2008/5/21 Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hehe, you cannot start a removal voting,
> because dtw is not a TU since he resigned after becoming a dev. ;-)
> (that was on 6th of July, 2007).
>
> He still has some packages in community (last time he given out some of them)
> (some of which I wa
2008/5/21 BaSh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/21 DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> dtw is a TU or not?
>>
>> If not, we could move some packages to unsupported; if yes, it's time
>> to call a removing vote.
> I think isn't necessary move dtw's packages to unsupported, there are 2 new
> TU (gcarrier,
2008/5/21 DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> dtw is a TU or not?
>
> If not, we could move some packages to unsupported; if yes, it's time
> to call a removing vote.
I think isn't necessary move dtw's packages to unsupported, there are 2 new
TU (gcarrier, Drag0nlord) and they can adopt dtw's packages
DaNiMoTh wrote:
2008/5/20 BaSh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2008/5/20 Ronald van Haren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
yes I'm a bit disappointed too. Almost two months have passed since I
[cut]
Thus yesterday I started to fix the PKGBUILDs and today I finished to do it.
I fixed maybe 30~35 p
2008/5/20 BaSh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/20 Ronald van Haren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> yes I'm a bit disappointed too. Almost two months have passed since I
[cut]
> Thus yesterday I started to fix the PKGBUILDs and today I finished to do it.
> I fixed maybe 30~35 packages (more are maintained by
2008/5/20 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, so this was the cause. I would have just committed the change to CVS
> without a pkgrel update. But anyway, it is good to know there is an
> explanation because I was slightly concerned about what was going on.
>
> Note it is much better if the act
2008/5/20 Ronald van Haren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> yes I'm a bit disappointed too. Almost two months have passed since I
> wrote the script and created the initial list, though very little did
> happen until BaSh started to add the licenses (thanks for that btw). I
> originally created the list tho
On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:02:44 +1000
Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BaSh wrote:
[cut]
> Note it is much better if the actual maintainer fixes their own packages
This is right.
> because you know they are going to work from their local copy (without
> this change) when they update the p
> On the point that who upload packages without a license isn't a good
> TU, I'm with you.
>
> --
> JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User
>
yes I'm a bit disappointed too. Almost two months have passed since I
wrote the script and created the initial list, though very little did
happen until BaSh st
BaSh wrote:
Hi,
2008/5/20 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
A large portion of recent updates (~2/3) are only bumped in the pkgrel, i.e.
no pkgver update. While I realize some of these will be legitimate
rebuilds, it is a bit of a concern to me given nothing major has moved from
the testing r
2008/5/20 JJDaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:48 +0200
> You could made a new list about it.
You can see the updated list in my comment into the bug report.
Anyway I attach the list at this mail.
> On the point that who upload packages without a license isn't a good
> TU,
On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:48 +0200
BaSh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 2008/5/20 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[cut]
> Please see the list of packages without license(), some of these require fix
> for gcc4.3 and maybe can be moved to unsupported because are
> unmaintained.
>
You could ma
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Loui wrote:
Is it still possible to upload a new PKGBUILD without uploading a new
binary package so that ABS users get the good stuff? That might be
handy.
Yes, it's possible. Just tag and commit the PKGBUILD in cvs. Details are
in the wiki articles linked from AUR home
Hi,
2008/5/20 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A large portion of recent updates (~2/3) are only bumped in the pkgrel, i.e.
> no pkgver update. While I realize some of these will be legitimate
> rebuilds, it is a bit of a concern to me given nothing major has moved from
> the testing repo and I
On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:36:26 +1000
Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A large portion of recent updates (~2/3) are only bumped in the pkgrel,
> i.e. no pkgver update. While I realize some of these will be legitimate
> rebuilds, it is a bit of a concern to me given nothing major has moved
Hi TUs,
I was looking at the pkg_diff page in order to build some packages for
community64 and noticed something I found a bit worrying and after much
thought, I decided to bring it up. It could all be entirely legitimate
and if so I apologize.
A large portion of recent updates (~2/3) are o
16 matches
Mail list logo
