[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: mosquitto (updated version)



Hello there,

What's the ettiquette for re-requesting sponsorship if it's been a
while since the previous request? I don't want to annoy anybody.

Thanks,

Roger

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Roger Light <roger@atchoo.org> wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mosquitto".
>
> * Package name    : mosquitto
>  Version         : 0.9.1-1
>  Upstream Author : Roger Light <roger@atchoo.org>
> * URL             : http://mosquitto.org/
> * License         : BSD
>  Section         : net
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> libmosquitto0 - MQTT version 3.1 client library
> libmosquitto0-dev - MQTT version 3.1 client library, development files
> libmosquittopp0 - MQTT version 3.1 client C++ library
> libmosquittopp0-dev - MQTT version 3.1 client C++ library, development files
> mosquitto  - MQTT version 3 compatible message broker
> mosquitto_pub - Mosquitto command line publish client
> mosquitto_sub - Mosquitto command line subscribe client
> python-mosquitto - MQTT version 3.1 client library, python bindings
>
> The upload would fix these bugs: 605319
>
> My motivation for maintaining this package is that I'm the upstream
> author and want to make it easier for people to get access to it.
>
> I uploaded this package a few days ago and some of you kindly looked
> it over. Since then I've had to do a minor bugfix release of mosquitto
> which has also allowed me to simplify the package by removing some
> patches. This is an updated package for the new version which should
> contain all of the fixes suggested previously.
>
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mosquitto
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mosquitto/mosquitto_0.9.1-1.dsc
>
> I would be most glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
>


Reply to: