On 8/6/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Just to let you know that the upstream tarball
(jabbin_2.0beta2.orig.tar.gz)
contains non-free bits, that is 3party/iLBC/* [1], thus you should repackage
it as dfsg tarball with these bits removed. I don't know how vital that is
for
On 8/7/06, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds great.
I'm also busy fixing up their license notices and stuff, I have write
access to upstream SVN so bugs can be fixed and so on.
I'm considering co-maintaining this, if anyone wants to help feel free to
ask.
I noone steps in,
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
- you build your package with python, which is the current python
version, but you declare a build-dep on python-all-dev, and
XS-Python-Version: = 2.1
= change that to python-dev and XS-Python-Version: current, OR make
your package
Hi,
I've an odd question regarding /dev/*random permissions.
I ship with my package freepops a script to create a chroot jail.
Inside the jail I need /dev/*random but I'm a bit confused about the
permissions I've to assign to these files.
garfield:/home/tassi# ls -al /dev/.static/dev/*random
Dear mentors,
I am the maintainer of treeviewx, and the QA pages say that it is
unistallable on m68k and powerpc.
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, I successuflly apt-get installed treeviewx this morning on my
iMac... Does anybody knows what are the criteria used by the QA page to
Dear Mentors,
I got the following error in a package I co-maintain:
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
muscle-doc_3.60-1_all.deb: package says section is doc, override says science.
I searched the policy, but did not
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 22:26 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
muscle-doc_3.60-1_all.deb: package says section is doc, override says
science.
I searched the policy, but did not
On Friday 04 August 2006 22:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
Christoph Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[If anyone has an idea how to run lintian from a Python program and
having it controlled by a timeout I'd be glad. No idea why lintian
hangs for a day.]
lintian certainly shouldn't hang for a day;
Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am the maintainer of treeviewx, and the QA pages say that it is
unistallable on m68k and powerpc.
However, I successuflly apt-get installed treeviewx this morning on my
iMac... Does anybody knows what are the criteria used by the QA page to
determine
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package stardict-english-czech.
* Package name: stardict-english-czech
Version : 20060801-1
Upstream Author : Milan Svoboda [EMAIL PROTECTED] and many other
contributors
* URL : http://cihar.com/software/slovnik
*
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
This is all incorrect (at least, it's not in 4.1-4, the URL for 4.1-5
sees to be missing, but I'll assume he just updated the changelog to
adopt the package).
You are right. I uploaded an adoption release (currently unavailable)
mostly for obtaining the mantainer status
Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
On 8/5/06, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 04:57 -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
2 small comments:
Actually it's 3 comments! :-)
Huh? I counted again, and I still see two comments: 0, 1, 2
:-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Thibaut Paumard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which leads us to this question: do *-doc packages belong in section
doc, or in whatever the main package is (science, in this case)?
I prefer putting them in the same section as the main package so that
people browsing by section in aptitude will
Le Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:18:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I prefer putting them in the same section as the main package so that
people browsing by section in aptitude will actually see them.
You make a point.
I really have no opinion as I am using apt-get in command line and I am
14 matches
Mail list logo
