Paul Wise wrote:
The INCLUDES = -I/usr/include change shouldn't be nessecary because
/usr/include is in the default search path unless your compiler is
utterly broken.
Having that -I may even cause problems for cross-compilers.
--
Nicolas
(I read mailing lists through Gmane. Please don't Cc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package numptyphysics.
* Package name: numptyphysics
Version : 0.3-1
Upstream Author : Tim Edmonds numptyphys...@gmail.com
* URL : http://numptyphysics.garage.maemo.org/
*
Hi Gabriele
Gabriele Giacone wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package numptyphysics.
As mentioned in the ITP[0], I'd gladly co-maintain/sponsor/whatever
numptyphysics.
* Package name: numptyphysics
Version : 0.3-1
Was 0.3 already released somewhere? I can find no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leo costela Antunes wrote:
Was 0.3 already released somewhere? I can find no traces of it either on
the homepage, the maemo.org project page or SVN.
No and yes. There are no 0.3 binary releases but I found this [1]: 7
weeks ago, 0.3.0.3 became
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
No and yes. There are no 0.3 binary releases but I found this [1]: 7
weeks ago, 0.3.0.3 became 0.3.0.7. We could change 0.3 in 0.3.0.7 or we
could follow a svnrevision-based versioning; I packaged the latest
revision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Wise wrote:
Might be a good idea to poke upstream about actually releasing 0.3 properly.
Upstream poked.
BTW, there are two ITPs, you should resolve that:
http://bugs.debian.org/549357
http://bugs.debian.org/496586
They have been
Gabriele Giacone wrote:
Leo costela Antunes wrote:
Was 0.3 already released somewhere? I can find no traces of it either on
the homepage, the maemo.org project page or SVN.
No and yes. There are no 0.3 binary releases but I found this [1]: 7
weeks ago, 0.3.0.3 became 0.3.0.7. We could
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
They have been forcemerged almost 2 months ago [1]. To close both, in
d/changelog, should I refer to both or referring to master bug (496586)
is enough or being merged closing one of them, the other one is
2009/12/31 Leo 'costela' Antunes cost...@debian.org:
- [subjective] You don't seem to be shipping a menu entry.
I personally think Debian should remove menu and replace it with
upstreamed patches for FreeDesktop menu support.
- [subjective] I don't believe the debian/clean files are really
Paul Wise wrote:
I personally think Debian should remove menu and replace it with
upstreamed patches for FreeDesktop menu support.
Agreed in the long run, but since there are AFAIK (haven't checked in a
while) still some window-managers/desktop-environments that don't fully
support desktop
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Leo costela Antunes
cost...@debian.org wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
I personally think Debian should remove menu and replace it with
upstreamed patches for FreeDesktop menu support.
Agreed in the long run, but since there are AFAIK (haven't checked in a
while)
Paul Wise wrote:
I don't think I'm seeing the issue here. Care to elaborate a bit more?
Isn't that the whole idea behind patching and running autoreconf in the
first place? If we wanted the changed files produced by autoreconf in
the debian.tar.gz we wouldn't need to run it, right? What am I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
Aside from these remarks, the package seems OK, the manpage is a nice
touch, and I can't seem to replicate the segfaults I was having when I
attempted my ITP.
I'd still suggest co-maintaining it though, just cause I
Gabriele Giacone wrote:
Man page is only a bad copy of the homepage.
Regarding segfaults, yesterday evidently I've only chosen the right
moment you were waiting for ;), but given that you already spent a lot
of time and I didn't take it into account and given that I think I
couldn't be useful
14 matches
Mail list logo
