PLEASE FINALLY FIX YOUR MAILER
This is the third time you destroyed the mail address for Mika (Michael Prokop)
and this is the third time I had to manually insert the correct address for
Mika.
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:19pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
[... snip ... 81 lines of rant removed ]
No wonder we no longer ship smake and cdrecord.
You are wrong: *you* did create a patch that is repsonsible for the fact
that
your build environment for star uses a broken star_fat.c
Stop talking about
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ personal attacks removed...]
You are wrong: *you* did create a patch that is repsonsible for the fact
that
your build environment for star uses a broken star_fat.c
Stop talking about packaging if you do not understand related procedures.
Instead
Hi,
On Apr 15, 11:18pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in
filesystem
is not actually correct.
The star man page names the binaries the same way they are in the filesystem.
Where do you see problems?
You seem to forget that the
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PLEASE FIX YOUR MAILER!
Your mailer repeatedly bastardizes the mail address for Mika
On Apr 15, 11:18pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in
filesystem
is not
On Apr 16, 1:19pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You seem to forget that the binaries names are changed so they do not clash
with other packages.
I see no name clashesplease explain!
Various versions mt and rmt are provided in tar, star and mt-st. None of them
can claim the names mt or rmt.
* Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080415 01:09]:
On Apr 15, 12:05am, Michael Prokop wrote:
Well, I personally don't _love_ dpatch but I strongly prefer to have
patches against *upstream* sources seperated from original upstream
sources.
That's what dpkg-source does.
Yes, but not on a
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me see...
star/star.1
Obviously using Joerg's version would very quickly get me a lot of bug
reports.
Why do you expect to get bugreports for a correct man page?
Looking at the current Debian Bug list shows that all bug reports that are not
Hi,
On Apr 15, 11:03am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Why do you expect to get bugreports for a correct man page?
Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in filesystem
is not actually correct.
My suggestions are always correct. The problem is that you did missunderstand
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:03am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Why do you expect to get bugreports for a correct man page?
Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in filesystem
is not actually correct.
The star man page names the binaries the same
Hi,
On Apr 14, 2:52pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
Yes, it's in the work. It will not be released until I manage to work around
#465511.
Ok, I *might* have a fix for this issue - I'll test it and report to
you.
It'd be nice. Apparently the problem is that distclean works weirdly,
configure gets
Oops...
On Apr 14, 8:36pm, Pawel Wiecek wrote:
There's a preliminary version of 1.5a88 (which I'll probably update to
1.5final today) at http://hg.svartech.com/star/.
It should be http://hg.svartech.com/debian/star/.
Pawel
--
(___) | Pawel Wiecek -- Coven / Svart --
Hi,
I recommend to through away the sources at http://hg.svartech.com/debian/star/
and cleanly start with the official source.
The reason for a clean start is:
1) your source includes a broken star_fat.c, but it sould not
contain this file at all. Seeing star_fat.c makes me asume
* Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080414 20:36]:
On Apr 14, 2:52pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
Yes, it's in the work. It will not be released until I manage to work
around
#465511.
Ok, I *might* have a fix for this issue - I'll test it and report to
you.
It'd be nice. Apparently
Hi,
On Apr 14, 11:15pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
See attached patch.
Thx.
Ok, are you checking those? I'm quite busy in the next few days but
Yes, I'll take care of this.
Great. The attached patch applies fine on current hg head
(ab0604ab763f).
Thanks again :^)
Pawel
--
(___) |
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080414 23:11]:
I recommend to through away the sources at http://hg.svartech.com/debian/star/
and cleanly start with the official source.
The reason for a clean start is:
1)your source includes a broken star_fat.c, but it sould not
contain
Hi,
On Apr 14, 11:24pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
IMHO we should use debian/patches/ (dpatch, quilt,... - whatever you
prefer) instead of directly patching upstream sources as well.
My general opinion about dpatch (or alike) is that it makes maintenance harder
:^)
Pawel
--
(___) |
* Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080414 23:45]:
On Apr 14, 11:24pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
IMHO we should use debian/patches/ (dpatch, quilt,... - whatever you
prefer) instead of directly patching upstream sources as well.
My general opinion about dpatch (or alike) is that it makes
Hi,
On Apr 15, 12:05am, Michael Prokop wrote:
Well, I personally don't _love_ dpatch but I strongly prefer to have
patches against *upstream* sources seperated from original upstream
sources.
That's what dpkg-source does.
But I think we should cleanup debian/rules and check out the
* Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080414 07:29]:
On Apr 13, 11:06pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
build dependency on non-existing smake). Do you plan to provide this
new upstream release in the near future? (If you need any help or
Yes, it's in the work. It will not be released until I manage
Package: star
Version: 1.5a67-1.2
Severity: wishlist
star 1.5 (Stable) was released on Sunday, 13. April 2008, 22:32:14 CEST
http://sourcewell.berlios.de/appbyid.php?id=838
The last upload (non-NMU) of the star package took place more than 2
years ago (22 Sep 2005) and currently there are
Hi,
On Apr 13, 11:06pm, Michael Prokop wrote:
build dependency on non-existing smake). Do you plan to provide this
new upstream release in the near future? (If you need any help or
Yes, it's in the work. It will not be released until I manage to work around
#465511.
welcome co-maintaining
22 matches
Mail list logo
