Bug#752897: rm -rf debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/lucene++-3.0.6/

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 08:23 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Hi Tobias, sorry for top posting, I'm on vac and mobile :-) The reason for the VCS not created is that I'm not yet in the ubuntu unity team, so I don't have write permissions to create it :-) I'll talk to sil how does he feel

Bug#760065: RFS: kildclient/3.0.0-1 [new upstream version of package already in Debian]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package kildclient * Package name: kildclient Version : 3.0.0-1 Upstream Author : Eduardo Kalinowski edua...@kalinowski.com.br * URL : http://www.kildclient.org *

Bug#759742: (RFS: tkinfo/2.8-5 [ITA, RC])

On 30/08/14 21:18, Guido van Steen wrote: } The lintian pedantic 'no-upstream-changelog' looks to be a false positive } as upstream changes are documented in the installed README. The Lintian tag says: If upstream provides a changelog, it should be accessible as

Bug#759151: marked as done (RFS: yajl/2.1.0-2)

Your message dated Sun, 31 Aug 2014 19:50:13 +0200 with message-id 1409507413.19157.0.ca...@edoras.loewenhoehle.ip and subject line has caused the Debian Bug report #759151, regarding RFS: yajl/2.1.0-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#748591:

Hi Philip, while browsing open RFS bugs I saw that yours is done, but the package still marked needs sponsor. Please toggle that setting to no Thanks! -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#759742: (RFS: tkinfo/2.8-5 [ITA, RC])

Hi Peter, } I've now used a sed extract for changelog.gz, as I want to preserve the } upstream README as originally named. } (If I copy it intact I get a duplicate file warning) This solution sounds sane to me. Best wishes, Guido

Bug#751009:

Hi Nigel, (I do not intend to sponsor this package, sorry.) I had a few minutes, so here is a very short review (for sure not complete:) You are also upstream, aren't you? Then I suggest reading https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide (So you should for example consider removing the debian

Bug#758232:

Hi Willem, here's a short review; I do not intend to sponsor this package. You are also upstream, aren't you? Then I suggest reading https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide (I always write that; However, I did not spot any common errors :)) Reviewing the pacakge (unordered list) - You need to

Bug#749213: marked as done (RFS: qtop/2.2.4-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:39:38 +0200 with message-id 20140831223938.gy7...@sym.noone.org and subject line Re: Searching for a sponsor for qtop has caused the Debian Bug report #749213, regarding RFS: qtop/2.2.4-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#760065: RFS: kildclient/3.0.0-1 [new upstream version of package already in Debian]

tags 760065 moreinfo thanks Hi Eduardo, greetings from Brazil! Please: 1. d/changelog: add ACK for NMU. See details here[1]. 2. d/rules: please, update to new (reduced) format. Ask me if you have doubts. An example is here[2]. For details, see the 'dh' manpage. [1]