Bug#832814: RFS: cligh/0.3-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cligh" * Package name: cligh Version : 0.3-1 Upstream Author : Christopher M. Brannon * Url :

Bug#832808: RFS: cdist/4.2.2-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cdist" * Package name: cdist Version : 4.2.2-1 Upstream Author : Nico Schottelius * Url :

Bug#832786: marked as done (RFS: udfclient/0.8.6-1)

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:27:28 +0200 with message-id

Bug#832786: RFS: udfclient/0.8.6-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "udfclient" * Package name: udfclient Version : 0.8.6-1 Upstream Author : Reinoud Zandijk * URL : http://www.13thmonkey.org/udfclient/ *

Re: Request for access to porterbox

Hi, >Missing space between "Debian" and "RT". indeed, that did the trick >Also, neither the subject nor the body say what you are actually asking >for... actually I tried 4 times, with changes in subject and signing type, but I didn't get it correctly both :) >"Requests need to be

Re: Request for access to porterbox

* Gianfranco Costamagna , 2016-07-28, 18:39: Subject: DebianRT Missing space between "Debian" and "RT". Also, neither the subject nor the body say what you are actually asking for... This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) "Requests need to

Re: Request for access to porterbox

Do anybody know why I'm not able to send RT requests anymore? below a copy of the message Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. : Remote host said: 550-messages to the Request Tracker system require a subject tag or a 550 subaddress [BODY]

Re: Request for access to porterbox

Hi, >Anyone still willing to sponsor my request, please? I sent the signed email for you, but the real question is: why aren't you a DM or a DD? I was almost sure you were already a DM, this is why I didn't get the mail to send question (as DM you just need to apply from nm.d.o website for

Bug#832515: marked as done (RFS: cdist/4.2.2-2 )

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:22:13 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: RFS: cdist/4.2.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #832515, regarding RFS: cdist/4.2.2-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#832766: marked as done (RFS: runit/2.1.2-5 )

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:26:00 + (UTC) with message-id <396902973.10841256.1469723160886.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#832766: RFS: runit/2.1.2-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #832766, regarding RFS: runit/2.1.2-5 to be marked as done. This means

Bug#832766: RFS: runit/2.1.2-5

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit" * Package name: runit Version : 2.1.2-5 Upstream Author : Gerrit Pape * Url : http://smarden.org/runit/ * Licenses:

Re: Request for access to porterbox

[2016-07-27 20:17] Jakub Wilk > > * Dmitry Bogatov , 2016-07-27, 20:41: > >Clear-signed information, required by DSA team is attached. > [...] > >Architectures requested: hurd, m68k, sh4 > > FWIW, the are currently no DSA-operated porterboxes for any of these >

Bug#832763: marked as done (RFS: dh-runit/0.4 )

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:02:14 + (UTC) with message-id <1692063175.10683061.1469721734182.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#832763: RFS: dh-runit/0.4 has caused the Debian Bug report #832763, regarding RFS: dh-runit/0.4 to be marked as done. This means

Bug#832763: RFS: dh-runit/0.4

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dh-runit" * Package name: dh-runit Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Dmitry Bogatov * Url :

Re: weird dependency-installbility problem of buildd

* Lumin , 2016-07-28, 12:06: Package caffe-contrib_1.0.0~rc3-2 [1][2] build-deps on CUDA 7.5.18, which is currently available for sid. This package passed the debomatic-amd64 build [3], however when buildd is working on this package it says there is "dependency

Bug#832750: RFS: entrypoints/0.2.2-1 (ITP)

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "entrypoints" * Package name: entrypoints Version : 0.2.2-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Takluyver * URL : https://github.com/takluyver/entrypoints *

Re: Request for access to porterbox

* Christian Seiler , 2016-07-28, 11:00: As debootstrap uses regular apt rather than aptitude, why would this be a concern? For debootstrap? No. For pbuilder? Yes. Time to upgrade to sbuild? :-P -- Jakub Wilk

weird dependency-installbility problem of buildd

Hi mentors, Package caffe-contrib_1.0.0~rc3-2 [1][2] build-deps on CUDA 7.5.18, which is currently available for sid. This package passed the debomatic-amd64 build [3], however when buildd is working on this package it says there is "dependency installbility problem" [4]. But how can the

aptitude segfault with qemu environments

Hi, >For debootstrap? No. For pbuilder? Yes. I'm pretty sure it is a qemu missing feature or bug, but I reported it to aptitude package [1]. Feel free to add useful bits here :) [1] https://bugs.debian.org/832710 G.

Bug#832712: marked as done (RFS: python-backports-shutil-get-terminal-size/1.0.0-3)

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:19:00 + (UTC) with message-id <1594417168.10416837.1469701140490.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#832712: RFS: python-backports-shutil-get-terminal-size/1.0.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #832712, regarding RFS:

Re: Request for access to porterbox

On 07/28/2016 08:52 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:56:11AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: >> That works now? When I set up a SH4 chroot a while back, I had to >> use the qemu-sh4-static binary from the i386 version of the >> qemu-user-static package, because the amd64

Bug#832703: RFS: caffe-contrib/1.0.0~rc3-2

Hi, > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "caffe-contrib" its in G.

Bug#832704: RFS: nixnote2/2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 [ITP] -- Open Source Evernote client

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nixnote2" * Package name: nixnote2 Version : 2.0~beta8+20160727+ds-1 Upstream Author : Randy Baumgarte * URL

Bug#832703: RFS: caffe-contrib/1.0.0~rc3-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "caffe-contrib" * Package name: caffe-contrib Version : 1.0.0~rc3-2 Upstream Author : BVLC * URL : caffe.berkeleyvision.org * License :

Re: Request for access to porterbox

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:56:11AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 07/28/2016 12:21 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:07:17PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > >> m68k and sh4 do work in qmeu-user-static chroots, the setup > >> is not quite as trivial however. (I can give

Re: [RFS] I need an sponsor for 2 Go packages

Hi, >PS: can I ping you when I have the new asciinema package? I'm not a go developer, so somebody from your team might be better suitable to look at the packages, but you can count on me as a backup sponsor. (BTW go seems a really nice and funny language, so I might learn it one day) and if

Re: Request for access to porterbox

Hi, >Plus, aptitude is broken on many (but not all) archs when used >together with qemu-user-static (segfaults), so if you use that >kind of chroot together with pbuilder, in my experience you need >to revert to the classic satisfydepends (which is much slower) >to make pbuilder work properly.

Bug#832647: marked as done (RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-4)

Your message dated Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:19:55 + (UTC) with message-id <1270172435.10225066.1469686795170.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#832647: RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #832647, regarding RFS: caffe/1.0.0~rc3-4 to be marked as done. This