Re: RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

On 8/30/16, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > uploaded. I have made 1 commit on top (93fab5c) to bump debhelper > compat level and use https in Vcs-Git. Thank you! > I hope you have plans to push a good part of those patches upstream. ;-) They are very debian-specific, maybe I can

Re: RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:11:24PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 8/28/16, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> * test-kitchen (a new package) > > >> lib/vendor/hash_recursive_merge.rb is not properly namespaced. it is also > >> under > >> a different license than the rest of the

Re: RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

On 8/28/16, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> * test-kitchen (a new package) >> lib/vendor/hash_recursive_merge.rb is not properly namespaced. it is also >> under >> a different license than the rest of the package; this needs to be >> mentioned in dbeian/copyright >> debian/copyright

Re: RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

On 8/27/16, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > uploaded these three Thanks! >> * test-kitchen (a new package) > > judging by the amount of patches, this seems to be a reasonably problematic > package! :-o > > lib/vendor/hash_recursive_merge.rb is not properly namespaced. it is also

Re: RFS: ruby-rack-oauth2

On Tuesday 23 August 2016 05:19 PM, s...@disroot.org wrote: > Hi, > > I updated the packaging ruby-rack-oauth2 from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0. I tested it > with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. > > It is pushed to Alioth repo (my ssh access started working). > > Please review and

RFS: ruby-rack-oauth2

Hi, I updated the packaging ruby-rack-oauth2 from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0. I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. It is pushed to Alioth repo (my ssh access started working). Please review and upload. Thanks and Regards, Sruthi

Re: RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

On 8/15/16, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi team! > > Kindly reminding that I've pushed the following packages for review and > upload. Reminding again :) > * ruby-gettext (updated to the latest upstream version) > * ruby-solve (like above) > * ruby-mixlib-archive (a new package,

Re: RFS: ruby-fog-cloudatcost

On Monday 22 August 2016 09:04 PM, s...@disroot.org wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared the packaging of ruby-fog-cloudatcost. It is lintian clean and I > tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. > > > I am still unable to ssh to git.debian.org and I have logged a support >

Re: RFS: ruby-bootstrap-switch-rails

On Thursday 18 August 2016 10:34 PM, Abhijith PA wrote: > Hello team, > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded > > * ruby-bootstrap-switch-rails-3.3.3-1 > > Please review and upload it. Uploaded, thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RFS: ruby-fog-cloudatcost

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-fog-cloudatcost. It is lintian clean and I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. I am still unable to ssh to git.debian.org and I have logged a support request. So I've added my package to the following git-repo:

RFS: ruby-bootstrap-switch-rails

Hello team, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded * ruby-bootstrap-switch-rails-3.3.3-1 Please review and upload it. (packaged for diaspora) -- Abhijith PA signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: ruby-fog-core

On Thursday 18 August 2016 11:55 AM, s...@disroot.org wrote: > Hi, > > I updated the packaging ruby-fog-core from 1.40 to 1.42. I tested it with > build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. Two packages > (ruby-openstack and ruby-rackspace) failed tests, but they were unrelated >

RFS: ruby-fog-core

Hi, I updated the packaging ruby-fog-core from 1.40 to 1.42. I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. Two packages (ruby-openstack and ruby-rackspace) failed tests, but they were unrelated failures. As my membership request to alioth is still pending, I've added my

Re: RFS: ruby-fast-blank

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 07:45:38PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 8/17/16, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > > > Hi,I prepared the packaging of ruby-fast-blank. It is lintian cleanand > > I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. > > > > As my

Re: RFS: ruby-fast-blank

On 8/17/16, Sruthi wrote: > I packaged the gem because it is listed as one of the dependencies for > Discourse. Why just not to patch Discourse?

Re: RFS: ruby-fast-blank

On 8/17/16, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > Hi,I prepared the packaging of ruby-fast-blank. It is lintian cleanand > I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. > > As my membership request to alioth is still pending, I've added my > packageto the

RFS: ruby-fast-blank

Hi,I prepared the packaging of ruby-fast-blank. It is lintian cleanand I tested it with build-and-upload script from pkg-ruby-extras repo. As my membership request to alioth is still pending, I've added my packageto the following git-repo:https://git.fosscommunity.in/debian-ruby/ruby-fast-blank

RFS: ruby-gettext, ruby-solve, ruby-mixlib-archive, test-kitchen

Hi team! Kindly reminding that I've pushed the following packages for review and upload. * ruby-gettext (updated to the latest upstream version) * ruby-solve (like above) * ruby-mixlib-archive (a new package, dependency for berkshelf ITP) * test-kitchen (a new package) Thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-mixlib-install 1.1.0-1

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:44:52PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > Hi team! > > I've prepared a new version of ruby-mixlib-install (1.1.0-1), please > review and upload it. Uploaded, thanks that package looks like a mess BTW :-/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature

RFS: ruby-mixlib-install 1.1.0-1

Hi team! I've prepared a new version of ruby-mixlib-install (1.1.0-1), please review and upload it. Thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-msgpack 1.0.0-1

Hi Hleb On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:21:31PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > Hi team. > I've prepared a new upstream version of ruby-msgpack, it's required > for a new version of ruby-grape-msgpack which is compatible with > currently uploaded version of ruby-grape. > Please review and upload,

RFS: ruby-msgpack 1.0.0-1

Hi team. I've prepared a new upstream version of ruby-msgpack, it's required for a new version of ruby-grape-msgpack which is compatible with currently uploaded version of ruby-grape. Please review and upload, thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1

* Michael Moll [160710 15:48]: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > * Michael Moll [160707 00:21]: > > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > > > > > ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1 > > > >

Re: RFS: ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Michael Moll [160707 00:21]: > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > > > ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1 > > debian/changelog has a different package name. Please check. Indeed, I

Re: RFS: ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1

* Michael Moll [160707 00:21]: > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1 debian/changelog has a different package name. Please check. -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA

RFS: ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-puppet-syntax 2.1.0-1 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-rspec-puppet 2.4.0-1

* Michael Moll [160701 13:53]: > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-rspec-puppet 2.4.0-1 Uploaded. -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-

RFS: ruby-rspec-puppet 2.4.0-1

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-rspec-puppet 2.4.0-1 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-hmac 0.4.0-5

Hi, On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:33:53PM +0200, Michael Moll wrote: > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > ruby-hmac 0.4.0-5 > Could you please sponsor it? Uploaded. I just added a "Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-ruby" line in the control file. Cheers, Cédric signature.asc

RFS: ruby-hmac 0.4.0-5

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-hmac 0.4.0-5 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-logify 0.2.0-1

Uploaded. On 06/23/2016 03:11 PM, Michael Moll wrote: > Hi, > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-logify 0.2.0-1 > > Could you please sponsor it? > > Thank you! -- Lucas Kanashiro 8ED6 C3F8 BAC9 DB7F C130 A870 F823 A272 9883 C97C signature.asc Description:

RFS: ruby-logify 0.2.0-1

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-logify 0.2.0-1 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-sawyer

On Sunday 20 March 2016 05:15 PM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > Sure. > I have uploaded ruby-sawyer as ruby-octokit 4.3.0 is ready for upload. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-16 15:38:31, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Please do not generate the keys on the fly. Generating keys takes time > and can be flacky if entropy is low. I suggest having them stored in > ASCII-armored form and importing them in a freshly created GNUPGHOME > before running the tests. Alright. >

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

ge...@riseup.net: > On 16-05-16 12:32:48, ge...@riseup.net wrote: > > On 16-05-16 12:04:38, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > > Both the hardcoded path and the binary files have the same root cause: > > > this should all be generated on the fly as part of the test setup > > > process. I really don't think

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-16 12:32:48, ge...@riseup.net wrote: > On 16-05-16 12:04:38, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > Both the hardcoded path and the binary files have the same root cause: > > this should all be generated on the fly as part of the test setup > > process. I really don't think it's a good thing to have

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-16 12:04:38, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > ge...@riseup.net: > > - I've made some progress: […] > > Great! :) Thanks for your input! > I'm surprised you need to both launch and reload gpg-agent. I think it > would also be much better to kill the agent once the tests have been > run. I guess

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

ge...@riseup.net: > On 16-05-11 09:53:06, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > For this reason, I think you should find a way to restore > > `debian/ruby-tests.rake` and make it work with gpg2 as gpg1 is likely > > to go away in some near future… > > - I've made some progress: […] Great! :) I'm surprised

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-11 09:53:06, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > For this reason, I think you should find a way to restore > `debian/ruby-tests.rake` and make it work with gpg2 as gpg1 is likely > to go away in some near future… - I've made some progress: - I've added a patch which injects gpg.conf and

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-13 13:54:25, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:16:50PM +0200, ge...@riseup.net wrote: > > - Because I'll re-enable the tests, I had a look at the dependencies > > (again): mail-gpg depends on pry-nav [1], which depends on pry-remote > > [2], both aren't packaged

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:16:50PM +0200, ge...@riseup.net wrote: > - Because I'll re-enable the tests, I had a look at the dependencies > (again): mail-gpg depends on pry-nav [1], which depends on pry-remote > [2], both aren't packaged yet. So I'll do this as well.. I replied to the ITPs,

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

* ge...@riseup.net [160512 20:17]: > - However, the options I've used assume gnupg-agent >= 2.1~, whereas in > jessie the current version is 2.0.26-6, which means that these won't > work in jessie. As this package won't get into jessie anyway: Is this > ok? Would matter

Re: RFS: ruby-mixlib-versioning, ruby-mixlib-shellout

On 16-05-13 16:51:41, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > I suppose it was 3.9.7 when I prepared these packages (or my lintian > is outdated). In case you're running jessie: There is 2.5.44~bpo8+1 in jessie-backports. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: ruby-mixlib-versioning, ruby-mixlib-shellout

On 5/13/16, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Done. Thanks. > Note: current Standards-Version is 3.9.8, not 3.9.7. I suppose it was 3.9.7 when I prepared these packages (or my lintian is outdated).

Re: RFS: ruby-mixlib-versioning, ruby-mixlib-shellout

* Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> [160513 14:22]: > Hi team. > > Please review and upload: > 1. ruby-mixlib-shellout -- update to the latest upstream version > 2. ruby-mixlib-versioning -- new package Done. Note: current Standards-Version is 3.9.8, not 3.9.7. Thanks, -- ,''`. Christian

RFS: ruby-mixlib-versioning, ruby-mixlib-shellout

Hi team. Please review and upload: 1. ruby-mixlib-shellout -- update to the latest upstream version 2. ruby-mixlib-versioning -- new package These uploads are required for test-kitchen package I'm working on. Thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

ge...@riseup.net: > On 16-05-11 09:53:06, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > The only mistake I could find by looking at the source is in > > `debian/copyright`: > > > > “MIT” is an ambiguous term for the licence, see > > . > > The term most often

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-11 11:28:03, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Georg and me discussed this a bit on IRC [...] While chatting, zeha recommended to speak with dkg about this, which I just did. He gave me some pointers. I'm now trying to implement these and will send a follow-up. All the best, Georg

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

On 16-05-11 09:53:06, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > The only mistake I could find by looking at the source is in > `debian/copyright`: > > “MIT” is an ambiguous term for the licence, see > . > The term most often refers to the Expat license: >

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

* Jérémy Bobbio [160511 09:55]: > For this reason, I think you should find a way to > restore `debian/ruby-tests.rake` and make it work with gpg2 as gpg1 is > likely to go away in some near future… Maybe this needs a fix in > ruby-gpgme? Seems it's an old and unsolved issue: >

Re: RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

ge...@riseup.net: > The following package is ready to be reviewed / uploaded: > > ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1 > > As this is my first package, I would be happy to get some pointers in > case there is anything not in shape. Thanks for your work. The only mistake I could find by looking at the

RFS: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1

Hi, The following package is ready to be reviewed / uploaded: ruby-mail-gpg 0.2.6-1 As this is my first package, I would be happy to get some pointers in case there is anything not in shape. Thanks in advance, Georg signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: ruby-algebrick 0.7.3-1

* Michael Moll [160506 01:18]: > Hi, > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-algebrick 0.7.3-1 > > Could you please sponsor it? Uploaded, but for the next version please fix this: I: ruby-algebrick: extended-description-is-probably-too-short

RFS: ruby-algebrick 0.7.3-1

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-algebrick 0.7.3-1 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-omniauth-auth0

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 17 3:34:42 PM IST, sudheesh shetty wrote: >Hi, > >I prepared the packaging of ruby-omniauth-auth0. It is lintian clean >and >tested with pbuilder. > >The url for this package is >https://gitlab.com/debian-ruby/ruby-omniauth-auth0 > >Please consider to

RFS: ruby-omniauth-auth0

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-omniauth-auth0. It is lintian clean and tested with pbuilder. The url for this package is https://gitlab.com/debian-ruby/ruby-omniauth-auth0 Please consider to review it and upload it. Regrads, Sudheesh Shetty

RFS: ruby-fog-core

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-fog-core It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. Could you please sponsor them? Thanks, Sudheesh Shetty

RFS: ruby-mixlib-versioning, ruby-mixlib-shellout

Hi team. Please review and upload: 1. ruby-mixlib-shellout -- update to the latest upstream version 2. ruby-mixlib-versioning -- new package These uploads are required for test-kitchen package I'm working on. Thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-encryptor

On Thursday 07 April 2016 01:01 AM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-encryptor > > It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. > > Could you please sponsor them? done. Thanks. > Thanks, > Sudheesh Shetty signature.asc

RFS: ruby-encryptor

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-encryptor It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. Could you please sponsor them? Thanks, Sudheesh Shetty

Re: RFS: ruby-table-print 1.5.6-1

Hi Michael, On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 05:00:28PM +0200, Michael Moll wrote: > Hi, > > The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-table-print 1.5.6-1 > Uploaded, thanks! Cheers, Cédric signature.asc Description: PGP signature

RFS: ruby-aruba, ruby-berkshelf-api-client

Hi team! Please upload: - ruby-aruba 0.14.1-2. I've only dropped unneeded ruby-event-bus from dependencies. - ruby-berkshelf-api-client 2.0.2-1. New upstream version and tests are run during build process. Thanks in advance.

RFS: ruby-aruba, ruby-berkshelf-api-client

Hi team! Please upload: - ruby-aruba 0.14.1-2. I've only dropped unneeded ruby-event-bus from dependencies. - ruby-berkshelf-api-client 2.0.2-1. New upstream version and tests are run during build process. Thanks in advance.

RFS: ruby-table-print 1.5.6-1

Hi, The following package is IMHO ready to be uploaded: ruby-table-print 1.5.6-1 Could you please sponsor it? Thank you! -- Michael Moll signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-msgpack, berkshelf-api

On 3/24/16, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Both uploaded. Thanks!

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-msgpack, berkshelf-api

* Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> [160324 14:07]: > Hi team. > > Please upload new version of ruby-grape-msgpack. > > Besides of automated changes made by Cédric it has the following: > - checks gem dependencies during a build process > - relaxes ruby-grape dependency in gemfile > > And when

RFS: ruby-grape-msgpack, berkshelf-api

Hi team. Please upload new version of ruby-grape-msgpack. Besides of automated changes made by Cédric it has the following: - checks gem dependencies during a build process - relaxes ruby-grape dependency in gemfile And when it reaches archive then please upload berkshelf-api. It's a new

Re: RFS: ruby-ridley

* Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> [160322 11:22]: > Hi team! > > Please upload ruby-ridley 4.4.3-2. It has several Depends and > Build-Depends fixes. Uploaded. Please check this error for the next revision: (during dpkg-source ...) dh_auto_clean dh_ruby --clean dh_ruby --clean cd

RFS: ruby-ridley

Hi team! Please upload ruby-ridley 4.4.3-2. It has several Depends and Build-Depends fixes. Thanks in advance.

Re: RFS: ruby-sawyer

Hi Praveen, Sure. On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 11:42 AM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > > > ruby-omniauth-oauth > > > > It is lintian clean and checked

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-entity

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 09:48 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:54:26PM -0300, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I updated ruby-grape-entity with latest upstream release (0.5.0) and I need >> sponsorship. > > uploaded > This broke gitlab. It would be better to check

Re: RFS: ruby-sawyer

On Sunday 20 March 2016 11:42 AM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-omniauth-oauth > > It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. > > Could you please sponsor them? Next time when you update, check the compatibility of its reverse

RFS: ruby-sawyer

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-omniauth-oauth It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. Could you please sponsor them? Thanks, Sudheesh Shetty

Re: RFS: ruby-actionpack-xml-parser

* Lucas Kanashiro [160314 16:23]: > Hi, > > I just fixed a FTBFS bug of ruby-actionpack-xml-parser, waiting for sponsor. Done, Thanks. -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-entity

Sorry for that, I'll take more care about it. Just a ruby's newbie question: what does define a library as stable or not? Thanks for the hint! 2016-03-16 11:29 GMT-03:00 Pirate Praveen : > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 09:48 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14,

RFS : ruby-request-store

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-request-store It is lintian clean and checked with pbuilder. Could you please sponsor them? Thanks, Sudheesh

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-entity

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 08:16 PM, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: > Just a ruby's newbie question: what does define a library as stable or not? Usually stable libraries have versions greater than 1.0 and follow Semantic Versioning. See https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/UpstreamPledge for a campaign

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-entity

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:21:12PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2016 08:16 PM, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: > > Just a ruby's newbie question: what does define a library as stable or not? > > Usually stable libraries have versions greater than 1.0 and follow > Semantic

done: Re: RFS : ruby-encryptor

On Friday 18 March 2016 11:45 PM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > I have separated out patches to add securerandom and remove simplecov > dependency. > It is lintian clean and builds fine with pbuilder > > Thanks, > Sudheesh > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:00 PM, sudheesh shetty >

Re: RFS: ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2)

Hi! On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:43:27PM -0300, Thiago Ribeiro wrote: > ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2) > Could you please sponsor them? > I applied one patch from upstream to close #816360. Uploaded, thanks. I just made a slight modification, to add Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-ruby in the debian/control

Re: RFS : ruby-encryptor

I have separated out patches to add securerandom and remove simplecov dependency. It is lintian clean and builds fine with pbuilder Thanks, Sudheesh On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:00 PM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > >

Re: RFS: ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2)

Hi, using this thread I updated ruby-fog-atmos to (0.1.0-3), I applied one patch to close #818259 and I need sponsorship. Thanks. 2016-03-15 16:43 GMT-03:00 Thiago Ribeiro : > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2) > Could

RFS: ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2)

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-typhoeus (0.8.0-2) Could you please sponsor them? I applied one patch from upstream to close #816360. Regards

Re: RFS: ruby-grape-entity

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:54:26PM -0300, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: > Hi, > > I updated ruby-grape-entity with latest upstream release (0.5.0) and I need > sponsorship. uploaded signature.asc Description: PGP signature

RFS: ruby-grape-entity

Hi, I updated ruby-grape-entity with latest upstream release (0.5.0) and I need sponsorship. Thanks. -- Lucas Kanashiro

Re: RFS: ruby-amq-protocol

* Lucas Kanashiro [160312 17:10]: > Since Sebastien already committed ruby-amqp depending on new version of > ruby-amq-protocol, I think that this version of rubu-amq-protocol can be > uploaded :) Uploaded, thanks. Sébastien: uploaded your changes to ruby-amqp as

Re: RFS ruby-commander

* Lucas Moura [160311 01:24]: > I have installed rhc and executed a few of its commands in order to see if > ithe application is running properly. As far as I can tell, I have not > encountered any errors while using the package. Considering that > ruby-commander is used

Re: RFS: ruby-akismet

* Sagar Ippalpalli [160310 13:24]: > Hi, > > I've prepared the Debian package of the Ruby gem akismet. The package > was tested on pbuilder and was successfully built. It is also > lintian-clean. I've uploaded the package to the alioth repo which may be > found at >

Re: RFS: ruby-twitter-text

On Sunday 13 March 2016 01:28 AM, sudheesh shetty wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-twitter-text > > Could you please sponsor them? Did you test it in a clean chroot? I got test failures, because ruby-rspec was not in build deps. After adding it, tests

RFS: ruby-twitter-text

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-twitter-text Could you please sponsor them? I have

Re: RFS: ruby-amq-protocol

Since Sebastien already committed ruby-amqp depending on new version of ruby-amq-protocol, I think that this version of rubu-amq-protocol can be uploaded :) 2016-03-10 14:36 GMT-03:00 Lucas Kanashiro : > >> * Lucas Kanashiro [160310

Re: RFS: ruby-twitter 5.16.0-1

On Saturday 12 March 2016 03:47 AM, Thiago Ribeiro wrote: > Hi, > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded: > > ruby-twitter 5.16.0-1 > > Could you please sponsor them? Uploaded. Thanks. > I just Imported the new Upstream version 5.16.0 to close #817887. > > Regards >

RFS: ruby-twitter 5.16.0-1

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded: ruby-twitter 5.16.0-1 Could you please sponsor them? I just Imported the new Upstream version 5.16.0 to close #817887. Regards

Re: RFS ruby-commander

Dear Mr. Christian I have installed rhc and executed a few of its commands in order to see if ithe application is running properly. As far as I can tell, I have not encountered any errors while using the package. Considering that ruby-commander is used to help parser command line options for rhc

Re: RFS: ruby-omniauth-remote-user 0.1.2-1

Thanks Christian! I made the necessary corrections . 2016-03-10 11:45 GMT-03:00 Christian Hofstaedtler : > Hi, > > * Thiago Ribeiro [160307 16:57]: > > The following packages are ready to be uploaded > > > > ruby-omniauth-remote-user(0.1.2-1) > >

Re: RFS: ruby-amq-protocol

> > > * Lucas Kanashiro [160310 04:14]: > > Hi guys, > > (Note that we sometimes have non-guys on this list as well.) > OK, sorry for that. > Unfortunately that will break ruby-amqp which has a '~> 1.9' > dependency on amq-protocol. > Maybe you can coordinate with

Re: RFS: ruby-mixlib-install, ruby-berkshelf-api-client

On 3/10/16, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> * ruby-mixlib-install > > Done/Uploaded. Thanks! >> * ruby-berkshelf-api-client > > Has distribution as UNSTABLE in d/changelog. > > For both, please fix the vcs-field-uses-insecure-uri vcs-git lintian Fixed. > hint. I /think/ the

Re: RFS ruby-commander

* Christian Hofstaedtler [160310 15:42]: > Hi, > > while looking at the RFS for ruby-commander, I noticed the new > version (4.4.0) will not fulfill the only rdep's dependencies: > > rhc depends commander >= 4.0.0 < 4.3.0 Uploaded for now, as commander in sid already doesnt

Re: RFS: ruby-amq-protocol

Hi, * Lucas Kanashiro [160310 04:14]: > Hi guys, (Note that we sometimes have non-guys on this list as well.) > I just updated ruby-amq-protocol with latest upstream release and I need > some sponsorship. The latest upstream version of ruby-bunny depends on this >

Re: RFS: ruby-omniauth-remote-user 0.1.2-1

Hi, * Thiago Ribeiro [160307 16:57]: > The following packages are ready to be uploaded > > ruby-omniauth-remote-user(0.1.2-1) There's a problem with the gemspec: | ┌──┐ | │ Checking Rubygems

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >