El Miércoles, 30 de Marzo de 2005 09:26, Carlos Parra escribió:
Hello,
I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain.
I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style
license...
The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 09.26, Carlos Parra wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain.
I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style
license...
The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt
it?
Carlos Parra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to package a program that's licensed under public domain.
I've been talking with the autor and says that he likes also BSD-style
license...
The change of license is necesary to get into the main archive, isnt
it?
As far as I know,
An extract of the files that are interesting in this case:
File README.txt:
...
...
Disclaimer
--
855resolution is free to use, distribute or modify. But please mention
my name and the names of the respective contributors.
I tried to make the programs as safe as possible but obviously I
If i'm wrong, please correct me.
http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW-summary.html says that Kenshi Muto
has already uploaded 855resolution.
See also:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300341
Willi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
thanks
What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about
this syntax in the BTS documentation. Do you mean something like (or is
this an undocumented feature):
clone
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
thanks
What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about
this syntax in the BTS documentation.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- No need to cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], since typically the mail to
the bug number will be processed after control@ stuff gets processed
(and so, the message will already go to the correct maintainers). And
even if it is not so (the order of
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]:
I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in
which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the
new maintainer.
They are sent to both, you, and the other maintainer.
--
Please do not send
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:07:02PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
thanks
What's this actually supposed to
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:32:06PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
Nevertheless the correct command probably is
reassign bugnumber package1,package2
Or is there another undocumented feature that the control bot can guess
the correct bug number from the other recipients of the mail?
Oops,
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
thanks
What's this actually supposed to do?
[...]
clone xxx -1
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]:
I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in
which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the
new maintainer.
They are sent to both, you, and the
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1443 +0200]:
I usually get two copies: One to the From of my mail (usually
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and one to the maintainer address of the package
(often debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org). The latter should
not be sent if the bug had been
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools
Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS
documentation on the web?
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools
Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS
documentation on the web?
I
also sprach Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.30.1547 +0200]:
I would assume it is either the www.debian.org pesudo-package or the
bugs.debian.org pesudo-package.
It's the latter.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL
Hello!
I'm in need of some advice :).
The short story is that I've packaged php4-dbase, and am obviously
hoping to get it uploaded.
My problem is that the package has been removed, after having been
Orphaned for a while. Does that mean I should now file an ITP, or is it
still an ITA?
// Kim
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:21:35PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
An idea I have been harboring for quite some time, and which bears some
(though not very much) relevance to this thread, is a reverse
dependency. The idea is this:
Package wine has wine.
Package kde has kde.
Package
19 matches
Mail list logo