The Wanderer writes:
> Nearly five months later, I'm just pinging in to say that I'm still A:
> interested in this, and B: waiting on any possible response as regards
> what qualifies as sufficient testing for the drop-the-problematic-file
> WIP branch.
>
> Once we're sufficiently certain that
Nearly five months later, I'm just pinging in to say that I'm still A:
interested in this, and B: waiting on any possible response as regards
what qualifies as sufficient testing for the drop-the-problematic-file
WIP branch.
Once we're sufficiently certain that the result is OK as far as what
On 2021-05-30 at 19:53, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-05-30 at 09:33, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> There is now a 'wip' branch on the relevant GitHub repository,
>> which includes a commit dropping this. I haven't pushed it to the
>> primary branch yet, because I'm still not certain how to properly
On 2021-05-30 at 09:33, The Wanderer wrote:
> There is now a 'wip' branch on the relevant GitHub repository, which
> includes a commit dropping this. I haven't pushed it to the primary
> branch yet, because I'm still not certain how to properly test the
> result; I'm reasonably certain that it is
On 2021-03-12 at 06:11, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-12 at 05:57, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer writes:
>
>>> Would this call for an upstream release dropping the file, or
>>> are you OK with excluding it from what gets installed as part of
>>> the package?
>>
>> I'd prefer an
On 2021-03-12 at 05:57, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>> Would this call for an upstream release dropping the file, or are
>> you OK with excluding it from what gets installed as part of the
>> package?
>
> I'd prefer an upstream release if you don't feel strongly about it,
> I
The Wanderer writes:
> On 2021-03-12 at 05:32, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>> We might as well just remove it for now, we can easily bring it back
>> if we can come up with a plausible story about the licensing
>> situation.
>
> If you think that's OK for the package (and its users, who may or may
> not
On 2021-03-12 at 05:32, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>> Neither of these things is new; they were true of the last version
>> prior to the removal, and possibly of some versions prior to that
>> as well. That makes this a bit aggravating.
>>
>> Still, I suppose that just means
The Wanderer writes:
> On 2021-03-10 at 01:30, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>
>> Indeed the package was rejected after two months in the queue, due to
>> things missing from the copyright file:
>>
>>> +--+
>>> | REJECT reasoning |
>>> +--+
>>>
>>>
On 2021-03-10 at 01:30, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> Indeed the package was rejected after two months in the queue, due to
> things missing from the copyright file:
>
>> +--+
>> | REJECT reasoning |
>> +--+
>>
>> examples/completion seems to be copyright
The Wanderer writes:
> (Apologies for breaking threading; I don't seem to have received the
> original mail, and my Web browser appears to be treating the mailto:
> links as something like file://mailto: links, and reports that it can't
> find any file by the given name.)
>
> On 2021-01-02 at
(Apologies for breaking threading; I don't seem to have received the
original mail, and my Web browser appears to be treating the mailto:
links as something like file://mailto: links, and reports that it can't
find any file by the given name.)
On 2021-01-02 at 13:34, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> The
Control: tags -1 +pending
The Wanderer writes:
> On 2020-12-23 at 02:08, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer writes:
>
>>> I've decided it's worth the effort to become the new upstream for
>>> this, and confirmed with the original author that he has no
>>> objections, as he is no longer
First, the bad news.
In trying to test the playlist-file compatibility concern, I've
discovered that at least on my system as it now exists, the default
moosic configuration in the published codebase doesn't play WAV files
(or anything else that relies on sox) correctly. IIRC it did work back
in
The Wanderer writes:
> On 2020-12-23 at 02:08, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer writes:
>
>>> I've decided it's worth the effort to become the new upstream for
>>> this, and confirmed with the original author that he has no
>>> objections, as he is no longer spending any time maintaining
On 2020-12-23 at 02:08, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>> I've decided it's worth the effort to become the new upstream for
>> this, and confirmed with the original author that he has no
>> objections, as he is no longer spending any time maintaining it.
>>
>> Version 1.5.7, based
16 matches
Mail list logo
