Hello Joe,
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:59:30PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:25:15 +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
With respect to this new situation I'd prefer to omit the python
bindings completely, despite the pending removal of the bindings as
shipped with
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 00:19 +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
Well, it seems that my usual understanding of RFA as the maintainer
still wants to get involved doesn't hold true in this case, so I'll
now start not to wait for input from Andreas anymore.
Please expect an update soonish...
Awesome,
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:25:15 +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
With respect to this new situation I'd prefer to omit the python
bindings completely, despite the pending removal of the bindings as
shipped with libmusicbrainz-2.0. Any thoughts?
Couldn't you email upstream and ask for clarification,
[ Sent to the RFA for libmusicbrainz-2.1 and the RC bug of
libmusicbrainz-2.0, as this relates to both ]
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:05:53PM +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:02:42 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
I'd like someone adopt libmusicbrainz; [...]
from my side.
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:02:42 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
I'd like someone adopt libmusicbrainz; [...]
from my side. Maintainance of libmusicbrainz package is not very
time-consuming, you
should be familiar with C++ though.
I guess this RFA actually refers to both libmusicbrainz-2.1 and
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'd like someone adopt libmusicbrainz; I've originally packaged it because it is
a dependency of zinf, which is now also up for adoption due to lack of time and
usage
from my side. Maintainance of libmusicbrainz package is not very
time-consuming, you
should be
6 matches
Mail list logo
