Bug#511279: ITP: python-facebook -- A Python wrapper for the facebook API

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ian Wienand * Package name: python-facebook Version : 0.1+svn20090108 Upstream Author : Samuel Cormier-Iijima (sciyo...@gmail.com) * URL : http://code.google.com/p/pyfacebook/ * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python

Re: Possible mass bug filing: missing shared library dependencies

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 07:13:43PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > Ian Wienand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >libiptcdata-bin Fixed, thanks -i -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#438951: ITP: ski -- A simulator for the Itanium architecture

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ian Wienand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: ski Version : 1.1.3 * URL : http://ski.sourceforge.net/ License : GPL Description : A simulator for the Itanium architecture Ski is an instruction simulator de

Re: Question about toolchain and objdump's output on ia64/mips/mipsel

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 02:03:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > I presume this applies only to static functions whose address wasn't > taken inside the module. Otherwise this would be a bug for e.g. callbacks > exported via a function pointer. I mentioned it in my reply to Raphael [1] but I think

Packaging a Python module built with autoconf using CDBS

Hi, I'm trying to add a python module package for a library [1]. The python module is built and installed via autoconf/make during the build process. It is all simple enough, except when it comes to following policy to package it. AFAICS, CDBS helpers are setup assuming that you use the Python

Bug#407104: ITP: libiptcdata -- Library to parse IPTC metadata

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ian Wienand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libiptcdata Version : 0.21 Upstream Author : David Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://libiptcdata.sf.net/ License : LGPL Programming Lang: C

Dropping an architecture from a package

Hi, One of my packages (numactl) has dropped support for two architectures. I would very much like the new package to make it into testing, but it of course fails the up-to-date on previous architectures rule. I thought if I had removed the architectures the scripts would notice, but they don't

Bug#320397: ITP: nepim -- A tool for measuring available network bandwidth between two hosts

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ian Wienand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: nepim Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Everton da Silva Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.nongnu.org/nepim/ * License : GPL Description

Filing bugs with upstream

Hi, So say I've found a bug in Nautilus that exists in upstream. Gnome has a well maintained bugzilla where I can file the bug. Do I then file a Debian bug pointing to the Gnome bugzilla report? I do I file a Debian bug and point the Gnome Bugzilla report to it. Or do I just file a Debian bug