On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 22:29 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 11:37 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
I refreshed the packages at
http://pivot.cs.unb.ca/debian/pool/main/s/syncevolution/syncevolution_1.0+ds1~beta2a-2.dsc
and on git.debian.org
My main
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:38:56 +, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
- Nokia E55: needs absolute alarm times (MBC #1657)
- Nokia phones: alarm times in UTC, sending PHOTO (BMC #1657, #5860)
Does the latter of these not render the former redundant? The comment
in
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 11:37 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
I refreshed the packages at
http://pivot.cs.unb.ca/debian/pool/main/s/syncevolution/syncevolution_1.0+ds1~beta2a-2.dsc
and on git.debian.org
My main motivation in doing the refresh was working through some build
problems in
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:08:22 +0100, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
My preference would be to see if the fixes for data loss, crashes, etc.
are backportable to the current version in the archive. A quick look
through
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 12:06 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:08:22 +0100, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
My preference would be to see if the fixes for data loss, crashes, etc.
are backportable
On So, 2010-11-14 at 17:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 12:06 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:08:22 +0100, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
My preference would be to see
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:05:15 +0100, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@intel.com wrote:
On So, 2010-11-07 at 22:05 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I'm not sure I'm going to like the answer, given the commit count you
mention below, but how large is the diff between what's currently in
squeeze and the
On So, 2010-11-07 at 22:05 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 22:39 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:46:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@intel.com
wrote:
If 1.0 + bug fixes is not acceptable for Debian Squeeze, then I suggest
that direct
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 22:39 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:46:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@intel.com
wrote:
If 1.0 + bug fixes is not acceptable for Debian Squeeze, then I suggest
that direct synchronization with phones gets disabled entirely in the
Debian
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:46:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@intel.com wrote:
If 1.0 + bug fixes is not acceptable for Debian Squeeze, then I suggest
that direct synchronization with phones gets disabled entirely in the
Debian Squeeze build by turning off Bluetooth support. Users who want
On Sa, 2010-10-23 at 17:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
Around the
time of the freeze, I asked on the upstream list for any serious issues
with the debian packages, and not receiving any reports, decided to
stick with the version in
I need some advice for how to proceed for syncevolution. Around the
time of the freeze, I asked on the upstream list for any serious issues
with the debian packages, and not receiving any reports, decided to
stick with the version in squeeze. However, upstream has since brought
to my attention
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 18:33 +0100, David Bremner wrote:
I need some advice for how to proceed for syncevolution. Around the
time of the freeze, I asked on the upstream list for any serious issues
with the debian packages, and not receiving any reports, decided to
stick with the version in
13 matches
Mail list logo
