Bug#835551: marked as done (RFS: btrfs-progs/4.7.1-1~bpo8+1)

Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2016 06:20:41 + (UTC) with message-id <1472416968.4055082.1472624441...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#835551: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.7.x-1~bpo8+1 has caused the Debian Bug report #835551, regarding RFS: btrfs-progs/4.7.1-1~bpo8+1 to be marked as done. This

Bug#836158: RFS: 9wm/1.3.8-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "9wm" * Package name: 9wm Version : 1.3.8-1 Upstream Author : Jacob Adams (neale asked me to be maintainer as he does not use 9wm much anymore) * URL : https:/

Re: [ITA] muse-el, with issues, and questions

P.S. git://repo.or.cz/muse-el.git is another possible valid source, and also has gpg-signed releases/tags. I'm unclear whether the github repo is the master or the mirror. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [ITA] muse-el, with issues, and questions

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:26:24AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > > > > >> Also, it's now xz compressed, which I anticipated is something > >> Gianfranco might hassle me about if I didn't enable haha.> > > > >If you're not uploading a new upstream version you can't change the > >tar

Bug#836150: RFS: opengm/2.3.6+20160814-1 [RC]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "opengm" * Package name: opengm Version : 2.3.6+20160814-1 Upstream Author : The OpenGM developers * URL :http://hci.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de/opengm2/ * License

Bug#835551: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.7.x-1~bpo8+1

Hi Gianfranco, > > >I also just uploaded 4.7.1 to Debian mentors. > > >Will the deferred queue automatically drop the proposed 4.7.1 bpo in case a > >major regression prevents the sid package from migrating to testing? > > > no, it won't prevent the drop, this is something I have to remember t

Re: Building package locally for different architectures

[2016-08-30 19:20] Jakub Wilk > > part text/plain 965 > [Disclaimer: I don't know anything about reprepro.] > > * Dmitry Bogatov , 2016-08-30, 17:38: > >$ dpkg-source -b . # fine > >$ debsign -m kact...@gnu.org ../*.dsc # fine > >$ sbuild -d pure -c jessie # fine > >$ debsign

Re: Building package locally for different architectures

[Disclaimer: I don't know anything about reprepro.] * Dmitry Bogatov , 2016-08-30, 17:38: $ dpkg-source -b . # fine $ debsign -m kact...@gnu.org ../*.dsc # fine $ sbuild -d pure -c jessie # fine $ debsign --no-re-sign ../*.changes # fine, signed with my key $ dput local ../*.changes # fine, loca

Bug#836077: marked as done (RFS: groonga/6.0.8-1)

Your message dated Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:16:49 + (UTC) with message-id <1648702918.3362609.1472570209...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#836077: RFS: groonga/6.0.8-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #836077, regarding RFS: groonga/6.0.8-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#829520: RFS: mbpfan/1.9.1-1 ITP

Hello, On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:05:51AM -0700, Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote: > > 5. You have lots and lots of patches without proper patch headers. The > > patches seem to be revisions of each other. You need one patch for each > > meaningful change, with the reason for the change explained in

Building package locally for different architectures

Hello! I am trying to create personal repository, that would contain locally-rebuilt packages for i386 and amd64. I set up reprepro, and trying to do following, where is root of source package directory. $ dpkg-source -b . # fine $ debsign -m kact...@gnu.org ../*.dsc # fine $ sbuild -d pure -c

freeradius needs a new maintainer

[ Bcc debian-mentors ] Hello, following the recent discussions in #806617 it has become apparent that we need a new maintainer for freeradius. Debian still has version 2.2.x when upstream is now on 3.0.x. Is there anyone interested? It would be a pity to see freeradius gone from Debian. Cheers

Bug#836077: RFS: groonga/6.0.8-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "groonga" * Package name: groonga Version : 6.0.8-1 Upstream Author : Groonga Project * URL : http://groonga.org/ * License : LGPL-2.1 Section

Bug#835658: RFS: backbone/1.3.3+ds-1

[dropping most cc'ed people] Quoting Julien Puydt (2016-08-28 21:05:33) > On 28/08/2016 19:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> It seems you prepared a new package release with radical structural >> changes, and requested sponsorship for uploading it. First I hear of >> all that is today, after the f

Re: [ITA] muse-el, with issues, and questions

Hi, >> Also, it's now xz compressed, which I anticipated is something >> Gianfranco might hassle me about if I didn't enable haha.> > >If you're not uploading a new upstream version you can't change the >tarball compression (unless you're changing the source package name, >which I don't recommen

Bug#835975: marked as done (RFS: triops/9.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:20:00 + (UTC) with message-id <968367985.3078962.1472548800...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#835975: RFS: triops/9.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #835975, regarding RFS: triops/9.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you c

Re: How to solve "'float log2(float)' conflicts with a previous declaration"

Hi Gianfranco, On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:00:52AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > grep log2 . -R > > a quick search seems to return > ./src/clustal/mbed.c:#define log2(x) (log(x) / 0.69314718055994530942) Hmmm, this should have been excluded via HAVE_LOG2 definition ... > there is al

Re: How to solve "'float log2(float)' conflicts with a previous declaration"

Hi, >I tried to fix the issue with the duplicated definition of log2 in >clustalo in Git[1] but failed. It probably failed since even if I >remove the line that should be excluded by #ifndef HAVE_LOG2 the problem >persists and so I assume there is another log2 definition done >somewhere. pull-