On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> be legally redistributed in binary form.
deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
I believe rcw still maintains this, I have it commented out, since I do
Hello,
some time ago I have uploaded a new xmgr package (4.1.2-6). The
update-excuses file on ftp-master tells me, that this version will be
installed if it does not depend on other buggy packages. As far as I can
see, xmgr-4.1.2-6 does not depend on any buggy package but it is still
not installed
Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 04:08:10AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > Get gnupg 1.0.5-2 from incoming on pandora.
>
> Do you plan a package for stable too?
No. a) --send-key isn't broken in the stable package only in 1.0.5-1,
b) I don't believe there's
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Torsten Werner wrote:
> some time ago I have uploaded a new xmgr package (4.1.2-6). The
> update-excuses file on ftp-master tells me, that this version will be
> installed if it does not depend on other buggy packages. As far as I can
> see, xmgr-4.1.2-6 does not depend on any
On Tuesday, 2001-05-08 at 11:21:30 AM (+0200), T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> AFAIK there's no netcdfg neither in the current testing release nor in
>^
> unstable. That is there's no netcdfg comming in from unstable either
But xmgr depends on netcdfg3 which is available in
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
The lame tar.gz includes a debian/ directory. So its only a
# dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
away.
> deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
This I didn't know of.
> I
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2001-05-08 at 11:21:30 AM (+0200), T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > AFAIK there's no netcdfg neither in the current testing release nor in
> >^
> > unstable. That is there's no netcdfg comming in from unstable either
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:06PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
Which is why URL's to it aren't supposed to
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > hi developers,
> > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> > on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> > package
Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 04:08:10AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > Get gnupg 1.0.5-2 from incoming on pandora.
>
> Do you plan a package for stable too?
No. a) --send-key isn't broken in the stable package only in 1.0.5-1,
b) I don't believe there's
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Torsten Werner wrote:
> some time ago I have uploaded a new xmgr package (4.1.2-6). The
> update-excuses file on ftp-master tells me, that this version will be
> installed if it does not depend on other buggy packages. As far as I can
> see, xmgr-4.1.2-6 does not depend on any
On Tuesday, 2001-05-08 at 11:21:30 AM (+0200), T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> AFAIK there's no netcdfg neither in the current testing release nor in
>^
> unstable. That is there's no netcdfg comming in from unstable either
But xmgr depends on netcdfg3 which is available i
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
The lame tar.gz includes a debian/ directory. So its only a
# dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
away.
> deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
This I didn't know of.
> I
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2001-05-08 at 11:21:30 AM (+0200), T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > AFAIK there's no netcdfg neither in the current testing release nor in
> >^
> > unstable. That is there's no netcdfg comming in from unstable either
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:06PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
Which is why URL's to it aren't supposed t
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > hi developers,
> > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> > on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> > package
16 matches
Mail list logo
