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

Bug#876623: marked as done (RFS: yamcha/0.33-2 -- General purpose chunker annotator)

Your message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:28 +0200
with message-id <20170925212327.5o72ax5qovz2vxpx@angband.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#876623: RFS: yamcha/0.33-2 -- General purpose chunker annotator
has caused the Debian Bug report #876623,
regarding RFS: yamcha/0.33-2 -- General purpose chunker annotator
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
876623: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=876623
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

  I am looking for a sponsor for an updated version of my package "mitlm"

* Package name    : yamcha
  Version         : 0.33
  Upstream Author : Taku Kudo <taku-ku@is.aist-nara.ac.jp>
* URL             : http://www.chasen.org/~taku/software/yamcha/
* License         : LGPL-2.1+
  Programming Lang: (C++, Python, Perl)
  Section         : science

It builds those binary packages:

 libyamcha1  - general purpose chunker annotator - runtime library
 libyamcha-dev - general purpose chunker annotator - development files
 yamcha - general purpose chunker annotator

The upload closes #875993.

You can find the source of the package at:

  https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/yamcha.git

Regards,
   Giulio Paci

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:08:12PM +0200, Giulio Paci wrote:
> On 25/09/2017 21:05, "Adam Borowski" <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> > It seems like there are problems building docs
> 
> I guess it is due to my attempt to prevent building docs when nodoc option
> is set.
> However I am not able to replicate the issue on my computer. I have tried
> both with and without nodoc and compilation succeeded with expected result.
> The only issue that I found is that I missed to bump compatibility version
> to 11 (I fixed it and pushed), which should explain the issue, but does not
> explain why compilation succeed on my computer.
> 
> Do you have any hints?

No idea, but with debhelper compat 11 it builds correctly.

And for a package in experimental, no one is going to have an issue for
using an experimental debhelper level.

Uploaded, thanks for your fixes!


Meow.
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ We domesticated dogs 36000 years ago; together we chased
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ animals, hung out and licked or scratched our private parts.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Cats domesticated us 9500 years ago, and immediately we got
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ agriculture, towns then cities.     -- whitroth on /.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: