> FWIW I think adding postfix for "cv" is much easier to accept
> for Xfennec.
The more I think about it, the more I like the command name "progress"
for its simplicity, instead of tweaking the original name too much and
making it impossible to remember for the users. Is such a name is
available w
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-grass-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-snuggs"
Package name: python-snuggs
Version : 1.3.1-1
Upstream Author : Sean Gillies
URL : https://g
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 09:27 +0200, Xfennec wrote:
> Is such a name is
> available within Debian ?
The good news is, the name "progress" as an executable is
available in Debian.
$ apt-file search progress | grep /bin
debconf: /usr/bin/debconf-apt-progress
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-grass-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "owslib"
Package name: owslib
Version : 0.8.13-1
Upstream Author : Tom Kralidis
URL : http://geopython.github.
Hi,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:34:48PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:34:05PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > There are several discussions on Debian mailing lists all with the
> > conclusion that Depends are wrong for metapackages. Please use
> > Recommends.
>
> Well,
Your message dated Wed, 27 May 2015 20:37:47 +0200
with message-id <55660efb.6020...@xs4all.nl>
and subject line RFS: python-snuggs/1.3.1-1 [ITP] [uploaded]
has caused the Debian Bug report #786968,
regarding RFS: python-snuggs/1.3.1-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Wed, 27 May 2015 21:30:23 +0200
with message-id <55661b4f.4080...@xs4all.nl>
and subject line RFS: owslib/0.8.13-1 [uploaded]
has caused the Debian Bug report #786974,
regarding RFS: owslib/0.8.13-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Hello,
With regards to the FTBFS below, is Debian mipsel always 64 bit, always 32
bit, or a mix?
How would I test that?
Thanks!
-- Forwarded message -
From: Andreas Tille
Date: Wed, May 27, 2015, 10:09
Subject: Re: [nore...@buildd.debian.org: failed mipsel build of parafly
0.0.
+++ Michael R. Crusoe [2015-05-27 20:19 +]:
> Hello,
>
> With regards to the FTBFS below, is Debian mipsel always 64 bit, always 32
> bit,
> or a mix?
mipsel (and mips) are 32-bit ABIs. mips64el (and mips64) are the debian
names for the 64-bit ABIs.
> How would I test that?
dpkg-architectu
9 matches
Mail list logo
