On Sep 18, 2012, at 00:39, Arno Toell wrote:
>
> thanks for your work. I've just sponsored your package. You may have
> gotten a notification by dak. Note, that the package is NEW - meaning it
> needs to be manually approved by a ftp-master. Please note this could
> take a while given we're in
On Sep 13, 2012, at 01:42, Arno Toell wrote:
> Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg-4. It might
> be ugly a bit dangerous and misleading, but it is feasible in your case.
> That said I realize this is not your fault, so let's deal with it. If
> upstream ever releases a new
Hi,
On 11.09.2012 16:48, Eugene Seliverstov wrote:
> I prefered .dfsg variant for consistent versioning. Repackaging original
> tarball
> with removing PDF files leads to use of 'dfsg1' prefix so now full version is
> '0.9.21.dfsg1-1'.
Your version is acceptable as it is larger than 0.9.21.dfsg
On Sep 5, 2012, at 03:09, Arno Töll wrote:
> tags 686679 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> this is a review of your package.
Hello, Arno,
Thank you a lot for your time and explantations!
Please review my next upload at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/asn1c/asn1c_0.9.21.df
Arno Toell writes:
> Yes, using +dfsg is acceptable. I haven't checked it, but I'm pretty
> sure that the +dfsg variant is more common. That said, keep in mind that
> using + or . is not only a stylistic question. It also makes a
> difference sometimes.
+dfsg is preferred over .dfsg because of:
Hi Eugene,
On 05.09.2012 14:45, Eugene Seliverstov wrote:
> I have some questions about versioning scheme.
> Package is based on latest 0.9.21.dfsg-4 and includes all of these changes.
> But I reseted (maybe incorrectly) a numbering due to use '+dfsg' prefix
> instead of '.dfsg'.
> 1. Is it okay
On Sep 5, 2012, at 03:09, Arno Töll wrote:
> tags 686679 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> On 04.09.2012 18:23, Eugene Seliverstov wrote:
>> A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert
>>
>> but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of
>>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 686679 + moreinfo
Bug #686679 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: asn1c/0.9.21+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- ASN.1
compiler for C
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
686679: http://bugs.debian.o
tags 686679 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Eugene,
On 04.09.2012 18:23, Eugene Seliverstov wrote:
> A package asn1c was previously maintained by W. Martin Borgert
>
> but it was removed from testing and unstable distributions due to lack of
> adopters.
> Current package is based on original package and
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "asn1c"
* Package name: asn1c
Version : 0.9.21+dfsg-1
Upstream Author : Lev Walkin
* URL : http://asn1c.sourceforge.net
* License : BSD-2-Clause
Section
10 matches
Mail list logo
