On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 01:55:49AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Note that the whole "did last year projects were successful?" issue is
> secondary. Even if all of last years projects produced fabulous results
> that totally changed the way Debian is developed, I'm still not sure if
> we should u
Le Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:05:58PM -0800, William Francis a écrit :
>
> my contents are not source (configure, make, etc), rather I'm more
> interested in the preinst/postinst scripts, the Depends part of the
> control file, a few config files and placing a few scripts on the
> filesystem that req
Le Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:40:57AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
>
> Due to kernel problems, the mips* buildds haven't been very reliable in
> the past few weeks, creating a lng backlog of packages that need to
> be built. As there seems to be a workaround for the kernel bug, this
>
"Shaun Jackman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The orig file would contain all the files not in the debian/
> directory, and the diff file would contain all the files in the
> debian/ directory.
More accurately, the 'foo-1.2.3.orig.tar.gz' file would contain the
"upstream from the perspective of D
On 2/29/08, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have any proof that GSOC students worked 35-40 hours a week on
> their GSOC projects? You probably don't. So again, no real data to back
> either claim. We have different opinions, and have to live with it.
I don't think there's anyt
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM, William Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Further, I understand the concept of an upstream provider and
> understand that I don't have one in this case, unless I sort of fake
> it somehow. Is that wise or is there a well understood method of
> having an .
On 29/02/08 at 19:55 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Lucas wrote:
> >On 28/02/08 at 01:09 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, subjective to the point of absurdity. If failure is defined in terms
> >> of *your* expectations, I don't see how we can even have a meaningful
> >> dialogue about
On Friday 29 February 2008 8:29:07 am Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:59AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > What I am trying to achieve is to use git in the proper way: that is,
> >>
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I guess you might be right, now. Earlier, we used depends to pull in
packages using the meta packages during installation. Now we use
tasksel tasks, which are more forgiving about missing packages. We
did have a problem with the debian-edu packag
On Friday 29 February 2008 6:16:59 am Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and
dpkg maintenance)"):
> >> As soon as you edit commits, they'll get a new id, and thus you'll
> >> disrupt merging.
> >
* William Francis:
> I've built a few debian "binary" style packages [1] but the maintainer
> of my local repository is asking that I have all the "proper" debian
> files, like the .dsc, .orig, .diff, .changes, etc so some how he can
> sleep better at night or something. He likes dupload for putti
* Sebastian Krause:
> I like Debian *because* there are so many choices in the main
> repository and I don't have to worry if a package is actually
> well-supported when I install it,
Sorry, you are kidding yourself if you actually believe that. Software
and packaging quality vary greatly across
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
>
> Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
One reason why I prefer Debi
I've built a few debian "binary" style packages [1] but the maintainer
of my local repository is asking that I have all the "proper" debian
files, like the .dsc, .orig, .diff, .changes, etc so some how he can
sleep better at night or something. He likes dupload for putting
packages into the repo an
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are "not
good enough for Debian (yet)".
Is there any reason why a Debian should spend resources to maintain
things that are not good enough for Debian? For the "not good enough
_yet_" there is exp
* Manoj Srivastava:
> Now, a lot of what I need is already present.
> 1) the orig.tar.gz represents the upstream branch, exactly.
> 2) the diff.gz + orig.tar.gz represents the integration branch,
> exactly.
>
> So the missing thing is the topic branches.
> 3) I propose ./de
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Heh, anybody can blindly apply the patches corresponding to the branch
> and attach to it a sane commit message. If that was the real problem, it
> would most probably already be done and we wouldn't discuss here.
>
> But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. I
* Thorsten Schmale:
> I created an updated description. Please see below. One thing i
> forgot to mention earlier was the feature of logging the http requests
> directly to a mysql-database. I'm not quite sure, but I think this
> feature is not supported by most other webservers.
We've already
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:39:32PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> Another thing is that people have the old habit to see the source
> package be the preferred form of modification for a Debian package.
Hmm. This started off a train of thought. In one sense, one
could see the source co
* Lucas Nussbaum:
> I have had a problem with the way GSOC was handled in Debian in the past
> years.
Me too, but I've seen exactly the opposite: someone was funded who
wasn't really active in the area of the project where he worked on, and
didn't use existing interfaces etc. to implement his pro
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. In this process,
> he will rearrange the changes in smaller logical chunks.
Ah, the impression that has been created on the lists is more that the
patches were being NACKed and
Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you want me to put as an author ? Electricité de France would be
> OK ?
In that case, I might give both the current legal form and a
clarifying comment:
EDF S.A. (historically named Electricité de France)
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu a
* Manoj Srivastava:
> But there is no such linearization, not in the way that quilt et
> al do it. The state of such integration is not maintained in the
> feature branches; it is in the history of the integration branch. As
> each feature branch was created or developed, if there wer
* Ben Finney:
> It's no security risk to unpack a tarball, apply a patch to it via GNU
> 'patch', and examine the result.
History should tell you that this is not true. 8-) I can even understand
people who state that GNU tar should never be used to uncompress
tarballs from untrusted sources, and
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> And/or creating a new mailing list, debian-itp, debian-devel-itp or
> whatever might be a good idea. Quite a big number of mails to the
> debian-devel mailing list are ITPs.
I also thought the same some time ago, on the other hand "development of
De
Lucas wrote:
>On 28/02/08 at 01:09 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> Yes, subjective to the point of absurdity. If failure is defined in terms
>> of *your* expectations, I don't see how we can even have a meaningful
>> dialogue about it.
>
>Note that my main point in the thread is "we should use
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libsub-wrappackage-perl
Version : 1.2
Upstream Author : David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Sub-WrapPackages/
* License : GPL + Artis
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 06:44:40PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 21:59:58 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Hi Rafael, all,
> >
> > Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
>
> And/or
Hi,
> I request a co-maintainer for K3b.
You can join us. We maintain Qt, KDE and KDE related packages in pkg-kde on
alioth.
> On my list of things to do is merge the packaging with the Ubuntu version
> and try to collaborate more with the Ubuntu maintainers.
We work in collaboration with kubu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libdbd-mock-perl
Version : 1.36
Upstream Author : Chris Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stevan Little <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.examp
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:57 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So if it's unsupported, set it up yourself instead of asking Debian to
> dedicate resources to it.
>
I wasn't aware that I was asking Debian to dedicate resources to it.
William
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signe
On Fri February 29 2008 09:26:32 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > I'm not a DD but I've been programming since 1963 when I was 7.
> > Based on decades of software engineering experience, I would
> > just like to remind you to USE THE FSCKING SOURCE!!!
>
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:47:25AM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> Did I mention that it is unsupported?
So if it's unsupported, set it up yourself instead of asking Debian to
dedicate resources to it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
Hi,
On Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 21:59:58 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi Rafael, all,
>
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
And/or creating a new mailing list, debian-itp, debian-devel-itp or
whatever might
* Paul Wise [Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:59:58 +0900]:
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
(Without entering to discuss the subject matter, just a clarification:
they could go to submit@ as usual, with just re
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 21:54 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> unsupported.d.n could be the right place for packages that are "not
> good enough for Debian (yet)". It could be a good place to merge
> packages removed from Debian for having no users (or whatever),
> uploaded to Ubuntu, Nexenta, Preventa
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
> But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> recruiting new DDs.
>
> Lets call it, say, 'community', 'extras', or 'unsupported'.
>
> The
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:41:25AM -0600]:
> Clearly these packages are different enough to somebody if they are
> going to the effort of packaging them. Perhaps they have a superior
> configuration format or some other non-notable feature.
>
> But if you are worried about the Q
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Paul Wise wrote:
> Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
That would defeat a lot of the purpose of the ITPs (like looking at the
descriptions, etc). I think we just have to deal with i
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> I'm not a DD but I've been programming since 1963 when I was 7.
> Based on decades of software engineering experience, I would
> just like to remind you to USE THE FSCKING SOURCE!!!
I am not sure this applies to dpkg, but in kernel land, the full reasoning
b
On Fri February 29 2008 08:11:17 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. In this process,
> he will rearrange the changes in smaller logical chunks.
Horses for courses.
A software engineering class would help Guillem get up to speed
without impacting Ian's pr
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 10:33 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> But the user should not have to install 10 small HTTP servers just to
> know what's the goddamn difference. That's extremely unhelpful from
> us. We should tell the prospective user at a first glance why he wants
> one httpd over another.
On Fri February 29 2008 06:29:07 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I personally apply this same policy on repositories that I work and it
> usually makes much easier logs to read.
I'm not a DD but I've been programming since 1963 when I was 7.
Based on decades of software engineering experience, I would
ju
William Pitcock dijo [Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600]:
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd opti
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:51:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > > Does this not also suffer from the problem that branches made from my
> > > triggers branch become unuseable or difficult to merge ?
>
> >
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:51:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Does this not also suffer from the problem that branches made from my
> > triggers branch become unuseable or difficult to merge ?
> git merge --squash is more or less equivalent to appl
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:59AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What I am trying to achieve is to use git in the proper way: that is,
>> > in a way which makes merging work properly.
>> >
>> > Insisting tha
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:39:32PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> Another thing is that people have the old habit to see the source
> package be the preferred form of modification for a Debian package.
erm ...
Regards,
Paddy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mehdi Dogguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ergo
Version : 0.7.2
Upstream Author : Sylvain Conchon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ergo.lri.fr/
* License : CeCILL-C
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description : Au
[William Pitcock]
> Why not? Debian ships more than 10 different shells, media players, etc.
> Why should an httpd be not included because there are already others.
> This isn't about being "helpful", this is about _choice_.
You seem to assume that choice is good, and more choices are better.
Thi
I created an updated description. Please see below.
One thing i forgot to mention earlier was the feature of logging the http
requests
directly to a mysql-database.
I'm not quite sure, but I think this feature is not supported by most other
webservers.
Description: small http server
Monkey is
Hi Rafael, all,
Perhaps in future mass ITPs could be mostly filed with only one to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the rest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > But if you are worried about the QA and security team, then why not
> > create an unsupported repo. It could even be a good solution towards
> > recruiting new DDs.
> >
Le Friday 29 February 2008 11:16:04 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
> There are several costs associated with having yet another package doing
> the same thing:
> * For the project in general, it costs archive and Packages file space,
> build time, QA efforts just to name a few;
You're mixing d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian Octave Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[N.B.: This ITP was generated automatically from a template, even
though the DOG does intend to package the described software for
Debian. We apologize for the glitches in the text below.]
* Package name: octave
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
