Hi,
I update the package to version 2.4. A build of the package can be
found under [0], the git repo of the package is under [1].
Best regards,
Julian
[0] http://rbw.goe.net/jw/debian/pool/powertop/
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/jw-guest/powertop.git
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> > nearly a month passed, since I asked for sponsorship for the new
> > powertop package [0] and addressed the concerns which Paul Wise had
> > with it. Sadly Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, did not react and I
>
> When you clai
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> nearly a month passed, since I asked for sponsorship for the new
> powertop package [0] and addressed the concerns which Paul Wise had
> with it. Sadly Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, did not react and I
When you claim the someon
Dear mentors,
nearly a month passed, since I asked for sponsorship for the new
powertop package [0] and addressed the concerns which Paul Wise had
with it. Sadly Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, did not react and I
would like to see the new powertop version in Debian, since it
addresses 13 bugs,
> I also recommend dh-autoreconf so you know that the build system can
> still be created and users won't find issues if they modify it.
Ok, I added dh-autoreconf and also added a fix for bug #695890. An
updated package can be found under [0].
Best regards,
Julian
[0] http://rbw.goe.net/jw/debia
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 13:09 +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> Since for this powertop release it is too late to ask upstream to update
> autotools, I added autotools-dev to the build-deps. But I will ask
> them, to consider updating autotools for their next release, so that
> the build-dep can be dr
> You should read the full info for the tag:
>
> lintian-info -t outdated-autotools-helper-file
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/outdated-autotools-helper-file.html
I really should have thought of that myself, thanks for pointing it out.
> Two things:
>
> Ask upstream to use the latest upstream au
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> W: powertop source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess
> 2012-02-10
> W: powertop source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.sub 2012-02-10
> But I do not know, what the best way, with cdbs as build system, would
> be to get rid
Dear Patrick Winnertz, dear mentors,
since over 100 days there is a wishlist bug (#695892) for packaging
a new powertop version open and in this bug, there is an nmudiff for
version 2.2. Since the most recent powertop version is now 2.3, I
packaged the new version, which closes several bug, and am
Hello Gregor.
> Uploaded now (to DELAYED/2); closing an RC bug and having a recent
> powertop in Debian seem like two good reasons :)
Thank you very much.
With best regards,
Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:29:09 +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> thank you for your comments. I uploaded a new version of my packaging to
> http://rbw.goe.net/jw/ which addresses all of your comments.
Thanks!
> > - some other changes in d/control are also not mentioned
> If you mean the dependency
Hi Vincent,
thank you for the clarification. I uploaded a new version to
http://rbw.goe.net/jw in which I removed the "Multi-Arch: foreign" field.
With best regards,
Julian
P.S.: I just saw, that bug 656421 ("Please update to libnl3") was promoted to
the severity serious, hence this new packa
Hi Julian,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Julian Wollrath wrote:
>> - no idea if "Multi-Arch: foreign" has any benefits?
> I too do not really know if there are big benefits from it but since I had
> debian/control open in my editor and Debian is on the way to become aware of
> multi-arch, I t
Hi Gregor,
thank you for your comments. I uploaded a new version of my packaging to
http://rbw.goe.net/jw/ which addresses all of your comments.
> - some other changes in d/control are also not mentioned
If you mean the dependency change from libnl2 to libnl3, then this is
mentioned know.
> -
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:58:45 +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> since I offered Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, to co-maintain about two
> weeks ago and he was also CC'ed in parts of this thread but got no response
> from him, I am hoping someone could sponsor my updates to the powertop
> packag
Hello,
since I offered Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, to co-maintain about two
weeks ago and he was also CC'ed in parts of this thread but got no response
from him, I am hoping someone could sponsor my updates to the powertop
package, which can be found under http://rbw.goe.net/jw/. I tried
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:15:01AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Julian Wollrath writes:
>
> > I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but
> > since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes
> > were
> > needed to get it build. The massi
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> The above is correct. Without DEP-5, the format is entirely up to
> you. As long as it contains the necessary information, it's good enough.
Ok, thank you.
So, I prepared a new version, which can be found under http://rbw.goe.net/jw,
which in difference to the former versio
Julian Wollrath writes:
> David Bremner wrote:
>> This kind of change (changing the copyright file format) is not usually
>> acceptable in an NMU, unless cleared with the maintainer.
> But how else should I address the missing license information for 'pevent/*',
> 'src/perf/perf_event.h', 'src/
David Bremner wrote:
> This kind of change (changing the copyright file format) is not usually
> acceptable in an NMU, unless cleared with the maintainer.
But how else should I address the missing license information for 'pevent/*',
'src/perf/perf_event.h', 'src/tuning/iw.*' and 'src/tuning/nl802
Julian Wollrath writes:
> I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but
> since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes
> were
> needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also
> needed so that it would be ma
Hello,
I prepared a new version, which keeps the changes in the rules minimal but
since upstream changed the building process a little bit, minimal changes were
needed to get it build. The massive changes of the copyright file were also
needed so that it would be machine readable according to t
Hi,
On 26.05.2012 20:11, Julian Wollrath wrote:
>> Also, I'm not sure about new upstream releases via NMU. Have you offered to
>> co-maintain ?
> No I have not, because I was under the impression, that it is not possible
> for
> a non Debian developer to co-maintain a package. But if this impre
Thank you both for your kind and quick reponses.
>> Did you know about
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-
pkging.html#mia-qa
>>
>> It outlines the best practices for dealing with an unresponsive maintainer.
No I did not know about this document. Thank you for poi
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 06:00:26PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of the package powertop, which
> closes several bugs (e.g. bug #672555). I do this since there was no reaction
> from the maintainer regarding my patches which fix bu
Julian Wollrath writes:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of the package powertop, which
> closes several bugs (e.g. bug #672555). I do this since there was no reaction
> from the maintainer regarding my patches which fix bug #672555 and would like
> to see the n
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of the package powertop, which
closes several bugs (e.g. bug #672555). I do this since there was no reaction
from the maintainer regarding my patches which fix bug #672555 and would like
to see the new version of powertop in Debian.
*
27 matches
Mail list logo
