Re: RFS: apt-best

Yes this is a good complement to the program and I'm searching for more sources to integrate. The problem which will arise is how to merge these sources with the existing ones. This is something to think about. John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: apt-best

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:32:54PM +0100, chatiman wrote: apt-best is a utility which helps the user in finding the most populars debian packages. For that it uses the scores found on freshmeat (more sources to come) for exemple and link them to the debian package archive. It is licensed

Re: RFS: apt-best

* chatiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-27 14:32:54 +0100]: For that it uses the scores found on freshmeat (more sources to come) for exemple and link them to the debian package archive. You probably already know about this program, but just in case...this sounds like something that might be a

Listar: Post sent to moderator.

Post to list rencontres2003 Subject: Post submitted to moderator for reason: Non-member submission to closed-post list. --- Gestionnaire de liste Listar/0.42 - fin de traitement/job execution complete.

Re: RFS: apt-best

Yes this is a good complement to the program and I'm searching for more sources to integrate. The problem which will arise is how to merge these sources with the existing ones. This is something to think about. John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

Hi, well, it doesn't hurt.. Although a public key not accessible doesn't exactly make much sense. ;) And gpg already shows the uid etc so verify the signature would work when the key is on a keyserver or somesuch. I sent it to hkp://subkeys.pgp.net with gnupg. Anyway... $ dpkg-source -x

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: That something was time passing by :) To create all the files I wrote a small script which created a orig.tar.gz and calls dpkg-source -b etc. Unfortunately I made it recreate the orig.tar.gz for each run, resulting in different time stamps inside the tar and

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

Hi, Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything negative about 2.1 as debian revision. In the policy I read section 5.6.11 which tells me that 2=2.1 which is what I want; my upstream

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Alexander Bürger wrote: Hi, Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything negative about 2.1 as debian revision. Debian revisions x.1,

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Alexander Bürger wrote: Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything negative about 2.1 as debian revision. [...] says lt to me. Please

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Wednesday 28 January 2004 18:45, Alexander Bürger wrote: Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything negative about 2.1 as

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

Hi, Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything negative about 2.1 as debian revision. It's not negative -- and every other aspect you mentioned is also true. What Rene

Raqshaq.com Sales - Automated Response

Raqshaq.com Sales - Automated Response Thank you for Contacting Raqshaq.com Sales. This is an automated response. A representative will respond to your inquiry as soon as possible. Below are some answers to standard questions about our products and services. Dedicated Cobalt Servers:

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: Thanks. Now revision 3 is on sf. I must admit that I skipped the NMU chapter. But still I do not find such a statement that dots in debian revision are reserved. Chapter 5.11.4.1 of the developers-reference says should add a new minor version number. Does this

Ping for John O'Sullivan, Mentor needed [Was: Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned]

Georges Khaznadar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm posting the answere back to debian-devel and debian-mentors to see if we can find your old mentor or a new one. I hope you don't mind. Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : Hi, I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and