Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/debian/geneweb/geneweb-5.01/dag2html ls -l
total 88
-rw--- 1 bubulle bubulle 1936 jan 1 2006 dag2html.1
-rw--- 1 bubulle bubulle 42802 déc 13 2005
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 18:38 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
For the geneweb part I am Ccing Christian. Christian, do you know of
anybody that would be interested in the dag2html package? Would it
be worth contacting your upstream?
I don't
Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
snip
I've file a preliminary proposed removal for dag2html.
Thanks,
Barry deFreese
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Quoting Barry deFreese ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
snip
I've file a preliminary proposed removal for dag2html.
I then suggest that, as soon as it's
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:14 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it even worth it? It's buggy, has a popcon of 12, and hasn't seen an
upstream update since 2001?? My vote would be for removal.
I agree, and I haven't
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
For the geneweb part I am Ccing Christian. Christian, do you know of
anybody that would be interested in the dag2html package? Would it
be worth contacting your upstream?
I don't have any real idea of who could be interested in it.
However, on
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:15 -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
for removal?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it even worth it? It's buggy, has a popcon of 12, and hasn't seen an
upstream update since 2001?? My vote would be for removal.
I agree, and I haven't seen any interest in picking it up.
Would anyone object to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
for removal?
Personally I'm not, though of course I'm in favour of having it in the
pkg-ocaml-maint team as it would be a
Hi all,
The dag2html package is badly in need of some love
http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dag2html.html
Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
for removal?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=443029
The first
10 matches
Mail list logo
