Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Or see and follow the instructions summarised on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp
PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver
access
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:46:27PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi Joey
Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on
this list.
Or see and follow the instructions summarised on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp
According to the
Hi Joey
Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on
this list.
Or see and follow the instructions summarised on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp
According to the page you pointed to, it seems to tell me
that I should send request to you,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Or see and follow the instructions summarised on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp
PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver
access user just like other
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Please get it. Having DOC in CVS makes easier for proofreader to
correct things. For me, I initially got patches. But after a while, I
developed mutual trust with few people. They start fixing it with write
access sometimes later. But they always ask significant changes
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:05:14PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:03:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
3. can I get commit-access to CVS?
Please get it. Having DOC in CVS makes easier for proofreader to
correct things. For me, I initially got patches.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:20:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so
I can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean),
but I would nevertheless request that the document be handed to
the -english mailing
Hi,
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat, Jan 29, 2005:
What I'm saying is that -- in the same way that some people insist on
Debian Policy to be followed blindly -- there are already some people
insisting that this document be followed blindly. Raising the status
of it
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:54:07AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I was kind of waiting for inclusion into the developers reference,
but the text format is different.
libpkg-guide is written in docbook XML while
developers reference is written in DebianDoc SGML.
Could you please consider
Hi,
I seem to have lost the mail I tried to send last time, rewriting.
Could you please consider contributing this to the DDP and adding it to the
DDP CVS? I'd rather not have Debian Documentation in all sort of different
places, specially documentation written by DDs. And the DDP is the
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:03:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I need three things
1. Is result of DDP packaged in Debian as a batch?
No (but could be done :-)
2. does it support docbook sgml/xml?
CVS supports anything, automatic builds do support Docbook (you have sample
Xml Makefiles
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed, Jan 26, 2005:
It is already linked from deveopers reference.
It would be nice to have a package for this guide, for example to
request fixes and to make something official out of it.
The author seems to be Junichi Uekawa, dancer at debian,
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the
itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would
consider using the BTS etc. for revision management
of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a
Debian package.
Any objections?
IIRC
Junichi Uekawa writes,
Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the
itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would
consider using the BTS etc. for revision management
of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a
Debian package.
I had meant politely to ask you to package
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
IIRC there were some people who objected to some of the contents of
the document. But even for those it is probably better to have a
Debian package - if it's important, the discussion will take place in
bug reports, instead of
I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I
can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I
would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english
mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and
that a
Hi everyone, i would point to this link :
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
which i think would fit very nicely in debian official documentation after
maybe a few modifications if necessary... not sure where to propose this so i
write here...
thanks :)
On 2005-01-26 Pierre Ancelot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone, i would point to this link :
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
[...]
It is already linked from deveopers reference.
cu andreas
PS: It is pretty useless to sign messages without
Hi,
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed, Jan 26, 2005:
It is already linked from deveopers reference.
It would be nice to have a package for this guide, for example to
request fixes and to make something official out of it.
The author seems to be Junichi Uekawa, dancer at
19 matches
Mail list logo
