Hi folks, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package fetchexc.
* Package name: fetchexc
Version : 1.10-1
Upstream Author : Juhani Rautiainen jrauti(at)iki.fi
* URL : http://personal.inet.fi/atk/fetchexc/
* License : GPL
Section : net
It builds one
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package wxdfast.
Package name: wxdfast
Version : 0.4.5
Upstream Author : Max Magalhães Velasques
URL : http://dfast.sourceforge.net
License : GPL
Section : net
It builds these binary packages:
wxdfast
I've just uploaded version 1.10-2 of fetchexc which uses dpatch to patch
the build.xml file rather than doing it directly through the .diff.gz,
and also adds upstream's changelog.gz which I generated from the
upstream website (aka the README.html file in the package).
I seem to remember seeing
Hi mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the quilt-el package.
* Package name: quilt-el
Version : 0.4-hg20060425-1
Upstream Author : Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.selenic.com/repo/quilt-el
* License : GPL
Description : a simple Emacs
Dear MJ Ray, you wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-legal,
Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at:
http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
this will serve as a future reference as well
In general, please quote licence texts inline for ease of commentary.
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: mod-bt
Version: 0.0.18+p4.1178-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Automatic build of mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1178-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
sbuild/s390 85
[...]
** Using build dependencies supplied
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
libapr1-dev.
But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder handles it without a problem...
No. The
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
libapr1-dev.
But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
But if I have to remove the apr1 | apr0 sutff, then a new version of
mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
to 2.2 happens.
In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
that this is less
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:37:58AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
libapr1-dev.
But that should be fine, since I
Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if I have to remove the apr1 | apr0 sutff, then a new version of
mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
to 2.2 happens.
In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
that this is less
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, name it libapr-dev. If something really can use either one
of the 2, I don't see why you should make a transition so hard
and go and name it libapr0-dev.
So I suggest you rename libapr0-dev to libapr-dev and make it
provide libapr0-dev for now.
Michael Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do I setup pbuilder to manage this? when I try to just do
'pbuilder create', it gives the error:
E: Couldn't download slang1a-utf8
pbuilder: debootstrap failed
I've got it working using '--distribution sarge', which is nice for
checking the
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:31:34PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Michael Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do I setup pbuilder to manage this? when I try to just do
'pbuilder create', it gives the error:
E: Couldn't download slang1a-utf8
pbuilder: debootstrap failed
I've got it
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found that it is easier to have machines running each distro
you want to build against, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Try a
--distribution etch though; something that builds under etch should still
run under sid.
And no, you should
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found that it is easier to have machines running each distro
you want to build against, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Try a
--distribution etch though; something that
Ted Percival wrote:
I've just uploaded version 1.10-2 of fetchexc which uses dpatch to patch
the build.xml file rather than doing it directly through the .diff.gz,
and also adds upstream's changelog.gz which I generated from the
upstream website (aka the README.html file in the package).
17 matches
Mail list logo
