On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:30:03PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > I don't like to rename the source package to 'gmime', I've seen to many
> > cases of a new major version of a library coming out that wasn't
> > backwards compatible at all (not even at compile time) with previous
> > versi
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> We already discussed that (see the bug complete bugreport). Ove is still
> the maintainer of gmime1, so I defer the decission to remove it to him,
> but otherwise I'd ask for its removal as well. I guess I could remove
> gmime2 in favo
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:47:20AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Hrmz, is there any good reason to really have this many (4 until I just
> removed gmime0) versions of the same library in Debian? Only if it's very
> difficult to migrate to a next version, and there are a lot of reverse
> de
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:59:09PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:40:32PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> > søn, 30.05.2004 kl. 13.37 skrev Guus Sliepen:
> > > I am planning to upload libgmime2 with just the Maintainer: field
> > > changed, and a new libgmime2.1 package. Howe
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:40:32PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> søn, 30.05.2004 kl. 13.37 skrev Guus Sliepen:
> > I am planning to upload libgmime2 with just the Maintainer: field
> > changed, and a new libgmime2.1 package. However, there are also packages
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
