On 16.01.2012 23:57, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me.
But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on.
That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made
similar experiences.
It's just too common to be the
For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me.
But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on.
That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I made
similar experiences.
It's just too common to be the default route.
I know what you mean. I am
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:48:52PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
Hi,
before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get
the bug fixed.
in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload
of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting
before this falls through the cracks I've uploaded the package to get
the bug fixed.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this
control field.
Droped.
I don't see how I can judge if you're able to handle the package or not.
E.g. by looking in QA?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Sergey,
On 16.01.2012 17:28, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
Looks like DM does not make sence at all :(
I'm waiting for upload for months just in case of very
simple changeset (e.g. for rpaf or php-memcached).
You seem to misunderstand the DM
You seem to misunderstand the DM status.
I don't think so, but thank you for explanation.
It is not a Debian Developer
Lite. It does not mean you, as a DM, are trusted to upload any given
package to Debian at any time.
It just a meaningless thing for now. See below.
If you got DM status
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Sergey,
On 16.01.2012 23:57, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
For example, that was not a very first upload (of mod_rpaf) for me.
But next time I should convince new sponsor and so on.
That's unfortunate, but this happens. I'm sorry for you, and I
Hello,
in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload
of this package a few month ago) but I don't like people setting DMUA
on public sponsoring requests.
I'm sorry, but that was noted in comments. Feel free to drop this
control field.
I don't see how I can judge if
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:36:51PM +0300, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
Hi,
It builds those binary packages:
libapache2-mod-rpaf - module for Apache2 which takes the last IP
from the 'X-Forwarded-For' header
in theory I'm willing to sponsor an upload (well I did the QA upload
of this package a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On 02.01.2012 11:38, Sven Hoexter wrote:
I'm not sure how near we're to new Apache release but maybe the
deprecation notice would be more appropriate in a NEWS file?
But maybe that can wait until we acutally have it in Debian.
Httpd 2.4 is
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libapache2-mod-rpaf.
Package name: libapache2-mod-rpaf
Version : 0.6-3
Upstream Author : Thomas Eibner
URL : http://stderr.net/apache/rpaf/
License : Apache
Section : httpd
It builds those binary
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the NMU version 0.6-0.2
of my package libapache2-mod-rpaf.
It builds these binary packages:
libapache2-mod-rpaf - module for Apache2 which takes the last IP from the
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL:
12 matches
Mail list logo
