Re: BTS and unreleased changelog entries

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:14:59AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > Thanks for the hint. dpkg-genchanges(1) says -c requires a version. Is > ^ > I'll assume this is a typo and you meant -v whoops yes! > > there a

Bug#869926: RFS: oprofile/1.2.0-1 [ITP]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 23:59:27 +0500 Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:14:17PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote: > > Thanks Roberto. > > > > wRar, do you still any concern about this package? > Nope, uploaded. Thank you Roberto. Thanks for uploading the package! I

Bug#875265: marked as done (RFS: rednotebook/2.3-1 [ITP] [ITA] -- A cross-platform journal)

Your message dated Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:20:51 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: rednotebook/2.3-1 [ITP] [ITA] -- A cross-platform journal has caused the Debian Bug report #875265, regarding RFS: rednotebook/2.3-1 [ITP] [ITA] -- A

Re: BTS and unreleased changelog entries

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 02:14:30PM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:53:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > It's not BTS, it's dpkg-genchanges. Pass a proper -v to the command you > > use to build the package. > > Thanks for the hint. dpkg-genchanges(1) says -c

Re: BTS and unreleased changelog entries

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:53:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > It's not BTS, it's dpkg-genchanges. Pass a proper -v to the command you > use to build the package. Thanks for the hint. dpkg-genchanges(1) says -c requires a version. Is there a downside to always starting from the first

Bug#875919: irony-mode

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Fixed in efc76f08eabfc3e3716728c3ff99ecbd1d9f0a2e Please sponsor b65bd12543b016f7a124c98b5b4786dab83ffa86 git clone git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/irony-mode.git Alternatively, this package is also current: dget

Bug#877450: RFS: bash-completion/1:2.7-1 [ITA]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >You seem to have missed to incorporate all the NMUs of >bash-completion... (atleast they where not part of the >debian/changelog) Is there any reason why you did not include those >changes? No reason, other than sheer inexperience. :) I'll look

Re: BTS and unreleased changelog entries

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:53:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:33:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > My changelog [1] documents versions that weren't released. I like > > including that info (it's been useful for me). But the BTS doesn't

Bug#876667: RFS: pragha/1.3.3-1

On 10 Oct 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >On Fri, 06 Oct 2017, Breno Leitao wrote: >> >>This means that your clean rules is not cleaning everything that was >>generated during the build process. > >I'll prepare a new version with that fixed. Hi, Breno, Lukas, I have fixed the problem with

Re: BTS and unreleased changelog entries

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:33:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > Hi all, > > My changelog [1] documents versions that weren't released. I like > including that info (it's been useful for me). But the BTS doesn't pick > up on Closes from those - even though later versions have been uploaded.

BTS and unreleased changelog entries

Hi all, My changelog [1] documents versions that weren't released. I like including that info (it's been useful for me). But the BTS doesn't pick up on Closes from those - even though later versions have been uploaded. Is there a way to make the BTS notice these entries - or do I need to

Bug#878573: marked as done (RFS: ipmiutil/3.0.7-1)

Your message dated Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:22:17 +0200 with message-id <20171014182217.zu6jggs26fbqf...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#878573: RFS: ipmiutil/3.0.7-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #878573, regarding RFS: ipmiutil/3.0.7-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#878514: marked as done (RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4)

Your message dated Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:13:33 +0200 with message-id <20171014181333.usrgasihoefkd...@angband.pl> and subject line Re: Bug#878514: RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #878514, regarding RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4 to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#867270: marked as done (RFS: babl/0.1.28-4 [ITA])

Your message dated Sat, 14 Oct 2017 13:58:33 -0400 with message-id

Bug#878573: RFS: ipmiutil/3.0.7-1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ipmiutil" Package name: ipmiutil Version : 3.0.7-1 Upstream Author : Andy Cress URL :

Bug#878514: RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4

Hello Adam, thanks for your review. Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 15:07 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:16:03PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > >Package name: bitz-server > >Version : 1.0.0-4 > > Changes since the last upload: > > > > * Add

Bug#878514: RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:16:03PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: >Package name: bitz-server >Version : 1.0.0-4 > Changes since the last upload: > > * Add missing symbols files. > * New README.source to explain the branching model used. > * Declare compliance with

Bug#878516: RFS: ansi/0.1.3-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ansi". (i've already sent an RFS to debian-python a month ago: https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2017/09/msg00038.html) * Package name : ansi Version : 0.1.3-1

Bug#878514: RFS/RC: bitz-server/1.0.0-4

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bitz-server" Package name: bitz-server Version : 1.0.0-4 Upstream Author : Uditha Atukorala URL :