Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors and Chris,
This is a joint RFS for two packages that were previously part of
emacs-goodies-el: bm-el/201808-1, and mutt-alias-el/1.5-1. The Debian
Emacsen team is 96% done transitioning emacs-goodies-el to a dummy
transitional package,
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:37:43PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 02 September 2018 21:33:03 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Nitpick: these warnings are trivial to fix:
> > W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause
> > (paragraph at line 37)
> > W:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:03:16AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 03:10:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> Ho Nicholas,
>
> > btrfsmaintenance (0.4.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium
> >
> > * Import
On Sunday 02 September 2018 21:33:03 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Nitpick: these warnings are trivial to fix:
> W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause
> (paragraph at line 37)
> W: udfclient source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique bsd-2-clause
>
Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2018 23:29:23 +0200
with message-id <20180902212923.zjvneeh6aqlus...@angband.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#907803: RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #907803,
regarding RFS: udfclient/0.8.9-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2018 23:22:12 +0200
with message-id <20180902212212.ufpegnkdidhi5...@angband.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#907833: RFS: minidb/2.0.2-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #907833,
regarding RFS: minidb/2.0.2-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Some updates about this pre-RFS:
Summary:
1. The README.Debian file is totally invalidated. Please don't review the
repo.
2. I switched to use python plus ninja for building Debian's TF, which
may have a chance to evolve into the final solution.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 22:58 Lumin wrote:
Your message dated Sun, 02 Sep 2018 16:20:30 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: urlwatch/2.14-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #907797,
regarding RFS: urlwatch/2.14-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "svg-labels":
* Package name: svg-labels
Version : 0.3.0-1
Upstream Author : Miroslav Kravec
* URL : https://github.com/kravemir/svg-labels
* License
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "udfclient"
* Package name: udfclient
Version : 0.8.9-1
Upstream Author : Reinoud Zandijk
* URL : http://www.13thmonkey.org/udfclient/
* License :
Your message dated Sun, 2 Sep 2018 12:56:42 +0200
with message-id <20180902105642.ga1...@timegate.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#907773: RFS: btrfsmaintenance/0.4.1-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #907773,
regarding RFS: btrfsmaintenance/0.4.1-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "urlwatch"
* Package name: urlwatch
Version : 2.14-1
Upstream Author : Thomas Perl
* URL : https://thp.io/2008/urlwatch/
* License : BSD-3-clause
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> I fail to find the formal definitions (regarding API/ABI and files) of
> Provides and Replaces fields of d/control, could someone point it out to me
> please? In particular, if package A Provides/Replaces B, does that mean that
> A MUST have
Hello Debian Mentors,
I'm writing because I seek advice on how to properly package Berkeley
Packet Filter objects. I was not able to find prior art in any other
Debian package.
The v4l-utils source package contains a program called ir-keytable which
could be used to alter in-kernel infrared
Dear Mentors,
I fail to find the formal definitions (regarding API/ABI and files) of
Provides and Replaces fields of d/control, could someone point it out to me
please? In particular, if package A Provides/Replaces B, does that mean
that A MUST have the same API/ABI and files as B?
Many thanks,
15 matches
Mail list logo