在 2008-04-21一的 00:03 +0200，Helmut Grohne写道：
> > * Package name: libnotifymm
>
> Two minor comments:
>
> 1) Your copyright file is inconsistent about the gpl versions. You
>mention L?GPL-2+ whereas the path to /usr/share/common-licenses
>points to a version 3.
>
Fixed. And there's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "evilvte".
* Package name: evilvte
Version : 0.4.1-1
Upstream Author : Wen-Yen Chuang
* URL : http://www.calno.com/evilvte/
* License : G
> * Package name: libnotifymm
Two minor comments:
1) Your copyright file is inconsistent about the gpl versions. You
mention L?GPL-2+ whereas the path to /usr/share/common-licenses
points to a version 3.
2) Few people use control.in and those who do mostly do so for good
reasons. I
( "_blank" )
( "_blank" )
Carte de Crédit, Prêt Personnel, Prêt Voiture, Prêt Travaux, Prêt Immobilier,
Dette Familiale, Découvert Bancaire, Impôt et autres
( "_blank" )
Exemple détaillé d'une proposition
Partners Finances, cliquez ici ( "_blank" )
( "_blank" )
( "_blank" )
( "_blank"
I'm looking for a sponsor of two packages I've just uploaded to Debian
Mentors:
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=haskell-dataenc
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=omnicodec
* Package name: haskell-dataenc
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 13:06 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > make check
>
> Please use $(MAKE) instead of calling make directly.
Good point - updated the Wiki with the same.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally si
Neil Williams wrote:
> make check
Please use $(MAKE) instead of calling make directly.
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Neutron Soutmun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in the meantime I'm searching the informations for the security issue
> about the setuid/setgid which this package done, for now I found the
> security audit tools which I can do the basically tests.
> But I still do
> > > Looks like this in the upstream makefile:
> > >
> > > all allbin alldoc tags clean:
> > > @for I in ${subdirs}; do (cd $$I; ${MAKE} $@ || exit 1); done
> > >
> > > Should be replaced with this:
> > >
> > > all allbin alldoc tags clean:
> > > @for I in ${subdirs}
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 14:58 +0200, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> Hi mentors,
>
> A little question regarding automatic test suites :
>
> When a package provides such a suite should the normal package build process :
>
> 1) Always run the test suite (for example to catch bugs that may not
> occur on the
> >> Also, I think this line is wrong:
> >>
> >> cd doc ; mv -f xiterm.1 xiterm+thai.1
>
> If you have to use cd then it should be
>
> cd doc && mv -f xiterm.1 xiterm+thai.1
After the last time that I accept this concept, but after I review the
rules.
I think that, if the doc dir realy exist
OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du dimanche 20 avril 2008, vers
14:58, "Martin Fuzzey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> A little question regarding automatic test suites :
> When a package provides such a suite should the normal package build process :
> 1) Always run the test suite (for e
Hi mentors,
A little question regarding automatic test suites :
When a package provides such a suite should the normal package build process :
1) Always run the test suite (for example to catch bugs that may not
occur on the developper's architecture)
2) Never run the test suite (to avoid "wasti
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:35:27 +0200, Luca Bruno wrote:
> David Paleino scrisse:
>
> > Secondly, I've just adopted john. The old maintainer kept 1.6.x
> > series in unstable, and a "1.7-2" in experimental. Now I've uploaded
> > 1.7.2-1 into unstable, will the experimental version disappear?
> > Shou
David Paleino scrisse:
> For the experimental upload, I've added a new changelog entry to
> debian/changelog, tagging it as "experimental", created a new
> branch, ..., and finally uploaded.
> For the next unstable upload, should I keep both changelogs forked?
> Should I merge them? The same quest
2008/4/20, Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2008-04-20, Andrea De Iacovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They're all solved in 2.5.0 (already in sid) and someone is solved
> > also in 2.3. However I'm waiting fort hte first package upload to
> > close a buch of bugs.
>
>
> Etch is 2.0 serie
On 2008-04-20, Andrea De Iacovo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They're all solved in 2.5.0 (already in sid) and someone is solved
> also in 2.3. However I'm waiting fort hte first package upload to
> close a buch of bugs.
Etch is 2.0 series
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
2008/4/19, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Andrea De Iacovo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I recently adopted the wordpress package and now I'm looking for a
> sponsor.
> > The old sponsor (Lionel Elie Mamane) apparently doesn't want to
> > sponsor it
On 11361 March 1977, David Paleino wrote:
> Secondly, I've just adopted john. The old maintainer kept 1.6.x series in
> unstable, and a "1.7-2" in experimental. Now I've uploaded 1.7.2-1 into
> unstable, will the experimental version disappear? Should I request its
> removal
> (and if yes, how)?
Hi all,
I'm posting this to -mentors since I believe it's a basic question, which may
be useful also to others.
I currently maintain gthumb, and I've recently uploaded a svn snapshot to
testing. Now this is the situation:
$ apt-cache policy gthumb
gthumb:
Installed: 3:2.11.0~svn2319-1
Candidat
20 matches
Mail list logo
