Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the following package:
* Package name: python-agate-sql
Version : 0.5.2-2
Upstream Author : Christopher Groskopf
* URL : https://github.com/wireservice/agate-sql
* License
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the following package:
* Package name: python-agate-excel
Version : 0.2.1-3
Upstream Author : Christopher Groskopf
* URL : https://github.com/wireservice/agate-excel
* License
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the following package:
* Package name: python-agate-dbf
Version : 0.2.0-2
Upstream Author : Christopher Groskopf
* URL : https://github.com/wireservice/agate-dbf
* License
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:22:46 +0530 "Harish Sriram" wrote:
>
> Hello Andrey,
>
> The nmu package version name is fixed. Thanks for pointing.
>
> Thanks,
> Harish
the mentors page now shows this lintian error:
E binary-from-other-architecture
What happened?
--
tobi
Control: owner -1 !
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hallo Keng-Yu,
as Andrey already mentioned, it is not enough just to put in your name
as new Maintainer and have the package the same otherwise.
You need to include improvments to the packages, then the package is
eligible for an upload.
I know this
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cyclograph":
git://git.debian.org/pkg-running/cyclograph.git
It can be built with gbp.
Changes since the last upload:
This is important because it is currently affected by and RC bug, whi
Package: sponsorship-requests
Followup-For: Bug #863982
I updated the package on mentors to 1.0.4-1.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (100, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures:
Control: retitle -1 RFS: tinydb/3.2.0-1 [ITP]
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
The package should use Python 3, see
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html
If the package contains only a Python module, it should be packaged as a
module, including the package name.
Pri
Hello Hon,
I reviewed the package, and after the fixes we discussed and the legal
conversation[1], I think this package is ready to go to the NEW queue.
Thanks for your contribution to Debian.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2017/07/msg00022.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Control: retitle -1 RFS: segyio/1.2.0-1 [ITP]
Please don't build the Python 2 module, see
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html
Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
${shlibs:Depends} for -dev packages does nothing and the
Control: retitle -1 RFS: libsml/0.1.1+git20170608-1 [ITP]
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Control: owner -1 !
Please use Priority: optional.
CONTRIBUTION.pdf should be removed from the orig tarball as it doesn't
have a source and I doubt is even free (actually license texts we ship are
also non-free,
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Please use the automatic debug packages.
The debian revision for an initial upload should be -1.
Please update Standards-Version to the current version.
Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
debian/copyright lacks Source and Upstream-Name.
Please disable DH_VE
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Please use the automatic debug packages.
The debian revision for an initial upload should be -1.
Please update Standards-Version to the current version.
Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
debian/copyright lacks Source and Upstream-Name.
Please disable DH_VE
Hi Andrey,
This package is aimed at experimental because I found
a problem by chance, when executing one of my
scripts. However the same problem won't occur when
using ipython3 or python3. So ipython3 cannot be simply
replaced by ptipython3 for me.
Due to that reason, I plan to move it to unstabl
Hi Vitalie,
I pick up the sponsoring process.
V> Thank you very much for your help and comments.
> libbitfield$SOVERSION (shared library)
> libbitfield-dev (development files)
V> Done. Package name changed from 'bitfield' to 'libbitfield' and SOVERSION
is set
V> to 1, so we get:
Why is this aimed at experimental?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ptpython"
* Package name: ptpython
Version : 0.39~20170703-1
Upstream Author : jonathanslenders
* URL : https://github.com/jonathanslenders/ptpython
* Li
close 868544
thanks
Sponsored by czchen@. Thx!
Regards,
Boyuan Yang
On Monday 24 July 2017 23:10:33 CEST Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Control: owner -1 !
>
> Please bump Standards-Version to the current version and I'll upload
> it.
Hello Andrey,
As Andrew pointed out, he has already uploaded the package. I will
make sure to bump the standards-version for the nex
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:00 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: sigrok/0.3-1 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #857005,
regarding RFS: sigrok/0.3-1 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:00 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: libsigrokdecode/0.4.1-1 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #856987,
regarding RFS: libsigrokdecode/0.4.1-1 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:00 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: pulseview/0.3.0-1 [ ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #857002,
regarding RFS: pulseview/0.3.0-1 [ ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:03 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: libserialport/0.1.1-2 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #856974,
regarding RFS: libserialport/0.1.1-2 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:02 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw/0.1.4-1 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #856989,
regarding RFS: sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw/0.1.4-1 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:21:00 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: libsigrok/0.4.0-1 [ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #856981,
regarding RFS: libsigrok/0.4.0-1 [ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this i
Your message dated Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:20:59 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: sigrok-cli/0.6.0-1 [ ITA]
has caused the Debian Bug report #857004,
regarding RFS: sigrok-cli/0.6.0-1 [ ITA]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:49:46PM -0400, Sanford Rockowitz wrote:
> 2) IIRC, I was forced to increment the Debian release by debain-mentors. A
> failed submission "used up" a debian release number and blocked a corrected
> submission with the same release number. Is there some way around this?
m
27 matches
Mail list logo
