Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: appliancekit
Version : 0.131
Upstream Author : William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://appliancekit.systeminplace.net/
* License : ISC
Programming Lang: Pyth
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:51:26PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Solutions?
> a) Do not depend on cdebconf as an alternate; in which case the upgrade
> works fine, but the future transition to cdebconf gets hairier.
> b) depend on cdebconf, but check which variant is present, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> [...]
>> The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
>> solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
>> playground to publish their in-progress p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit :
>> On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
>>> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
>>> Debian, but publici
William Pitcock wrote:
[...]
>
> The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
> solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
> playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about
> getting packages to users in an efficient way
Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit :
> On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> > for things like
Hi,
This is an issue that bit me recently. ucf relies heavily on
debconf to do its job, and thus depends on it. Way back when, it was
told to me that we arte going to move to cdebconf, which at some point
will be the preferred way. In the meantime, to facilitate the future
transition,
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 02:19 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
> > What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> > overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> > that they under
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:28:58 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
> Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly
> non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on.
Actually I was thinking about something similar yesterday.
Asa non-DD it is very hard to reproduce bugs from arches you don't own
2008/11/29 Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
> supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaini
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM, William Pitcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
>
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
> What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
> will be non-ma
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 23:57 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> > for things lik
Hi,
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> being, etc.
d
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 20:51 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma?
>
> Stop trying to get qmail into Debian?
> or
> Take on upstream development of qmail and solve all the problems
> (whether qmail will then be recognisable compared to the existin
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 +
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related
> packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the
> ftpmasters.
Just because a package is free software does not mean it automatically
qualifies f
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luca Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: freespeak
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Luca Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://freespeak.berlios.de/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Python
Description :
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> http://christian-morgenstern.de/dcma/Der_Werwolf
>
> Try
>
> # apt-get install fortunes-de
> $ fortune -m Werwölfe
>
> to see even the plural version ...
>
> Hope this makes a funny end to this story
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in
response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail,
and three mails
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexander Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: hexec
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Alexander Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/hexec/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Descrip
Hi,
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 20:30, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> > See http://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian
> Don't you think it would be nice linking this in the planet page?
Done so now.
Tiago, Florian, if you still want to be added to planet, feel free to send me
an email with your feed u
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 391246 buildd.debian.org
Bug#391246: buildd.d.o: Buildds should consider changing $HOME
Warning: Unknown package 'buildd.debian.org'
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `buildd.debian.org'.
> reassign 463643 buildd.debian.org
Bug#463643:
22 matches
Mail list logo
