Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, On 10/09/2013 12:40, intrigeri wrote: > > Thanks for all the fixes. I've just reviewed and built 0.4.15 and > hoped to upload right away, but Lintian is still not happy: > > W: bilibop-rules: extended-description-contains-empty-paragraph > N: > N:The extended description (the lines afte

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, quidame wrote (20 Jul 2013 10:56:58 GMT) : >> First, was the target distribution change in debian/changelog >> intentional? (0.4.12 has experimental, 0.4.13 has unstable.) > Yes it is; the target distribution was set to experimental for the > wheezy's freeze duration... after what it was forg

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, and thanks for this review On 19/07/2013 20:25, intrigeri wrote: > First, was the target distribution change in debian/changelog > intentional? (0.4.12 has experimental, 0.4.13 has unstable.) Yes it is; the target distribution was set to experimental for the wheezy's freeze duration... after

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, intrigeri wrote (04 Jul 2013 06:49:08 GMT) : > I plan to review, and hopefully upload bilibop next week. Here we go. First, was the target distribution change in debian/changelog intentional? (0.4.12 has experimental, 0.4.13 has unstable.) Second, it looks like important changes and refacto

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, On 04/07/2013 08:49, intrigeri wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to review, and hopefully upload bilibop next week. Nice to hear :) The last bilibop version is 0.4.13 [1]. The git repository [2] is ahead of 2 commits (fix minor errors). Thank you quidame [1]:

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, I plan to review, and hopefully upload bilibop next week. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debi

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, quid...@poivron.org wrote (16 Jun 2012 00:52:22 GMT) : > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bilibop/bilibop_0.3.0.dsc Hopefully, I'll review this before the end of the month. Other potential sponsors: if you can be faster than me, please do. > So, I don't understand the interest/be

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, Le 2012-06-09 15:01, intrigeri a écrit : quid...@poivron.org wrote (08 Jun 2012 22:35:21 GMT) : I am waiting: - for new comments from you or another DD - to find by myself something to optimize in the code How long do you intend to wait? This was not a question of time. Here is the new

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

quid...@poivron.org wrote (08 Jun 2012 22:35:21 GMT) : > OK. But packaging is not a goal in itself, so I think I will > not send a new version with just (in the changelog): > * Fix typos, unclear sentences and language errors in > debian/control, in the documentation and in the comments >

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, Le 2012-06-08 14:14, intrigeri a écrit : quid...@poivron.org wrote (08 Jun 2012 10:46:14 GMT) : 2. Fix typos and other things, add a new changelog entry and increment the version number (0.2.1) ? Yes. In that case, how to deal with the irrelevant or useless informations of

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, quid...@poivron.org wrote (08 Jun 2012 10:46:14 GMT) : >>> + * debian/control: more precise description of the packages, their >>> purposes >>> +and features. Add a statement about the required kernel version. >> >> I doubt this statement is in debian/control. [...] > The first paragraph

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, Le 2012-06-08 04:06, intrigeri a écrit : Hi, http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bilibop/bilibop_0.2.dsc Great! + * New OpenPGP key. I doubt this is relevant to debian/changelog. + * debian/control: change 'Achitecture: all' to 'Architecture: linux-any' for +all bin

Bug#675532: Fwd: Re: Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bilibop/bilibop_0.2.dsc Great! > + * New OpenPGP key. I doubt this is relevant to debian/changelog. > + * debian/control: change 'Achitecture: all' to 'Architecture: linux-any' > for > +all binaries. I think you mean "all binary packag

Bug#675532: Fwd: Re: Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Message original Objet: Re: Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467) Date: 2012-06-08 02:28 De: quid...@poivron.org À: intrigeri Hi, Le 2012-06-07 15:05, intrigeri a écrit : So, really, I think the only sane way is to move everything (that is or depends on bilibop

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, quid...@poivron.org wrote (07 Jun 2012 12:53:34 GMT) : >> The whole thing is arch:all, but some shell functions require a Linux >> kernel shouldn't bilibop-common have a versioned dependency on Linux >> kernel >= 2.6.37 (needed by backing_file_from_loop), and be >> arch:linux-any instead? > I

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Le 2012-06-05 20:57, intrigeri a écrit : Here is a first, quick review. Thank you. The whole thing is arch:all, but some shell functions require a Linux kernel shouldn't bilibop-common have a versioned dependency on Linux kernel >= 2.6.37 (needed by backing_file_from_loop), and be arch:linux-

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Hi, bilibop project wrote (02 Jun 2012 00:07:22 GMT) : > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bilibop" Here is a first, quick review. First of all, this is great work. In case this is your first Debian packaging work, as you seem to indicate in the ITP bug, then congrats! The whole thing

Bug#675532: RFS: bilibop/0.1 (ITP #675467)

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bilibop" * Package name: bilibop Version: 0.1 Upstream Author: bilibop project * URL: https://poivron.org/~quidame/bilibop_project/ * License: GPL-3.0+ Section: admin It builds