Re: [Fink-devel] Drafts for a couple of policy addenda

2011-04-26 Thread Max Horn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sounds good to me! Bye, Max Am 21.04.2011 um 18:16 schrieb Alexander Hansen: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here's draft 2. 3.7 Source Policy Sources should normally be downloaded from the location(s) that the upstream

Re: [Fink-devel] Uniform description for obsolete packages?!

2011-04-26 Thread Max Horn
Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:50:40 0200, Max Horn wrote: Am 18.04.2011 um 14:49 schrieb Max Horn: OK... anybody opposed? To summarize, this are the changes I propose, each should be trivial to implement: 1) Drop the _warning_ when a package

Re: [Fink-devel] Uniform description for obsolete packages?!

2011-04-26 Thread Remi Mommsen
Hi, On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Max Horn wrote: Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:50:40 0200, Max Horn wrote: Am 18.04.2011 um 14:49 schrieb Max Horn: OK... anybody opposed? To summarize, this are the changes I propose, each should be trivial to

Re: [Fink-devel] Uniform description for obsolete packages?!

2011-04-26 Thread Daniel Macks
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:17:40 +0200, Max Horn wrote: Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks: There are some cases were the validator incorrectly complains about perfectly fine packages. Currently, in such cases, the package maintainer then is forced to either make weird unnatural hacks

Re: [Fink-devel] latest Buildworld results (2010-08-14)

2011-04-26 Thread David Reiser
On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Corey Halpin wrote: On 2011-04-21, Max Horn wrote: Hello folks! (CC: fink-devel) I have emailed you and some other maintainers about half a year ago, reporting severe issues in your packages. Sadly, from a couple people (i.e. you), I did not hear back nor

Re: [Fink-devel] Uniform description for obsolete packages?!

2011-04-26 Thread Daniel Macks
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:52:54 -0400, Daniel Macks wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:17:40 +0200, Max Horn wrote: Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks: There are some cases were the validator incorrectly complains about perfectly fine packages. Currently, in such cases, the package