Hi folks, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "fetchexc".
* Package name: fetchexc
Version : 1.10-1
Upstream Author : Juhani Rautiainen
* URL : http://personal.inet.fi/atk/fetchexc/
* License : GPL
Section : net
It builds one binary package:
fet
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wxdfast".
Package name: wxdfast
Version : 0.4.5
Upstream Author : Max Magalhães Velasques
URL : http://dfast.sourceforge.net
License : GPL
Section : net
It builds these binary packages:
wxdfas
I've just uploaded version 1.10-2 of fetchexc which uses dpatch to patch
the build.xml file rather than doing it directly through the .diff.gz,
and also adds upstream's changelog.gz which I generated from the
upstream website (aka the README.html file in the package).
I seem to remember seeing som
Hi mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the "quilt-el" package.
* Package name: quilt-el
Version : 0.4-hg20060425-1
Upstream Author : Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.selenic.com/repo/quilt-el
* License : GPL
Description : a simple Em
Dear MJ Ray, you wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > -legal,
> > Could you please comment on AFL v. 2.1 as found at:
> > http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
> > this will serve as a future reference as well
>
> In general, please quote licence texts inline for ease of comment
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: mod-bt
> Version: 0.0.18+p4.1178-1
> Severity: serious
>
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
>
> > Automatic build of mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1178-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> > sbuild/s390 85
> [...]
> > ** Using build depende
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > libapr1-dev.
> But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
> libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder handles it without a problem...
No. The au
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > > libapr1-dev.
> > But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
> > libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbu
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
But if I have to remove the "apr1 | apr0" sutff, then a new version of
mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
to 2.2 happens.
In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
that this is less
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:37:58AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > > > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > > > libapr1-dev.
> > > But that should be fi
Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But if I have to remove the "apr1 | apr0" sutff, then a new version of
> >mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
> >to 2.2 happens.
> In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
> that this
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, name it libapr-dev. If something really can use either one
> of the 2, I don't see why you should make a transition so hard
> and go and name it libapr0-dev.
>
> So I suggest you rename libapr0-dev to libapr-dev and make it
> provide libapr0-dev for n
Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I setup pbuilder to manage this? when I try to just do
> 'pbuilder create', it gives the error:
>
> E: Couldn't download slang1a-utf8
> pbuilder: debootstrap failed
>
> I've got it working using '--distribution sarge', which is nice for
> checki
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:31:34PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How do I setup pbuilder to manage this? when I try to just do
> > 'pbuilder create', it gives the error:
> > E: Couldn't download slang1a-utf8
> > pbuilder: debootstrap failed
> > I'v
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have found that it is easier to have machines running each distro
> > you want to build against, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Try a
> > "--distribution etch" though; something that builds under etch should still
> > run under sid.
> And no, you
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have found that it is easier to have machines running each distro
> > > you want to build against, but it shouldn't be neccessary. Try a
> > > "--distribution etch" though; somethi
Ted Percival wrote:
> I've just uploaded version 1.10-2 of fetchexc which uses dpatch to patch
> the build.xml file rather than doing it directly through the .diff.gz,
> and also adds upstream's changelog.gz which I generated from the
> upstream website (aka the README.html file in the package).
L
17 matches
Mail list logo
