Bug#799557: RFS: progress/0.9-1 -- Coreutils Progress Viewer

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "progress" * Package name: progress Version : 0.9-1 Upstream Author : Xfennec * URL :

Bug#799595: RFS: clblas/2.6-3

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clblas" * Package name: clblas Version : 2.6-3 Upstream Author : Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. * URL : https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clBLAS * License

apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

LS, In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many disparate components were delivered in their own package (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink, owncloud-app-., etc). These functions have

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

Frank de Lange writes: > In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a > bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many > disparate components were delivered in their own package > (owncloud-app-encryption,

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

Frank de Lange wrote: > LS, > > In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a > bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many > disparate components were delivered in their own package > (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink,

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

On 09/21/2015 01:36 AM, Frank de Lange wrote: > Conflicts: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud- > app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ... (etcetera - the list is long) > Breaks: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud- > app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ...

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

Russ Allbery wrote: > Frank de Lange writes: > >> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a >> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many >> disparate components were delivered in their own package >>

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

On 09/21/2015 02:07 AM, Frank de Lange wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Frank de Lange writes: >> >>> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a >>> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many >>> disparate components

Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation

On 09/21/2015 03:25 AM, Jens Reyer wrote: > I don't think Conflicts is necessary if you use transitional packages. Sorry, I revoke that part. (Although not absolutely sure.)

Bug#799565: RFS: linuxbrew/20150804-2 -- missing package manager for linux

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "linuxbrew-wrapper" * Package name: linuxbrew-wrapper Version : 20150804-2 Upstream Author : Linuxbrew contributors * URL :

Bug#790125: RFS: dropbear/2015.68-1 - lightweight SSH2 server and client

Hi Helmut & Gianfranco, By the way if you don't have time or are no longer interested in sponsoring this upload (which is no longer an NMU by the way) please just say it out loud so I can poke debian-mentors@l.d.o again :-) Thanks! Cheers, -- Guilhem. signature.asc Description: Digital

Bug#799565: Acknowledgement (RFS: linuxbrew/20150804-2 -- missing package manager for linux)

Control: retitle 799565 RFS: linuxbrew-wrapper/20150804-2 -- missing package manager for linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Bug#799390: linuxbrew-wrapper: over-restrictive architecture setting?

Hi Aaron M. Ucko, On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 13:11 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > linuxbrew-wrapper's control file declares amd64 to be the only > supported architure. Is that restriction really necessary? From what > I gather, Linuxbrew is perfectly capable of building software from > source, so it

Re: Bug#799390: linuxbrew-wrapper: over-restrictive architecture setting?

+++ lumin [2015-09-20 12:19 +]: > Hi Aaron M. Ucko, > > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 13:11 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > > > linuxbrew-wrapper's control file declares amd64 to be the only > > supported architure. Is that restriction really necessary? From what > > I gather, Linuxbrew is perfectly

Help getting a bug report in order

Hi Everyone, We took a bug report from a Debain maintainer under Debian's X32 environment (https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port). Our bugs triggered some Debian bugs as we worked through some of the issues. One of the issues we encountered was GDB's inability to debug a C++ program. It was reported

Re: Help getting a bug report in order

+++ Jeffrey Walton [2015-09-21 00:26 -0400]: > Hi Everyone, > > We took a bug report from a Debain maintainer under Debian's X32 > environment (https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port). Our bugs triggered some > Debian bugs as we worked through some of the issues. > > One of the issues we encountered

Re: Bug#799390: linuxbrew-wrapper: over-restrictive architecture setting?

lumin writes: > I don't think it's appropriate to bump Architecture from "amd64" > to a wildcard without sort of notice to user. That's fair; I just hadn't noticed that part of the README. Thanks for the prompt explanation! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu,

Bug#799595: marked as done (RFS: clblas/2.6-3)

Your message dated Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:55:11 +0100 with message-id <55ff0f1f.2040...@gmail.com> and subject line uploaded to unstable has caused the Debian Bug report #799595, regarding RFS: clblas/2.6-3 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#799615: RFS: netmask/2.4.0 - helps determine network masks

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "netmask" * Package name: netmask Version : 2.4.0 Upstream Author : Robert Stone * URL : https://github.com/talby-/netmask * License