Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
git clone git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/policy.git
Any tips for people sitting behind a firewall that only allows
html (via proxy) and who will get:
$ git clone
Hi Jordan,
thanks for the feedback!
Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2008, 16:10 -0700 schrieb Jordan Mantha:
I think the gatekeeper workflow is appropriate. However, packaging
the policy and using BTS seems like overkill. It would seem to me that
with git, sending patches or merging from somebody's
Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 12:50 +0200 schrieb Manuel Prinz:
I will enable it and let you know.
Done, easier as expected. You can now also clone using:
git clone http://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/policy.git
Best regards
Manuel
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital
Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 12:39 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
Why not ... licensed under either GPL or BSD? This makes sure that
it might fit any license in case there is some conflict.
In my understanding the problem is not so much about conflicting license
but about mixing compatible
* Manuel Prinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080528 00:34]:
git clone git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/policy.git
Besides the points mentioned in the document, the following points have to be
addressed:
1. What license should we use for the document?
Is there so much in the worth
Hi,
there are several open bugs in the TeXMaker package that are not RC enough
to justify a NMU but the fact that they are not even answered by the maintainer
to acknowledge that he has registered the problems makes me wonder whether
the maintainer is MIA. So I started some action [1] and fixed
Hi Andreas!
Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 16:52 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
What I'm missing is a step by step introduction to git which answers
the questions:
1. How can I check out all existing repositories of packages
2. How can I create a new package repository (as I said I'm
Hi Bernhard,
thanks for your feedback!
Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 15:03 +0200 schrieb Bernhard R. Link:
* Manuel Prinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080528 00:34]:
1. What license should we use for the document?
Is there so much in the worth protectable? Otherwise making it public
domain or
Please please pardon me -- I managed to mistype -python mailing list
email address. Resending now -- please reply to this email instead!
Hi to all Debian and Python lists.
I think that discussion is appropriate for both lists, thus please don't
hit me hard for cross-posting
Within your project
Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 17:03 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
there are several open bugs in the TeXMaker package that are not RC enough
to justify a NMU
Did I miss something? Why need bugs to have an RC status to get fixed by
NMU? As long as you follow the best practices, you can fix all
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
I'll add a paragraph about that. We can also change it to Debhelper.
That's what is discussion is for: To find a consensus about that. At the
moment, it is just a suggestion.
I think: Suggesting / recommending tu use CDBS where it makes sense if
fine -
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Daniel Leidert wrote:
there are several open bugs in the TeXMaker package that are not RC enough
to justify a NMU
Did I miss something? Why need bugs to have an RC status to get fixed by
NMU? As long as you follow the best practices, you can fix all bugs by
NMU.
OK, NMU
12 matches
Mail list logo
