On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:02 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:44:46PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:54 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > > > Humm.. but why in the world would y
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:02 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:44:46PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:54 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > > Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ?
> > Because the packagers can then get it more easi
> and finally, my PC is still dead so I can't do much, but someone REALLY
> has to check the commits ONE BY ONE (I know, it's huge), and port every
> 0.96-related change into the 0.96 branch!!! and see if anything was done
> in the branch and not in the trunk/ too... in the end, I want to do a
> d
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:44:46PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:54 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ?
> Because the packagers can then get it more easily
they should be able to get it with the svn export and don't te
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:54 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ?
Because the packagers can then get it more easily
> also, don't forget, what packagers you want to notify ?
The official disto packagers (like me, but i am a bad example because i
am
Exactly, even if we're lazy, it should take 1h15 for 3 of us to do that,
we could take a whole day if necessary... one person can even do all of
that (apart from Mac, where Jerome is needed and I know Jerome well
enough to say he'll be the first one to act!) and on IRC it is so much
easier/fast
Youness Alaoui wrote:
> Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ?
> also, don't forget, what packagers you want to notify ? in theory, it
> would go as :
> 10:00 : decide to release
> 10:15 : tag the release, export and create tarball
> 10:30 : someone on windows launches a script
I think you're right. It's really fast, we just take too much time. Of course there's always the last minute problem but still...it's really fast. 0.95 took a long time because we decided to re-build the website at the same time.If by example we find something very stable...and we decide, "next day
Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ?
also, don't forget, what packagers you want to notify ? in theory, it
would go as :
10:00 : decide to release
10:15 : tag the release, export and create tarball
10:30 : someone on windows launches a script that creates the
windows installer
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 10:35 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:16:55AM +0200, Harry Vennik wrote:
> > I agree 100%. We just shouldn't do this anymore. We should just offer the
> > source package and the Windows and Mac binary packages, and the autopackage
> > for Linux. The
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:16:55AM +0200, Harry Vennik wrote:
> I agree 100%. We just shouldn't do this anymore. We should just offer the
> source package and the Windows and Mac binary packages, and the autopackage
> for Linux. The packages for the various distros will be done by the distros,
>
I agree 100%. We just shouldn't do this anymore. We should just offer the
source package and the Windows and Mac binary packages, and the autopackage
for Linux. The packages for the various distros will be done by the distros,
and if the distro doesn't include amsn, some volunteer may also creat
Yes I know that, I never said we were working on the packages for 1 month, I
only said it 'took us' 1 month to
have the packages ready... this isn't the problem of the packages themselves,
but rather our lack of
motivation, if we had one package to do we'd create it in a few seconds and
we're
Hi,
I think you are wrong on this...
The packages didn't take 1 month to be done... It's simply that none of us
cared of doing it...
We tagged the release and... nothing... What made the release to be
published ? Some people made the things moving
Phil
Le Tuesday 11 July 2006 21:23, Youness
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:37:42AM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 01:30 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > Which is why we should stop this whole packages NON-SENS and stop
> > providing ONE binary... (autopackage) instead of a hundred thousands (+
> > it will save us one or
You're right JérômeCourriel: [EMAIL PROTECTED]MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]iChat & AIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Skype: germinator5000 Le 11 juillet 2006 à 06:57, Boris Faure (aka billiob) a écrit :2 DMGs for MacOSX : one for ppc only (for macosx 10.3.9), and one univ (for macosx 10.4 and above). J,
2006/7/11, Sander Hoentjen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 01:30 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> > Which is why we should stop this whole packages NON-SENS and stop
> > providing ONE binary... (autopackage) instead of a hundred thousands (+
> > it will save us one or two months of packa
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Russ Kowald wrote:
>
> Vivia Nikolaidou wrote:
> > Hey, Thanx a lot :) I just realized that the Mandriva rpm hasn't been
> > uploaded yet, but the link you gave seems down so I can't fetch it :( Can
> > you upload it somewhere else please? (Preferably directly to
> > ftp:/
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 01:30 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> Which is why we should stop this whole packages NON-SENS and stop
> providing ONE binary... (autopackage) instead of a hundred thousands (+
> it will save us one or two months of packaging... can anyone confirm
> what was the date we fir
Which is why we should stop this whole packages NON-SENS and stop
providing ONE binary... (autopackage) instead of a hundred thousands (+
it will save us one or two months of packaging... can anyone confirm
what was the date we first created the rc1 tag ?)
KKRT
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:13:5
Vivia Nikolaidou wrote:
> Hey, Thanx a lot :) I just realized that the Mandriva rpm hasn't been
> uploaded yet, but the link you gave seems down so I can't fetch it :( Can
> you upload it somewhere else please? (Preferably directly to
> ftp://upload.sourceforge.net/incoming )
>
Done! upload
Please note that Mandriva has amsn in the contribs, so they are
likely to package it themselves. (Although they might skip the rc).
Op 10-jul-2006, om 17:16 heeft Vivia Nikolaidou het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hey, Thanx a lot :) I just realized that the Mandriva rpm hasn't been
> uploaded yet,
Hey, Thanx a lot :) I just realized that the Mandriva rpm hasn't been
uploaded yet, but the link you gave seems down so I can't fetch it :( Can
you upload it somewhere else please? (Preferably directly to
ftp://upload.sourceforge.net/incoming )
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Russ Kowald wrote:
>
> Deta
Details of packages I've completed (remove zzz in url, list thinks its
spam :S)
Suse
http://three.fsphostzzz.com/coldsteel/rpm/RPM/amsn-0.96RC1-1-suse.i686.rpm
Mandriva
http://three.fsphostzzz.com/coldsteel/rpm/RPM/amsn-0.96RC1-1-mandriva.i686.rpm
I had to add some extra stuff in the spec file
Le Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:35, Russ Kowald a écrit :
> Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
> > Hm !
> > I forgot ! You have SuSe and there was some exceptions for SuSe in the
> > original spec I used...
> > Is there any easy way to speak with you ? (Mails aren't a good one ;) )
> > Can you go on
Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
> Hm !
> I forgot ! You have SuSe and there was some exceptions for SuSe in the
> original spec I used...
> Is there any easy way to speak with you ? (Mails aren't a good one ;) )
> Can you go on IRC ?
> Because it needs some checks...
> Where are located desk
Hm !
I forgot ! You have SuSe and there was some exceptions for SuSe in the
original spec I used...
Is there any easy way to speak with you ? (Mails aren't a good one ;) )
Can you go on IRC ?
Because it needs some checks...
Where are located desktop files on SuSe 10 ?
Phil
Le Wednesday 05 Jul
Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
> Thanks ;)
> Phil
>
> Le Wednesday 05 July 2006 13:00, Russ Kowald a écrit :
>
>> Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
>>
>>> Please use the "make rpm" way...
>>> If you do that, we will get a uniform RPM for all distributions...
>>> And it is really simpler :
Thanks ;)
Phil
Le Wednesday 05 July 2006 13:00, Russ Kowald a écrit :
> Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
> > Please use the "make rpm" way...
> > If you do that, we will get a uniform RPM for all distributions...
> > And it is really simpler : open a console on aMsn source directory and
> > type "
Philippe Valembois - Phil wrote:
> Please use the "make rpm" way...
> If you do that, we will get a uniform RPM for all distributions...
> And it is really simpler : open a console on aMsn source directory and
> type "make rpm"
> That's all...
> Phil
My bad I just thought I might do one to test m
Please use the "make rpm" way...
If you do that, we will get a uniform RPM for all distributions...
And it is really simpler : open a console on aMsn source directory and
type "make rpm"
That's all...
Phil
Le Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:17, Russ Kowald a écrit :
> I have packaged an rpm and i was w
I have packaged an rpm and i was wondering if someone can test and check
out the package to tell me if its ok or not. I used the
tags/Release-0_96rc1 for this rpm, if I used the wrong one or if its now
more up to date can you please tell me. Here is the links for the rpm
and srpm
http://three.fsp
32 matches
Mail list logo
