've adjusted the package to discard the cloudabi-reexec executables > th

Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-03-04 Thread Ed Schouten
Hi Paul, 2016-03-04 8:16 GMT+01:00 Paul Wise : > ftp-master policy is that all source code must be present in Debian > and all binaries shipped by Debian must be buildable from that source > using tools in Debian. Got it. Then I think for now the best thing to do would be to ship this package wit

Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-03-04 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Ed Schouten wrote: > My question is, is this all right according to Debian's project guidelines? If > not, is there anything I can do to address this? ftp-master policy is that all source code must be present in Debian and all binaries shipped by Debian must be bui

Bug#816683: RFS: cloudabi-utils/0.8-1 [ITP]

2016-03-03 Thread Ed Schouten
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cloudabi-utils" Package name: cloudabi-utils Version : 0.8-1 Upstream Author : Ed Schouten URL : https://nuxi.nl/ License : 2-clause BSD license Section