One of the library that I'm packaging uses DTD (Document Type Definition)
for XML,
placed into separate file.
I have two questions:
1. Should I put that DTD file into separated -arch all - package, like
libfool-data?
2. Where to put that DTD file? /usr/share/xml/dtd/ ?
I guess your answers can be found by reading the XML policy:
http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/xml-policy/
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
2012/10/30 Paul Wise p...@debian.org
I guess your answers can be found by reading the XML policy:
http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/xml-policy/
Thank you.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Your message dated Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:28:02 +0800
with message-id 508fd5e2.4070...@gmail.com
and subject line Re: RFS: gcc-4.7-doc/4.7.2-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #691020,
regarding RFS: gcc-4.7-doc/4.7.2-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On 17:59 Mon 29 Oct , Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Vasudev Kamath kamathvasu...@gmail.com, 2012-10-28, 23:06:
Anselm got sprop a place in dl.suckless.org so I reverted
copyright to its original format and modified create_orig_source
to refer dl.suckless.org.
I can't build source package anymore:
Hi all,
I'm looking for a bit of advice on where to start with resolving my first
Debian bug [1]. Right now, I'm wondering how I can get a version-controlled
copy of the source code for gcc 4.6/4.7 that was used to build these
packages. Ideally, I'd like to use SCM tools to generate diffs, or
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 686417 RFS: feedgnuplot/1.23-2 [ITP]
Bug #686417 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: feedgnuplot/1.23-1 [ITP]
Changed Bug title to 'RFS: feedgnuplot/1.23-2 [ITP]' from 'RFS:
feedgnuplot/1.23-1 [ITP]'
stop
Stopping processing here.
Please
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Robert James Clay wrote:
A new version of the LedgerSMB package, v1.3.23-1, is now available
and has been uploaded to the Mentors site pending a sponsor.
Raphael; if you're able to take a look at it, I'd appreciated it!
Do you want to upload it to unstable or to
control: retitle -1 RFS: libpam-ssh/1.92-15 [ITP] [REINTRODUCTION]
Unfortunately this package was removed from unstable, so it won't be
considered for upload until after wheezy unfreezes. Removing RC since
as a NEW package the RC categorization does not apply.
Best wishes,
Mike
--
To
Processing control commands:
retitle -1 RFS: libpam-ssh/1.92-15 [ITP] [REINTRODUCTION]
Bug #686070 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libpam-ssh/1.92-15 [ITP]
[REINTRODUCTION] [RC RESOLVED]
Changed Bug title to 'RFS: libpam-ssh/1.92-15 [ITP] [REINTRODUCTION]' from
'RFS: libpam-ssh/1.92-15 [ITP]
I'm looking for a bit of advice on where to start with resolving my
first Debian bug [1]. Right now, I'm wondering how I can get a
version-controlled copy of the source code for gcc 4.6/4.7 that was used
to build these packages. Ideally, I'd like to use SCM tools to generate
diffs, or back
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package roundup. I have a dedicated
uploader (Toni Mueller), but another eye on my changes needn't hurt. It
fixes 3 outstanding bugs, one of which is an RC bug.
* Package name: roundup
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Kai Storbeck wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package roundup. I have a dedicated
uploader (Toni Mueller), but another eye on my changes needn't hurt. It
fixes 3 outstanding bugs, one of which is an RC bug.
Hi,
I've just reviewed this.
+ * patch
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 15:58 -0400, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Robert James Clay wrote:
A new version of the LedgerSMB package, v1.3.23-1, is now available
and has been uploaded to the Mentors site pending a sponsor.
Raphael; if you're able to take a look at it,
Your message dated Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:20:38 +
with message-id e1ttpnc-0003aj...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: lierolibre/0.4-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #670195,
regarding RFS: lierolibre/0.4-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
15 matches
Mail list logo
