On Sunday 09 December 2007 22:18:40 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Well, I don't mind either way who sponsors. Mario's suggestions are
all good ones and what I would do in my own packages I just wouldn't
necessarily call them show stoppers.
I think it makes sense for Mario to sponsor the package,
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 21:39:01 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The debian/changelog can then also be reduced... Ah btw, what was
the technical reason to run autoconf?
I was about to say I don't remember, it was so long ago and then
took a
On Monday 10 December 2007 10:55:58 Philipp Marek wrote:
Philipp, do you know off-hand why we have to run autoconf in the
build?
That's for the case that someone got the sources from svn, and just
tries to run make - or when configure.in has changed.
I remember now. It's because you don't
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Hi, I noticed your RFS and would be happy to sponsor the package. It
looks in pretty good shape, I'm just trying it out here.
How much do you use it? had any problems? (I have an ulterior motive,
I'm wondering about using it in a production
On Sun Dec 09 09:59, Philipp Marek wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Hi, I noticed your RFS and would be happy to sponsor the package. It
looks in pretty good shape, I'm just trying it out here.
How much do you use it? had any problems? (I have an ulterior motive,
On Sun Dec 09 16:11, Philipp Marek wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
However, we would certainly like to work closely with you as upstream.
Sheldon is the maintainer, so it's up to him where he keeps the debian
packaging, if he'd like to keep it in your VCS so you can
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
However, we would certainly like to work closely with you as upstream.
Sheldon is the maintainer, so it's up to him where he keeps the debian
packaging, if he'd like to keep it in your VCS so you can both work in
it, that's absolutely fine, but
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Debian releases won't coincide exactly with upstream releases.
...
The only thing I'd ask for would be to take the current version, and the
changed description (no longer aims for ... it is, I decided :-) before
uploading that in main.
On Sun Dec 09 16:46, Philipp Marek wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Debian releases won't coincide exactly with upstream releases.
...
The only thing I'd ask for would be to take the current version, and the
changed description (no longer aims for ... it is, I
On Sunday 09 December 2007 18:41:27 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Sheldon, if you change the description and check everything still
works with 1.1.11, then send me a new source package I'll upload it.
It never rains, it pours. :-)
We now have two people offering to sponsor the package: Mario and
On Sunday 09 December 2007 21:39:01 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The debian/changelog can then also be reduced... Ah btw, what was
the technical reason to run autoconf?
I was about to say I don't remember, it was so long ago and then
took a long. I don't think I run autoconf during the build?
Ah,
On Sun Dec 09 21:39, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 18:41:27 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Sheldon, if you change the description and check everything still
works with 1.1.11, then send me a new source package I'll upload it.
It never rains, it pours. :-)
We now have two
On Sunday 09 December 2007 22:18:40 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Well, I don't mind either way who sponsors. Mario's suggestions are
all good ones and what I would do in my own packages I just wouldn't
necessarily call them show stoppers.
I think I've found a problem with the documentation that
Hi, I noticed your RFS and would be happy to sponsor the package. It
looks in pretty good shape, I'm just trying it out here.
How much do you use it? had any problems? (I have an ulterior motive,
I'm wondering about using it in a production system).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
14 matches
Mail list logo
