2011/1/7 Remy CLOUARD :
> Hello there,
>
> It’s been quite some time since I started working on ruby modules, and
> I’ve been working on the policy too.
\o/
>
> You can find the page here:
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Ruby
>
> Now, there are some things that still need to be clarified.
>
Hi there
As planned in our last meeting, work has started with about 40
packagers who had already packager account in Mandriva Linux. They are
at the moment creating their account, getting right access and
importing first packages. In same time submit process of packages is
nearly done and tests a
Hello there,
It’s been quite some time since I started working on ruby modules, and
I’ve been working on the policy too.
You can find the page here:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Ruby
Now, there are some things that still need to be clarified.
The most controversial part is the naming co
Hi guys,
First of all, thanks for the reviews !
Huge kudos to Daniel who reviewed most of them.
But, as you may probably know, the mentoring process will begin pretty
soon.
That’s why we need to review the remaining policies in the following
days.
Here is a page listing all policies and their c
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 19:04, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> * Mageia with components:
> - installation
> - software
+ RPM package
> - new software request
replace with new RPM package request
> - release (media, process)
> - (for versions, cauldron first, we'll see later for the rest)
Ok, the point of this discussion is to know what we put as:
- Products
- Components
This can be updated later (as in: adding/renaming
products/components). So we should just aim at the smallest acceptable
set, so that we can open our Bugzilla instance, see what it shows,
update and open it for a
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 17:49, andre999 wrote:
>
> Frederic Janssens a écrit :
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar
>>> separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flag
Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 18:43 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/1/6 Michael Scherer:
And for the rest, well, the bug be it in documentation, translation, or
code must follow the same lifecycle, and imho, should be grouper
logically and we should not duplicate
Frederic Janssens a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote:
As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar
separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags :
1) problem with documentation (and not function)
These bugs would
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 06:19, andre999 wrote:
>
>
> As for documentation and translations, a while back I suggested a similar
> separation, but on reflection I think it would be more useful to have flags :
>
> 1) problem with documentation (and not function)
> These bugs would be best corrected b
As the actual policy is too old, who wants to write a new one describing the
open jdk instead of gcj ?
My experience in packaging is not too good to do that on my own.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Greetings
Daniel Kreuter
11 matches
Mail list logo
