On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 01:01:54PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > The bug has at least two other bugs blocking it at the moment, but
> > considering how old the last report is, I wouldn't be surprised if
> > upstream introduced new dependencies that need packaging as well.
>
> Yeah.
> Did you
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 09:10:51AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > It has been a long time since you sent this email -- is there any progress
> > about it/[...]
>
> Not as far as I know.
Okay.
> > any known blockers?
>
> The bug has at least two other bugs blocking it at the moment, but
>
On 2022-06-01 11:11:40, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Hi Micah, Antione,
>
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2019 09:50:55 -0400 micah anderson wrote:
>> Antoine Beaupré writes:
>>
>> > We've processed a bunch of the dependencies for this, and uploaded some
>> > to NEW (with related git repos in salsa). Some are not
Hi Micah, Antione,
On Tue, 02 Apr 2019 09:50:55 -0400 micah anderson wrote:
> Antoine Beaupré writes:
>
> > We've processed a bunch of the dependencies for this, and uploaded some
> > to NEW (with related git repos in salsa). Some are not done yet, mostly
> > because their license is unclear.
Antoine Beaupré writes:
> We've processed a bunch of the dependencies for this, and uploaded some
> to NEW (with related git repos in salsa). Some are not done yet, mostly
> because their license is unclear.
The packages indicated in this table as having unclear licenses have had
that issue
Control: block -1 by 919936, 919937, 919938, 919940, 919941, 919943, 919944,
919945, 919946,
919947, 919948
We've processed a bunch of the dependencies for this, and uploaded some
to NEW (with related git repos in salsa). Some are not done yet, mostly
because their license is unclear.
Here are
6 matches
Mail list logo
