On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:32:10PM -0400, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Source: gdesklets-data
Binary: gdesklets-data
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.13.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
christophe barbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it a common practice to use this kind of numbering (without a second part
after
a dash) for what I presume is a debian-made tarball (multiple upstream
tarballs
put together).
gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb
Also (related) why not use a
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
tarball corresponding to this archive).
Thanks for the explaination.
-n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we
don't have
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
tarball corresponding to this archive).
Thanks for the explaination.
-n version
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It
would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and
the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:14:45 +0200
Source: gdesklets-data
Binary: gdesklets-data
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.13.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher
7 matches
Mail list logo