[...] (lots of further info on packagekit)
Well, I am a DD and in principle could sponsor such a package, but I
just
lack
all the know how needed to properly evaluate gnome-related packages.
And,
as I
already wrote in another reponse to an RFS some minutes ago, it seems
that
nobody else
Hi Matthias,
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert
jul...@vdg.blogsite.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 22:38:59 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert
jul...@vdg.blogsite.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
This package has been reviewed by Paul Wise and Asheesh Laroia already and
should be completely free of any policy violations or other problems
regarding packaging.
I work closely with upstream and hope to find someone interested
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.8-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem to
reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation)
I mean stuff like indicating that the text is CC-BY-SA and listing the
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:39:55 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org
wrote:
The license of the Fedora Wiki is AFAIK CC-BY-SA, should be no problem
to
reuse the texts. (I also modified them to match the Debian situation)
Something left to do?
Regards
Matthias
---
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
-
2010/8/31 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from
Fedora)
Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
In aanlktimrba0hxth3kq-fik9g57m8iqbzcjf1f0ryy...@mail.gmail.com, Praveen A
wrote:
I was reading through the wiki and found this,
* Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents.
This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent
encumbered software
2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net:
I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due to
legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the debian-multimedia
repositories which, while good, are not official.
apt-cache policy libmad0 ffmpeg
Praveen A prav...@gmail.com writes:
I was reading through the wiki and found this,
* Debian does not include software that is encumbered by software patents.
This statement is correct for Fedora, but we have many *known* patent
encumbered software in our repos like mp3 codec, ffmpeg etc. So
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:26:25 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org
wrote:
new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information
from
Fedora)
Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:12:37 +0530, Praveen A prav...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/31 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net:
I thought the patent encumbered software was banned from the repos due
to
legal risk to SPI. I get my ffmpeg and mp3 stuff from the
debian-multimedia
repositories
Hi again!
With the latest upload I fixed everything which was criticized on the
packaging: The copyright is clear, it does not FTBFS on pbuilder, the
mozilla package has been renamed to browser-plugin, we don't need the dirty
hack to remove the source file anymore and new wiki pages have been
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:12:18 +0200, David Bremner brem...@unb.ca wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
matth...@nlinux.org
wrote:
somone (pabs?) wrote:
Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?
They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:48:17 +0200, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
somone (pabs?) wrote:
Why do you move the upstream helper scripts to /usr/lib?
They're scripts and should not be in /usr/share/PackageKit. In this
directory we only have documentation of PK.
As best I understand
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
new wiki pages have been created. (I basically took the information from
Fedora)
Please move them under the PackageKit namespace, so...
http://wiki.debian.org/PackageKit/PackageItemNotFound
and so on
Also, what was
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc
A review as promised...
The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
debian/copyright. Please look at each file
Hi!
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/packagekit/packagekit_0.6.7-1.dsc
A review as promised...
The copyright situation is much more complex than what you present in
debian/copyright. Please look at each file and fully document the
license situation. It is possible to have a
Hi!
I found a way to make the creation of the patch a little less annoying.
You just need to run debuild -S -sa twice, if a patch is created, and the
script will remove the patch and cleanup the sources automatically. This
keeps the debian/patches directory clean.
---
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:12:47 +0800, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org
wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done.
I don't have
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable
the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format?
PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is
not undone
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:50:34 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org
wrote:
Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org writes:
Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to
disable
the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb
format?
PackageKit updates the
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:37:18 +0200, David Paleino da...@debian.org
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:31:41 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to
disable
the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb
format?
Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org writes:
Before you complain about this after review: Do you know a way to disable
the automatic patch creation which was introduced with the 3.0 deb format?
PackageKit updates the documentation and other files during build. This is
not undone in make
Hi again!
I already do this, but the problem is that the script changes files, it
does not only create new ones.
So I'm completely unable to restore all files.
No, not *completely*. You can move the files that get modified, build
everything
and move them back in the clean target. That's a
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
* Package name: packagekit
Version : 0.6.7-1
Upstream Author : Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com
* URL : http://packagekit.org
* License : GPLv2/LGPLv2
Section : admin
It builds
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package packagekit.
I'd like to applaud your and others efforts on this package, well done.
I don't have time to do ongoing sponsorship but I will attempt to
review the package this
32 matches
Mail list logo
