-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.6.1rc5-1
of my package nagiosgrapher.
It builds these binary packages:
nagiosgrapher - Charting add-on for Nagios
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these
Hi,
[0] dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nagvis/nagvis_1.1rc3-1.dsc
ping me on monday an i will look into that package.
Greetings
Martin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hello mentors,
In future, I would like to maintain my packages in Mercurial (or git)
repositories. It seams the best place for these to be would be alioth, but
I'm not sure where is the best place -- should I rather request a private
sub-directory or apply for
Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (18/08/2007):
AFAIK, collab-maint does not have git/hg repos. It only has a svn one. If
the package is unlikely to have co-maintainers, then I think it would be
overkill to ask for a dedicated project. You may have more luck with any
related projects (ie, if it
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 01:36:30PM -0400, Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thomas Jollans wrote:
Hello mentors,
In future, I would like to maintain my packages in Mercurial (or git)
repositories. It seams the best place for these to be would be alioth, but
I'm not sure where
On 8/18/07, Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (18/08/2007):
AFAIK, collab-maint does not have git/hg repos. It only has a svn one. If
the package is unlikely to have co-maintainers, then I think it would be
overkill to ask for a dedicated project. You
On 8/18/07, Andres Mejia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/18/07, Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (18/08/2007):
AFAIK, collab-maint does not have git/hg repos. It only has a svn one. If
the package is unlikely to have co-maintainers, then I think it
Hi All:
One of my packages uses the boost headers and distributes them in the
original tarball. I have been modifying the configuration scripts to
ignore the local copy and use the libboost-dev dependency instead. Since
these are headers and not real libraries, would it violate policy for
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Carlo Segre wrote:
One of my packages uses the boost headers and distributes them in the
original tarball. I have been modifying the configuration scripts to ignore
the local copy and use the libboost-dev dependency instead. Since these are
headers and not real
My upstream's copyright statements in source files contain the old FSF
mailing address. I will contact them about this problem but, while
they react should I
a) Faithfully reproduce their copyright statement in the package's
debian/copyright and give wrong information to users, or
b) Use the
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] (18/08/2007):
My upstream's copyright statements in source files contain the old FSF
mailing address. I will contact them about this problem but, while
they react should I
a) Faithfully reproduce their copyright statement in the package's
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:10:39 -0500 (CDT)
Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my packages uses the boost headers and distributes them in the
original tarball. I have been modifying the configuration scripts to
ignore the local copy and use the libboost-dev dependency instead. Since
Carlo Segre wrote:
Upstream prefers to
continue distribution in the tarball and it would avoid having to
continually patch the configuration scripts.
Maybe you could convince upstream of providing a --with-system-boost option
to use either the provided copy or the external ones.
--
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] (18/08/2007):
My upstream's copyright statements in source files contain the old FSF
mailing address. I will contact them about this problem but, while
they react should
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Carlo Segre wrote:
Upstream prefers to
continue distribution in the tarball and it would avoid having to
continually patch the configuration scripts.
Maybe you could convince upstream of providing a --with-system-boost option
to use either the
I appreciate your comments
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:10:39 -0500 (CDT)
Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my packages uses the boost headers and distributes them in the
original tarball. I have been modifying the configuration scripts to
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:24:32 -0500 (CDT)
Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Potential problems:
1. file collisions. Make sure the internal versions are installed as
package-specific libraries, NOT into /usr/lib/ directly.
The boost libraries are simply includes, no binary libraries are
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:24:32 -0500 (CDT)
Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the thing aobut boost, it is not a library but basically a set of
functions taht gets included in your program.
Those functions have to live somewhere. Headers are useless
Rogério Brito wrote:
On Aug 10 2007, Julien Valroff wrote:
Le vendredi 10 août 2007 à 17:32 +1000, Paul Wise a écrit :
That was probably CDBS, not dh_installdocs. I don't think it is a bug,
because not everyone lists the upstream authors in the copyright file.
You are right, but
Rogério Brito wrote:
On Aug 09 2007, Paul Wise wrote:
Some minor issues:
AUTHORS file doesn't need to be installed (debian/copyright covers it)
Actually, some times it doesn't. You can see for yourself in the
xine-lib that I have one contribution of a deinterlacing algorithm and
some
Sorry for the late response.
On 17/08/07, Andres Mejia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/17/07, Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday night I uploaded to mentors a new version of the package.
Changes:
* debhelper files are now generated from templates so the package
version
21 matches
Mail list logo
