On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Laurent Carlier lordhea...@gmail.comwrote:
Le samedi 23 mars 2013 22:26:10 SanskritFritz a écrit :
At my usual 'aurphan --aur' run I discovered that
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/toppler/ was orphaned. I adopted it,
but would like to know why it was
Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 16:07:48 schreef Limao Luo:
Orphan request:
xflux [1] does not follow the AUR package guideline that specifically
says not to use $startdir.
I sent a new email, just to be sure. The maintainer seems to be active
since i see packages updated in 2013-03.
Delete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could
publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the
sheeple just followed the old and grumpy man, at least that is
public
Don deJuan wrote:
There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
result.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections were
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is
very
wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of
negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself
than
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message
will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a
polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining
the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data.
To my supporters, I'd
Hello,
I renamed packages bzr-svn to bzr-svn-plugin and bzr-git to
bzr-git-plugin. Could you kindly remove the old packages bzr-git and
bzr-svn, please?
Best regards
Atomisirsi
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Atomisirsi atomisi...@gsklan.de wrote:
Hello,
I renamed packages bzr-svn to bzr-svn-plugin and bzr-git to
bzr-git-plugin. Could you kindly remove the old packages bzr-git and
bzr-svn, please?
Best regards
Atomisirsi
All merged, thx. Please include
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Don deJuan wrote:
There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
result.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
issues and reconsider them in the
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote:
The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based
on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection
process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller ewwal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you
Hi,
Please remove package lcov-svn (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lcov-svn/)
which I just uploaded... Before realising I had the VCS name wrong; the
correct package is lcov-cvs :)
Thanks,
Niels Martignène
On 25 March 2013 03:56, Niels Martignène niels.martign...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please remove package lcov-svn (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lcov-svn/)
which I just uploaded... Before realising I had the VCS name wrong; the
correct package is lcov-cvs :)
Thanks,
Niels Martignène
Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-coro
= current maintainer has not updated package in over 1 year
= upstream has updated through 5 releases in mean time
= maintainer has many packages flagged out of date
--brian
s/1 year/2 years/
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-coro
= current maintainer has not updated package in over 1 year
= upstream has updated through 5 releases in mean time
= maintainer has many packages flagged out of
Please disown https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-extutils-cchecker
= current maintainer has not updated package in over 2 years
= upstream has updated through 2 releases in mean time
= maintainer has many packages flagged out of date
--brian
20 matches
Mail list logo
