I'll do it tomorrow if no one has done it first.
> Il giorno 20/ott/2013, alle ore 22:16, Markus Wanner ha
> scritto:
>
>> On 10/02/2013 07:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
>> Does this all make sense to you? Did I miss anything? Can I finalize
>> 2.1.0-4 for upload to unstable? (Which again needs
On 10/02/2013 07:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
> Does this all make sense to you? Did I miss anything? Can I finalize
> 2.1.0-4 for upload to unstable? (Which again needs a sponsor due to the
> renaming).
I finalized 2.1.0-4. Can somebody please review and sponsor the upload?
Regards
Markus Wanner
On 10/02/2013 08:35 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 08:20 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
>> On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
>>> We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok?
>>>
>
>> Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather
>> h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/2013 08:20 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
>> We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok?
>>
>
> Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather
> huge renami
Alright!
On 13-10-02 02:20 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok?
Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather huge
renaming diff to fix upgrades. See my original mail.
Afte
On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok?
Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather huge
renaming diff to fix upgrades. See my original mail.
After 2.1.0-4 has been uploaded, that's certainly fine
Markus,
We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok?
Thanks,
Alan
On 13-10-02 02:09 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
On 10/02/2013 08:05 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
I think this was a very minor change we did in the Ubuntu package, and
probably not push in the git. However,
On 10/02/2013 08:05 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> I think this was a very minor change we did in the Ubuntu package, and
> probably not push in the git. However, i still think that it would be
> good to split. Most people don't want to install all gtk2 libs and
> dependencies on their server when th
Markus,
I think this was a very minor change we did in the Ubuntu package, and
probably not push in the git. However, i still think that it would be
good to split. Most people don't want to install all gtk2 libs and
dependencies on their server when they only need command line tools.
What do
Alan,
On 10/02/2013 02:40 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> Is the package postgis-gui (or postgis-2.0-gui) still available with all
> your updates?
Still? I don't think it has ever been. I certainly don't find it
anywhere on packages.debian.org, ATM.
If you're just looking for the shp2pgsql-gui bina
Markus,
Is the package postgis-gui (or postgis-2.0-gui) still available with all
your updates?
Regards,
Alan
On 13-10-02 01:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
Christoph, Marco,
I renamed the scripts package(s) to exclude the postgis version. That
hopefully simplifies packaging newer PostGIS versio
11 matches
Mail list logo