Hello, all.
My package upstream's have a doc, about the package installation and configuration at
LDP. So, this doc is also in the doc-linux-html package.
Should I release the doc html and txt version with my package?
Make doc-linux-html a dependency doesn't seems good to me due the size.
Hi
I imagine a simple suggests with a note on the README pointing to the
documentation on doc-linux-{html,text} would be fine.
I don't think using the extra space for duplicate documentation is a
good idea, but maybe there's a more gentle solution...
PS.:(pt_BR) eu me sinto um idiota escrevendo
I'm making a deb of a program I'm developing on my own for my
university. I would like to make the deb for it is full of binaries and
libraries and it would be easier to upgrade/add/remove the software.
I'm running woody but I've got the gcc-3.3 for I need C99 support.
The problem
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:19:01PM +0200, Ottavio Campana wrote:
I'm making a deb of a program I'm developing on my own for my
university. I would like to make the deb for it is full of binaries and
libraries and it would be easier to upgrade/add/remove the software.
I'm running
All,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the SystemC package.
I have a package that has been tested and would like to have someone to
look at it.
This package is built for the 'testing' distribution.
Since this is a new package, I'm not sure what the official notification
should be for newly
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:56:48AM -0500, Ed Strauch wrote:
I'm looking for a sponsor for the SystemC package. I have a package
that has been tested and would like to have someone to look at it.
please tell us something about this package.
This package is built for the 'testing' distribution.
Hello, all.
My package upstream's have a doc, about the package installation and
configuration at LDP. So, this doc is also in the doc-linux-html package.
Should I release the doc html and txt version with my package?
Make doc-linux-html a dependency doesn't seems good to me due the size.
Hi
I imagine a simple suggests with a note on the README pointing to the
documentation on doc-linux-{html,text} would be fine.
I don't think using the extra space for duplicate documentation is a
good idea, but maybe there's a more gentle solution...
PS.:(pt_BR) eu me sinto um idiota escrevendo
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:22:04AM +, Michelle Ribeiro wrote:
My package upstream's have a doc, about the package installation and
configuration at LDP. So, this doc is also in the doc-linux-html
package.
Should I release the doc html and txt version with my package? Make
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:22:04AM +, Michelle Ribeiro wrote:
Hello, all.
My package upstream's have a doc, about the package installation and
configuration at LDP. So, this doc is also in the doc-linux-html
package.
Should I release the doc html and txt version with my
I'm making a deb of a program I'm developing on my own for my
university. I would like to make the deb for it is full of binaries and
libraries and it would be easier to upgrade/add/remove the software.
I'm running woody but I've got the gcc-3.3 for I need C99 support.
The problem
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:19:01PM +0200, Ottavio Campana wrote:
I'm making a deb of a program I'm developing on my own for my
university. I would like to make the deb for it is full of binaries and
libraries and it would be easier to upgrade/add/remove the software.
I'm running
All,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the SystemC package.
I have a package that has been tested and would like to have someone to
look at it.
This package is built for the 'testing' distribution.
Since this is a new package, I'm not sure what the official notification
should be for newly
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:56:48AM -0500, Ed Strauch wrote:
I'm looking for a sponsor for the SystemC package. I have a package
that has been tested and would like to have someone to look at it.
please tell us something about this package.
This package is built for the 'testing' distribution.
14 matches
Mail list logo
