On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:27 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Hi Svante,
>
> (see bottom)
>
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:18:26 +0200 Svante Signell <
> svante.sign...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I uploaded a new version, 3.2.9-7+debian2 which fi
Hi again,
I uploaded a new version, 3.2.9-7+debian2 which fixes many lintian
warnings:
* binary-control-field-duplicates-source
* out-of-date-standards-version
* package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version
* xc-package-type-in-debian-control
* rules-requires-root-missing
*
On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 00:36 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I saw that there was some complaints from lintian of the uploaded
> version. I've fixed some of them. Upload again?
>
> BTW: running lintian with the --pedantic flag does not show all
> issues as 9
Hi again,
I saw that there was some complaints from lintian of the uploaded
version. I've fixed some of them. Upload again?
BTW: running lintian with the --pedantic flag does not show all issues
as 956...@bugs.debian.org does. Which option(s) trigger all the output
at the link?
Thanks!
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "eudev"
* Package name: eudev
Version : 3.2.9-7+debian1
Upstream Author : NA
* URL : https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eudev.git
* License : GPL-2+
*
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 18:37 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 04:41:51PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > That is a different thing: once the dependencies on Hurd are fixed,
> > you
>
> Of course the hurd issue turned out more complex once I actually read
> past the first
On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 23:16 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Yavor,
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:06:05PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > What's the correct way to fix the symbols file to work with both
> > > versions of gcc?
> Guess what, C++ is more complex than C.
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 12:48 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:55:18AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on poppler any
> > more.
> > If you have problems with previo
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 08:10 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 at 07:59, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > > On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > > I still don't get it
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > >
>
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 13:56 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:28:37PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing
> > > purposes, ac
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please explain.
>
> Your package can't enter the archive since this would require to fix
> a
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 08:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 at 08:12, Svante Signell wrote:
...
Sorry, I still don't get it: - Which packages still depend on
> > poppler, unless via xpdf? The ones directly dependant on poppler are
> > not affected.
>
> Yes,
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 06:49 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-03-04 at 14:19, Svante Signell wrote:
...
> > Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no
> > longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about poppler?
>
> Because other pac
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: noowner -1
>
> > OK, got it. Are you still interested to sponsor this package, now when
> > you know about status quo? If so, I'll create an account at
> > alioth.debian.org and we'll continue from there.
>
> I was hoping that
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: noowner -1
>
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:56:59AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > I'm not referring to currently known s
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:59:34AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > The security issues that I have raised.
> >
> > Which security issues? Please let me know (links please), so I can
> &
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 16:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:13:53PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > OK, including the real upstream tarball solves that issue, right?
>
> It wouldn't, since the sources of hello.pdf are not included in that
> t
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 14:01 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:19:43PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > And BTW: poppler upstream seems to be freedesktop.org, i.e. gnome.
> > Who
> > can trust gnome nowadays, especially people preferring systemd-free
>
On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 02:50 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 01:56:26PM -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for
> > > > testing purposes, according to the INSTALL file. It would
> > > > likely need to be repacked to
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 11:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> I agree with you that a poppler-based xpdf is not maintainable until
> and unless xpdf upstream switches to poppler. However, it is not
> clear to me why we shouldn't just remove xpdf from Debian. The main
> reason that
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:02:29AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > It sounds like the source should not in fact be repacked. What do
> > you
> > think, Svante?
>
> The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing
>
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 07:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:36:56PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > BTW: Do I need to publish my packages somewhere locally? I
> > currently
> > don't have a web server running. Or is it possible to just use
> >
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 08:02 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Jason,
>
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:00:19AM -0600, Jason Crain wrote:
> > If you're going to adopt the Xpdf package, I thought you might want
> > to
> > know a little about Xpdf first and why the Debian package is the
> > way
> >
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 13:12 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Seems like I made some errors when uploading and sending the RFS
> > request:
> > 1) I did not change the Maintainer: fi
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
> control: owner -1 !
>
> Dear Svante,
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf"
>
> I'd
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 12:23 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> >
> >
> > https://mentors.debian.net/my
>
> Thanks, found out that I had to u
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/my
Thanks, found out that I had to upload the public gpg key too.
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
...
> The files should be available at:
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf
> but is not yet. However uploading was successful:
> dput mentors xpdf
uild using the correct upstream tarball xpdf-3.04.tar.gz.
-- Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com> Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:33 +0100
The files should be available at:
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf
but is not yet. However uploading was successful:
dput mentors xpdf_3
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:57 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:26:52PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 18:09 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > OK; I'll use experimental, even if the new package closes 11 important and
> > normal bu
On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 18:09 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> >
> On the other hand, this package is a part of stretch, and we're in deep
> freeze. This means, unless you're fixing RC or at least important bugs
> on
Hi,
I'm intending to ITA the orphaned package xpdf, see #848631. An updated package,
xpdf 3.0.4-5 is ready for review and upload. What to do next, provide a debdiff
as a start?
Thank you for your time.
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 12:15 +0100, Guido van Steen wrote:
I'm currently looking into packaging eudev, consolekit2, uselessd for
Debian. If doing so, is anybody interested in sponsoring uploads of
these packages? It would be great to know, before digging into the
details. If you wish,
Hi,
Seems like I sent my question to the wrong list.
Please Cc: replies, I'm not subscribed (yet)
---BeginMessage---
Am 13.11.2014 um 19:17 schrieb Svante Signell:
Hi,
Hi,
I'm currently looking into packaging eudev, consolekit2, uselessd for
Debian. If doing so, is anybody interested
35 matches
Mail list logo
