Bug#797888: RFS: panda3d/1.9.0-1 [ITP] -- Panda3D free 3D engine SDK

On Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2015 17:03:45 CEST, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Hi, You realized that these files aren't symlinks but libraries? So really don't think this would be correct. One example: So I guess you should create the library and symlink the so file? (I mean, a library and a

Re: conditionally require dependency

Hi Nico, Quoting Nico Schlömer (2015-10-24 20:04:19) > In [MOAB](https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/), we (optionally) depend on > a rather new version of the [Metis](https://packages.debian.org/sid/metis) > package, and that's what's enforced in our debian/control, too. I cannot see any

Re: conditionally require dependency

* Nico Schlömer , 2015-10-24, 18:04: In [MOAB](https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/), we (optionally) depend on a rather new version of the [Metis](https://packages.debian.org/sid/metis) package, and that's what's enforced in our debian/control, too. I don't see

Re: conditionally require dependency

Jakub, the necessary changes are part of PR# 137 in the MOAB repo [1]. Vijay [1] https://bitbucket.org/fathomteam/moab/pull-requests/137/clean-up-debian-folder On Oct 25, 2015 4:52 PM, "Jakub Wilk" wrote: > * Nico Schlömer , 2015-10-24, 18:04: > >>

Re: Available locales in a buildd

* Jakub Wilk , 2015-10-04, 18:24: If someone packaged localehelper[0] (hint, hint), then you could replace these 5 lines with simple: localehelper LC_ALL=en_US.UTF_8 dh_auto_build localehelper is now available in unstable. Thanks to Jonathan Ulrich Horn and

Re: conditionally require dependency

Hi Josch, Thanks a lot for your suggestions! The reason why we want different build dependencies (which is indeed what it is) for different versions is that we'd ideally like to support older releases of Debian/Ubuntu from one code base, particularly those which have been released a while ago

Bug#798990: RFS: webdeploy/1.0-1 ITP #798716 -- deploy files via FTP

Okay, I have now [after a busy week] added a watch file and uploaded the package again. The mentors page now shows that the package is the latest upstream version. Dan. On 19/10/15 20:36, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: mmm you need one anyway... I can help you writing one, or you can just look

Re: Package upload successful but not processed

On 25/10/15 17:28, Andreas Moog wrote: > Hello there, > > I am a Debian Maintainer and wanted to upload a new release of a package I > have upload rights to. The upload seemed successful: > > "nzbget_16.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost" > > but I didn't receive a second

Re: Package upload successful but not processed

* Andreas Moog , 2015-10-25, 17:28: I am a Debian Maintainer and wanted to upload a new release of a package I have upload rights to. The upload seemed successful: "nzbget_16.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost" but I didn't receive a second

Re: Package upload successful but not processed

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 05:50:56PM +0100, Tomasz Buchert wrote: Hello Tomasz, > this happened to me as well. When your key is expired you don't get > *anything* back, it's just like that. Moreover it takes some time for > your key to be included in the keyring: the new keyring is uploaded > once

Bug#801213: RFS: python-privacyidea/2.7-1 [ITP]

My idea with this would be, close the RFS for now, then file RFP and wishlist-please-update bugs with blocks against the ITP as a todo list. Needs some aforestation, when everything is available privacyidea goes into NEW. Like said, I think I've seen that most of the packages are group maintained

Package upload successful but not processed

Hello there, I am a Debian Maintainer and wanted to upload a new release of a package I have upload rights to. The upload seemed successful: "nzbget_16.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost" but I didn't receive a second message that the upload was accepted, nor that it was

Re: Built-Using field

Hi! On 21-10-2015 18:02, Santiago Vila wrote: > > See the mp4h package currently in testing for an example. Apart from the example of mp4h also found in the bash package. The bash was specific glibc. Thanks for your help. cheers -- Giovani Ferreira http://softwarelivre.org/jova2 GNU/Linux