Re: Question about watch files

Hi Ben, Am Freitag, den 06.10.2017, 16:01 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney: > Sascha Manns writes: > You don't need to write it; UScan version 4 already knows a regex > that > matches the common version strings. I tried out the following:

Re: Question about watch files

Sascha Manns writes: > What would be the correct regex for matching this? You don't need to write it; UScan version 4 already knows a regex that matches the common version strings. See the ‘uscan(1)’ manual page; in short, use “@ANY_VERSION@” to match a version

Question about watch files

Hello list, i have a tarball, who is placed on https://launchpad.net/ignore-me/0.x/ 0.1.0/+download/ignore-me-0.1.0.tar.xz . It can got with wget. 0.x is the place for the series. It also can be 1.0, 1.1, 2.2 and so on. What would be the correct regex for matching this? Greetings Sascha

Bug#862930: marked as done (RFS: node-big-integer/1.6.22-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:20:11 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: node-big-integer/1.6.22-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #862930, regarding RFS: node-big-integer/1.6.22-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#877610: RFS: libexif/0.6.21-2.1 [NMU]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:45:25AM +, Hugh McMaster wrote: > On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the > > maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're > > taking steps to

Bug#877784: marked as done (RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1)

Your message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2017 03:51:51 +0200 with message-id <20171006015151.zej773mcmm3uw...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#877784: Subject: RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #877784, regarding RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you

Re: C++ help needed for new version of tifffile

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:56:39PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2017-10-05 21:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > It seems that the definition of GET_NEXT_CODE is just wrong - but > > what would be correct? > > Remove the last backslash, or include a blank line after it. This > prevents the

Bug#877804: RFS: ignore-me/0.1.0-1 [put in ITP, ITA, RC, NMU if applicable]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 From: Sascha Manns To: sub...@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFS: ignore-me/0.1.0-1 [ITP] Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for

Re: C++ help needed for new version of tifffile

On 2017-10-05 21:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > I migrated the Debian packaging of tifffile from SVN to Git[1]. After > upgrading to the latest upstream version (dated 2017-09-14) I get: > > ... > x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O2 -Wall > -Wstrict-prototypes

Re: C help needed for new version of tifffile

Hi Andreas, On 10/05/2017 09:00 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > It seems that the definition of GET_NEXT_CODE is just wrong - but > what would be correct? So the code contains the following: #define GET_NEXT_CODE \ code = *((uint32_t*)((void*)(encoded + (bitcount >> 3; \ if

C++ help needed for new version of tifffile

Hi, I migrated the Debian packaging of tifffile from SVN to Git[1]. After upgrading to the latest upstream version (dated 2017-09-14) I get: ... x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -pthread -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -fno-strict-aliasing -g -O2

Bug#877784: Subject: RFS: wxmaxima/17.10.0-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wxmaxima" * Package name: wxmaxima Version : 17.10.0-1 Upstream Author : Andrej Vopodivec * URL : http://andrejv.github.io/ * License : GPL Section

Bug#877401: marked as done (RFS: bzrmk/1.3.0-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:24:53 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: bzrmk/1.3.0-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #877401, regarding RFS: bzrmk/1.3.0-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#877659: marked as done (RFS: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-2)

Your message dated Thu, 05 Oct 2017 10:20:19 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #877659, regarding RFS: minetest-mod-craftguide/1.0-2 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#877610: RFS: libexif/0.6.21-2.1 [NMU]

Hi Adam, Thanks for your email. On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote: > This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the > maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're > taking steps to salvage it, it wouldn't be a NMU (at