Bug#718206: marked as done (RFS: ruby-rkerberos/0.1.2-2 [ITP])

2013-12-22 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:28:16 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: ruby-rkerberos/0.1.2-2 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #718206, regarding RFS: ruby-rkerberos/0.1.2-2 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.

Re: About the testing transition known as auto-libunwind

2013-12-22 Thread T o n g
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:20:50 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: >In the particular case, not much. libunwind is somewhat a special case... Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation Niels! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co

Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

2013-12-22 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 22 décembre 2013 12:10 CET, Thomas Leonard  : >> "ITP stands for Intend to package. These are packages which not exist in >> Debian yet. Such packages need to go through NEW. That is the queue on >> ftp-master for packages uploaded for the first time, which need to be >> reviewed first. This in

Re: Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

2013-12-22 Thread Thomas Leonard
On 2013-11-23 15:46, Thomas Leonard wrote: On 2013-11-16 22:26, Eriberto wrote: A doubt: where is the ITP bug??? Thanks! Regards, I'm not sure what you mean. Do I need to file a bug somewhere as well? According to http://mentors.debian.net/sponsor/rfs-howto: "ITP stands for Intend to packa

Re: About the testing transition known as auto-libunwind

2013-12-22 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2013-12-22 03:45, T o n g wrote: > Hi, > > I want to adopt the par2cmdline package, but on its QA page, > http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/par2cmdline.html > it says, > > ,- > | "This package is part of the ongoing testing transition known as > | auto-libunwind. Please avoid uploads unre