Re: tool to rebuild all build-deps of a package

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:15:14PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:54 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) wrote: > > > Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my > > package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive > > apt install ratt

Bug#847941: RFS: libvecpf/1.1.0-1 ITP: libvecpf -- Vector Printf Library

Control: tags -1 wontfix Control: block 806720 by -1 Hi Frederick, the ITP is owned by Thierry Fauck, did you check with him if it is ok to take this ITP? (Should be done via the BTS and then the ITP's meta data should be corrected accordingly. Please remove the wontfix when this has been

Bug#847102: RFS: ginger/2.3.0-1 - HTML5-based host management tool

Control: block 775747 by -1 Please retitle the "RFP" bug (#775747) to "ITP" and set yourself as owner. -- tobi

Bug#845784: RFS: dropwizard-metrics [ITP]

Control: tags -1 wontfix Control: block 768375 by -1 On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:16:52 + Christopher Hoskin wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist >  > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-j...@lists.debian.org >  > Dear mentors, >  >   I am looking for a sponsor for the package

Bug#846399: marked as done (RFS: rush/1.8+dfsg-1 -- New upstream's release.)

Your message dated Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:11:52 + (UTC) with message-id <1704688462.9068069.1482127912...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#846399: RFS: rush/1.8+dfsg-1 -- New upstream's release. has caused the Debian Bug report #846399, regarding RFS: rush/1.8+dfsg-1 -- New upstream's

Re: tool to rebuild all build-deps of a package

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:54 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) wrote: > Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my > package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive apt install ratt > Extra points for running the autopkgtests (if any) You should use

Bug#847079: marked as done (RFS: groonga/6.1.1-1)

Your message dated Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:01:15 + (UTC) with message-id <934496706.9107344.1482127275...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#847079: RFS: groonga/6.1.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #847079, regarding RFS: groonga/6.1.1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

tool to rebuild all build-deps of a package

Hello Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive Extra points for running the autopkgtests (if any) thanks! PS: pkg is python-pytest-timeout -- 1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333

Bug#848199: marked as done (RFS: evil-el/1.2.12-2 )

Your message dated Mon, 19 Dec 2016 05:47:50 + (UTC) with message-id <174527167.9052226.1482126470...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#848199: RFS: evil-el/1.2.12-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #848199, regarding RFS: evil-el/1.2.12-2 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#848638: RFS: cdist/4.4.1-1

close 848638 thanks

Bug#848638: RFS: cdist/4.4.1-1

Hi > * New upstream release

Bug#848420: RFS: dmalloc/5.5.2-7 [ITA]

Hi, >I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dmalloc" > * Add debian/libdmalloc5.symbols file. > * Update debian/libdmalloc5.shlibs file. seems that the symbols file needs some tweaks :) G.

Bug#848638: RFS: cdist/4.4.1-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cdist" * Package name: cdist Version : 4.4.1-1 Upstream Author : Nico Schottelius * Url :

Re: Bug#847969: RFS: libpam-ldap/186-2

On 18-12-2016 10:30, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:54:18PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: >> Ready for upload. > The changelog still says 3.6.8. Mind crashing, I've noticed just the 's' missing on standard[s]-version. -- Lucas Castro signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Bug#848605: RFS: gexec/0.4-2 [QA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gexec" * Package name: gexec Version : 0.4-2 Upstream Author : Ferry Boender * URL : https://github.com/fboender/gexec * License

Bug#848133: RFS: rdup/1.1.15-1.0

Hi Tobias, >-- CFLAGS += `dpkg-buildflags --get CPPFLAGS` looks wrong this is done sometimes to make cmake aware of CPPFLAGS [1] this package however uses autotools, and I don't know about it :) [1] https://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12928 G.

Bug#844988: RFS: gnu-social/1.2+20160913+git7d67eefd+dfsg4-1[ITP] -- Distributed social networking platform

control: tags -1 wontfix mentors says: "Package uploaded for the unreleased distribution" so please first fix this and then remove the wontfix tag. -- tobi

Bug#848133: RFS: rdup/1.1.15-1.0

Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Félix, (I won't sponsor this because I will not find time to do so before the Stretch-Window will close, except you'll be very fast in providing an updated package; Any other DD can/should grab this package if wanted) some remarks: - d/changelog does not contain

Bug#848499: RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.7-1

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mercurial-keyring" * Package name: mercurial-keyring Version : 1.1.7-1 Upstream Author : Marcin Kasperski * URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/mercurial_keyring * License :

Bug#848200: marked as done (RFS: eoconv/1.4-2 )

Your message dated Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:25:50 +0100 with message-id <1482092750.28465.6.ca...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: eoconv/1.4-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #848200, regarding RFS: eoconv/1.4-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Bug#846259: RFS: Juliar/0.0-12 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable] -- New Programming Language

Hallo juliarl...@gmail.com, I've neither found the ITP nor I found a package to review. Additionally there were concerns about the suitabiltity of Julien for Debian at this stage. Please read https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers,

Bug#846259: marked as done (RFS: Juliar/0.0-12 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable] -- New Programming Language)

Your message dated Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:21:12 +0100 with message-id <1482092472.28465.5.ca...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: Juliar/0.0-12 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable] -- New Programming Language has caused the Debian Bug report #846259, regarding RFS: Juliar/0.0-12 [put in ITP,

Bug#848593: RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1

Control: tags -1 moreinfo (Please remove the moreinfo tag once your updated package is ready to be reviewed)

Bug#848593: RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1

Hi foss.freedom, (I won't sponsor this because I will not find time to do so before the Stretch-Window will close, except you'll be very fast in providing an updated package; Any other DD can/should grab this package if wanted) On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:47:34 + "foss.freedom"

Bug#848340: RFS: smpq/1.6-1

Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hallo Pali, (I won't sponsor this because I will not find time to do so before the Stretch-Window will close, except you'll be very fast in providing an updated package) Here's a review: - d/changelog: The changelog for 1.5-1 has a different timestamp than the one in

Bug#848420: marked as done (RFS: dmalloc/5.5.2-7 [ITA])

Your message dated Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:06:03 +0100 with message-id <1482087963.28367.3.ca...@debian.org> and subject line Re: RFS: dmalloc/5.5.2-7 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #848420, regarding RFS: dmalloc/5.5.2-7 [ITA] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#848593: RFS: budgie-indicator-applet/0.3-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "budgie-indicator-applet" * Package name: budgie-indicator-applet Version : 0.3-1 Upstream Author : David Mohammed * URL :

Re: Usage of r-base-core_3.3.2-1 in pbuilder somehow broken

On 18 December 2016 at 07:39, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | | On 18 December 2016 at 09:27, Andreas Tille wrote: | | Hi, | | | | since yesterday I'm not able to build any r-* packages any more in | | pbuilder. I get something like: | | | | ... | | Selecting previously unselected package

Re: Bug#848499: RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.6-1

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 05:04:35PM +0100, Christoph Mathys wrote: > Thanks for the information. Altough I don't agree with "does not work". "Has > a bug that has no impact on the core functionality" is more accurate. Sorry, I didn't think about what commands are affected. > I'll package the new

Re: Bug#848499: RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.6-1

On 18.12.2016 14:49, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo The package doesn't work, see https://bitbucket.org/Mekk/mercurial_keyring/issues/52/keyring_check-crashes Thanks for the information. Altough I don't agree with "does not work". "Has a bug that has no impact on the

Bug#848148: RFS: restic/0.3.1-1

Hi Félix, Thanks for working on this package! If you’re willing to move this package to pkg-go, I’m willing to sponsor it :). Please see https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/ Félix Sipma writes: > Download with dget: > > dget -x >

Bug#847015: RFS: debdelta/0.55+nmu1 [RC] [NMU]

Control: tags -1 wontfix Hallo Carlos, Did you (try) to contact the maintainers? I could also not see an debdiff to the BTS where you announcing the NMU. (If I missed it please post the bug number) Also, there are many changes that are really out of scope an NMU*, like the change to debhelper,

Bug#848384: RFS: xmacro/0.3pre-20000911-7 [ITA]

Am Sonntag, den 18.12.2016, 16:07 +0100 schrieb Tobias Frost: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi Vicent, > > Am Samstag, den 17.12.2016, 00:46 +0100 schrieb Vincent Carluer: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > > Severity: serious > > > > Dear mentors, > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my

Bug#848384: RFS: xmacro/0.3pre-20000911-7 [ITA]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Vicent, Am Samstag, den 17.12.2016, 00:46 +0100 schrieb Vincent Carluer: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: serious > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xmacro" > > * Package name: xmacro >    Version :

Re: Bug#848499: RFS: mercurial-keyring/1.1.6-1

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo The package doesn't work, see https://bitbucket.org/Mekk/mercurial_keyring/issues/52/keyring_check-crashes -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Usage of r-base-core_3.3.2-1 in pbuilder somehow broken

On 18 December 2016 at 09:27, Andreas Tille wrote: | Hi, | | since yesterday I'm not able to build any r-* packages any more in | pbuilder. I get something like: | | ... | Selecting previously unselected package r-base-core.^M | Preparing to unpack .../102-r-base-core_3.3.2-1_amd64.deb ...^M |

Bug#847969: RFS: libpam-ldap/186-2

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:54:18PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: > Ready for upload. The changelog still says 3.6.8. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#848199: RFS: evil-el/1.2.12-2

control: tag -1 +confirmed On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:40:16AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Good idea. See 0ed6f10622b59874ad9d1008172439de9c1a8388 Thanks for preparing a new upload -- LGTM. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Usage of r-base-core_3.3.2-1 in pbuilder somehow broken

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 09:27:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: dpkg: error: version '' has bad syntax: > version string is empty^M https://bugs.debian.org/848422 -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Usage of r-base-core_3.3.2-1 in pbuilder somehow broken

Hi, since yesterday I'm not able to build any r-* packages any more in pbuilder. I get something like: ... Selecting previously unselected package r-base-core.^M Preparing to unpack .../102-r-base-core_3.3.2-1_amd64.deb ...^M dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: dpkg: error: version '' has bad