On 28.09.2012 03:53, Paul Wise wrote:
Has the FSF been asked to switch to plain GFDL so that we can move the
GCC docs to main? They did that for the autoconf documentation
recently.
yes. but you may want to try again.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Hi,
On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org
wrote:
In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
used git repos
Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make?
Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free?
(with regular package names)
2012/9/27 Guo Yixuan culu@gmail.com:
Hi,
On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel
Hi,
On 09/28/2012 01:05 AM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make?
Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free?
(with regular package names)
It's in a similar way to GNU Make indeed. The only difference is more
than one version
Has the FSF been asked to switch to plain GFDL so that we can move the
GCC docs to main? They did that for the autoconf documentation
recently.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Samuel,
I'm terribly sorry, but most likely I won't look into this in the near
future. On weekdays, when done with current work and family stuff, I'm
usually too tired to do anything useful. And it is already clear that at
least next two weekends will also be occupied.
It is a bad idea to
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org
wrote:
In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
used git repos to managed entire thing.
I've just created
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org wrote:
I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when.
Hello Samuel
The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete.
Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and
I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when.
Hello Samuel
The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete.
Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and
several gcc-X.Y.doc-non-dfsg [non-free], that all must match each other.
There
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org
wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as
Dear GCC Maintainers,
Perhaps I should have CC'd you in the first place, but here's a copy now:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Subject: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
To: debian-ment...@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed from
unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as found in
experimental). Could you do this? Nikita, could you sponsor the package?
Matthias
On 25.01.2012 19:05, Samuel Bronson wrote:
Dear
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as
found in experimental). Could you do this? Nikita, could you sponsor the
14 matches
Mail list logo
