Bug#824466: RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]
(stripping -mentors, adding the bug to the cc list)
(another mail where I did send commands to the BTS interface weren't intended to you)
if you care to learn...
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
>I resent the RFS mail to submit@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.
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 libboost-dev as suggested, ALTHOUGH I am not
>sure if that is correct.
>The documentation just says “This package provides headers.” Besides
>regex and program-options I indeed need some other headers and now I
>don’t know if these are installed for sure.
each sublibrary has its headers and its libraries, so you need just the minimum set
needed.
(pbuilder is happy on a clean environment)
>Changed the text according to the examples.
I still don't get why having two licenses.
you need a LICENSE file inside your tarball, with the license text inside,
otherwise the package will be probably rejected.
and it is fine to have *everything* under GPL-2+
>You were right: not having any releases yields in an error. I created
>one for testing, and everything is ok now.
wonderful!
please let me know!
(BTW std-version is 3.9.8 now)
G.
Reply to: