On Do, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:41:10 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 26.01.2010 18:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
For people from the outside, who have a look at the package, however it
will look somehow insane. I think a short comment (just the sentence I
quoted from your previous mail above)
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:55:43 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
Here it dies with:
fatal: ambiguous argument
Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
- The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
I tried to leave the interface untouched.
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:23:32 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 26.01.2010 13:50, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This would mean that we would need to redistribute the libavcodec
package under GPLv3. I guess this causes problems with packages with
incompatible licenses like GPLv2 (only) and
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:31:14 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
- The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
I tried to leave the interface untouched.
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourself?
Am 26.01.2010 16:16, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourself? If not, I'll forward it.
I am not subscribed at upstream's lists and are thus rather unknown
there. Would you please...? ;)
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:53:59 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 24.01.2010 20:43, schrieb Andres Mejia:
Wouldn't it make more sense to continue with a version number
0.5+svnDATE?
Not that it really matters to me, I'm just curious as to why 0.6 already?
Also, shouldn't the package be named
Am 25.01.2010 12:38, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Why should we? This would only make sense if we would want to make these
packages co-installable with the existing packages. I don't think this
is worth the efford.
This was misunderstanding, sorry, I placed my +1 wrongly. I am not
for renaming
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:38:07 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Same here. I've become a bit less active recently, but if there's
something I can do to help and/or test, I'm of course there!
Thanks. Just keep an eye on the 'master.snapshot' branch as soon as I
push my commits there. I have
On Saturday 23 January 2010 05:10:20 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Picking up an old thread from October,
On Do, Okt 15, 2009 at 21:28:03 (CEST), Loïc Minier wrote:
Perhaps we should just go for a) and have a ffmpeg in experimental for
Debian next. Not too handy for Ubuntu though, but we
On So, Jan 24, 2010 at 20:43:39 (CET), Andres Mejia wrote:
On Saturday 23 January 2010 05:10:20 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Picking up an old thread from October,
On Do, Okt 15, 2009 at 21:28:03 (CEST), Loïc Minier wrote:
Perhaps we should just go for a) and have a ffmpeg in experimental for
11 matches
Mail list logo
