Bug#824466: marked as done (RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP])

Your message dated Sat, 25 Jun 2016 08:20:50 + (UTC) with message-id <1852935935.2008983.1466842850128.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #824466, regarding RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP] to be marked a

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hello again! Am 20.06.2016 um 13:08 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: you gave me a good answer here, so, please add it again then (libboost-dev is fine in this case!) Ok. There is a good reason, but I see that it is unnecessarily tortuous to do so. That’s why

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, Il Sabato 18 Giugno 2016 21:45, Frank Stähr ha scritto: >I think we are nearly ready, don’t give up. I *never* give up :) >Nevertheless, I don’t see why e. g. boost/algorithm/string/trim.hpp is >guaranteed to be installed. It might be a coincidence that it is

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hello Gianfranco, I think we are nearly ready, don’t give up. Am 20.05.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: I deleted the dependence libboost-dev as suggested, ALTHOUGH I am not sure if that is correct. The documentation just says “This package provides headers.” Besides regex and

Re: Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Frank Stähr wrote: > Am 16.05.2016 um 13:09 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: > >> So, please ping me and remove the moreinfo tag […] > > You overestimate my abilities of understanding such things with little > words. When in doubt about jargon encountered on Debian

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

simply "RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]" instead of "Bug#813485: RFS: >setop/0.1-1 [ITP]". Perhaps that was the problem. yes, as Mattia said to me, starting with Bug: means that this is a followup to a current bug so submit won't open a new one. >I deleted the dependence lib

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

..@bugs.debian.org. This time the subject was simply "RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]" instead of "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]". Perhaps that was the problem. Omitting -O3 yields in making a debug version (equal to -O0) on my system. By default, the make file shall produce a rel

Re: Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Am 16.05.2016 um 13:09 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo that one is good. So, please ping me and remove the moreinfo tag […] You overestimate my abilities of understanding such things with little words.

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo that one is good. So, please ping me and remove the moreinfo tag when you fixed the issues pointed on -mentors mail list! thanks G. Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 13:02, Frank Stähr ha scritto: Package: sponsorship-requests

Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "setop": * Package name: setop Version : 0.1-1 Upstream Author : Frank Stähr * URL : * License : GPL-2+

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, well, as Mattia said, we already have the -g injected by dpkg-builflags, so no action is needed dpkg-buildflags --get CXXFLAGS -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security g. Il Lunedì 4 Aprile 2016 15:39, Gianfranco Costamagna ha

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >1. My ITP bug seems to be correct. ><https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813485> >On the same site, you can see my try of an RFS bug, I sent it to ><sub...@bugs.debian.org> with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1 >[ITP]". So th

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

ebian.org> with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]". So the address is correct, but the subject should have just been "RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]", or? 2. What exactly shall I do now? Write a new message with correct address, subject and same content as in the first

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi, >First of all thank you very much for taking care of me. I had already >given up and left setop behind me. lets recover :) >Is it this one? > >I exactly followed all instructions from >

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hello Gianfranco! First of all thank you very much for taking care of me. I had already given up and left setop behind me. Am 04.04.2016 um 15:39 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: nobody usually sponsors stuff without an RFS bug. And sending a mail with RFS in the subject isn't a bug :) Is

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hi Frank, nobody usually sponsors stuff without an RFS bug. And sending a mail with RFS in the subject isn't a bug :) anyhow, lets review: "CXXFLAGS = -std=c++11 -O3" I think you shouldn't force -O3 and for sure you shouldn't override external flags. Please do += instead of = or maybe ?=

Re: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Hello everybody, unfortunately nobody seems to be interested in sponsoring my package setop, so I updated my upload to increase quality. Besides some spelling errors (that will be removed with my next update) there are still a "Watch file is not present" message and some lintian

RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "setop": * Package name: setop Version : 0.1-1 Upstream Author : Frank Stähr * URL : * License : GPL-2+