Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "transcriber"
* Package name: transcriber
Version : 1.5.1.1-8
Upstream Author : Transcriber Team
* URL : http://trans.sf.net/
* License : GPL-2+
Program
Paul Wise writes:
> I am not sure which version numbers you are referring to but the API
> version number should be part of the .pc file name (for example GTK+ has
> gtk+-2.0.pc and gtk+-3.0.pc) but the ABI version number should not
> be. The version number of the library is usually not the same
I am not sure which version numbers you are referring to but the API
version number should be part of the .pc file name (for example GTK+
has gtk+-2.0.pc and gtk+-3.0.pc) but the ABI version number should not
be. The version number of the library is usually not the same as
either of the API/ABI ver
This may be an upstream type question, but because I
do the *autotools type stuff for libswe, (even though I
I don't touch the actual source,) I thought I would ask
this question.
should the .pc file name depend on the version number of the
library? That is for version 1.80.00.x of libswe should
Dear future maintainer,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:41:32PM +0200, Richard Sellam wrote:
> * Package name: phabricator
>Version : 0.1~git20130909-1
As discussed on IRC, you probably want to use 0.0~... or 0~... as the
start of the version number.
Some other comments:
1. Your des
Your message dated Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:24:33 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: pgrouting/2.0.0-1 [ITP] -- basic routing
functionality support for PostgreSQL
has caused the Debian Bug report #724670,
regarding RFS: pgrouting/2.0.0-1 [ITP] -- basic routing functionality support
f
Control: owner -1 !
On 2013-09-27 22:10:41, Hendrik Rittich wrote:
> dget -x
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gogglesmm/gogglesmm_0.12.7-2.dsc
| diff -Nru gogglesmm-0.12.7/debian/control gogglesmm-0.12.7/debian/control
| --- gogglesmm-0.12.7/debian/control 2013-06-04 23:22:02
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Vincent Prat wrote:
> Thanks to both of you for the review.
> As regards the repackaging of the orig.tar tarball, if I have correctly
> understood, there are two solutions: do it by hand (and document it in
> README.source) or do it automatically with a get-orig-sou
Thanks to both of you for the review.
As regards the repackaging of the orig.tar tarball, if I have correctly
understood, there are two solutions: do it by hand (and document it in
README.source) or do it automatically with a get-orig-source target (and
that's it). Am I right?
Then, what would
9 matches
Mail list logo
