* Dominique Dumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-02 09:41]:
> The description should explain a little bit what is MTP.
>
> Description: Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) library
>
> A library for communicating with MTP aware devices. MTP (Media
> Transfer Protocol) is necessary to comunicate with
Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In particular, if you have suggestions on how to improve the
> packages descriptions, I will be grateful.
The description should explain a little bit what is MTP.
Description: Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) library
A library for communicating wi
* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 09:12]:
> Not sure what to do about the man pages. These tools are all very tiny and
> not exactly used for much other than testing your libmtp install. What if
> one man page were written with just a very general explenation of how to use
> the
On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:57:26 am you wrote:
> Indeed, adding a mtp-tools package was straightforward. See [1].
Great. Package installed fine and works perfectly.
Not sure what to do about the man pages. These tools are all very tiny and
not exactly used for much other than testing you
* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 12:02]:
> * Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-31 12:51]:
> > As a final thought, it would be great to get a package that includes all of
> > the example tools that are distributed by upstream... things like
> > mtp-detect, and so on.
* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-31 12:51]:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:50:58 am Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > Notice that the binary package is now called libmtp5.
>
> It's great to see someone who knows what they are doing pick this up and run
> with it. However, I wonder if
* Ana Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 07:14]:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > It is impressive how long this ITP has stayed open, how long it is taking
> > to get a sponsor for this package, and how many people have already
> > commented on this b
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be better to just keep the binary package as libmtp so that
> end users don't have to hunt around for the correct package should
> upstream continue to be a moving target?
The problem is that between end user and libmtp, you have an
application
Hi Rafael (and others),
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> It is impressive how long this ITP has stayed open, how long it is taking to
> get a sponsor for this package, and how many people have already commented
> on this bug report.
>
hey, 5 months is not so
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:50:58 am Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Notice that the binary package is now called libmtp5.
It's great to see someone who knows what they are doing pick this up and run
with it. However, I wonder if naming the binary package after the so name is
the right course o
It is impressive how long this ITP has stayed open, how long it is taking to
get a sponsor for this package, and how many people have already commented
on this bug report.
That said, I am planing to sponsor libmtp soon. I built it using the
upstream version 0.1.3 and it is available in [1]. It is
Hey folks, I noticed that this package hasn't really gone anywhere in the past
few months. I have a shiny new iRiver my GF bought me for Christmas, and
it's going to break my heart if I can't use it because a package is stuck due
to lack of interest.
I haven't done much with Debian packages, b
12 matches
Mail list logo
