Hi,
I realised that the r-cran-psy package has not changed since etch and is
featuring a nasty long standing bug #400726 for nearly three years. I
guess the fact that upstream seems to be dead (no new version since June
2005[1]) has prevented your from updating the package. If you ask me
you sho
Le Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:03:27AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I realised that the r-cran-psy package has not changed since etch and is
> featuring a nasty long standing bug #400726 for nearly three years. I
> guess the fact that upstream seems to be dead (no new version since June
> 2005[
On Sep 21, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 07:18:02PM -0700, Scott Christley wrote:
A new upstream release of BioCocoa. The package should be completely
covered by a BSD style license, so hopefully all of the license
issues
are resolved now. I've updated the
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:55:20AM -0700, Scott Christley wrote:
>
> Is there any way to check status of upload?
The maintainer gets information about the status. In our case this is
the Debian Med Packaging Team
. So you might either
subscribe to this list or - perhaps more practical to you if
Hi,
I'd like to give an update on the "Enhances" issue. For the moment our
development instance of the webtools (debian-med.debian.net and
blends.debian.net) are running some new code which displays the packages
which are enhancing a package at the bottom of the long description (if
there is any
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Tille wrote:
> I'd like to give an update on the "Enhances" issue. For the moment our
> development instance of the webtools (debian-med.debian.net and
> blends.debian.net) are running some new code which displays the packages
> which are enhancing a package at the bottom of
Ok, thanks for the info. The code in question is not part of Plan9,
it is separate software that for some reason the authors picked the
Plan9 license, so the move of Plan9 to a different license probably
doesn't apply for this code. It is just a couple of small functions,
so upstream migh
Hi!
While fixing the watch file of phyml, I saw that its version number in
debian/changelog is 200900706 while upstream version is 20090706
(there is one more zero on our version number).
Is this a typo?
Best regards,
Nelson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Le Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:39:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I had a look and do not have any additions regarding the content.
> However I'm curious about the formatting. If the copyright information
> should be expressed in RFC822 format you need to connect the paragraphs
> by a line co
Le Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:34:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira a écrit :
>
> While fixing the watch file of phyml, I saw that its version number in
> debian/changelog is 200900706 while upstream version is 20090706
> (there is one more zero on our version number).
> Is this a typo?
Errare humanu
Hi Scott,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:03:46PM -0700, Scott Christley wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the info. The code in question is not part of Plan9, it
> is separate software that for some reason the authors picked the Plan9
> license, so the move of Plan9 to a different license probably doesn't
>
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> While working on the machine-readable format for Debian copyright files, I
> realised that there are several good reasons to not use the same format as for
> Debian control files (which actually does not comply with RFC822).
What ex
Le Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 07:32:47AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > While working on the machine-readable format for Debian copyright files, I
> > realised that there are several good reasons to not use the same format as
> > for
Hi Yavor,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:36:36PM +, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Author: yavor-guest
> Date: 2009-10-07 21:36:36 + (Wed, 07 Oct 2009)
> New Revision: 4182
>...
> Log:
> * New upstream release.
> * debian/compat: Set to 7.
> * debian/control (Uploaders): Reluctantly add myself.
>
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:34:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> If r-cran-psy is one of them, I think that it would not be too impolite to our
> users to drop it if we do not have the manpower to keep it.
While I really like the cran2deb effort we are missing IMHO one feature
of the Blends sc
15 matches
Mail list logo
