I am packaging schoolbell on behalf of upstream (Related to ITP#263088)
and seeking a sponsor.
Schoolbell is the first publicly available version of the Schooltool
server and is a stripped down version that only deals with
calendaring and scheduling between groups.
This is the first wider releas
I am packaging schoolbell on behalf of upstream (Related to ITP#263088)
and seeking a sponsor.
Schoolbell is the first publicly available version of the Schooltool
server and is a stripped down version that only deals with
calendaring and scheduling between groups.
This is the first wider releas
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> W: schoolbell source: native-package-with-dash-version
> The package releases for more than just debian. And sometimes it will be
> necessary to adjust the package only for debian but the debian directory
> is in the repository. S
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:12:39PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On the whole, I think you've made a poor compromise. I would suggest
> picking one way or the other, and going all the way with it. As it stands,
> you're going to have trouble uploading a -2 of anything without a new
> upstream ta
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:06:14PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:12:39PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On the whole, I think you've made a poor compromise. I would suggest
> > picking one way or the other, and going all the way with it. As it stands,
> > you're go
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
subdir in any case. It makes no sense to ship a debian directory
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> > but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
>
> Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
> subdi
Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> debian-native package.
I also agree. I am both upstream and Debian maintainer for my package,
and I find that a non-native package has
Brian Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: RFS schoolbell - A calenaring server for schools
s/calenar/calendar/, or is this a new english word?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Matthew Palmer:
I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff.
Weird, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
That usually works just fine, and it what I do when I release jwhois, since
I have also been doing the upstream releases. The debian subdirectory is
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> debian-native package.
Thanks to you and the others on the list, now that I understand
the sit
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> > packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> > debian-native package.
>
> Thanks to you
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
Indeed.
--
Brian Sutherland
"There has got to be more to life than just being really,
really, really, ridiculously good-looking." -- Derek Zoolander
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
>
> Indeed.
These few .so files are imported from zope and maybe slightly modified.
So there is prob
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> These few .so files are impo
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer:
>> I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty
>> diff. Weird, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
> That usually works just fine, and it what I do when I release jwhois,
> since I have also been d
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> W: schoolbell source: native-package-with-dash-version
> The package releases for more than just debian. And sometimes it will be
> necessary to adjust the package only for debian but the debian directory
> is in the repository. S
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:12:39PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On the whole, I think you've made a poor compromise. I would suggest
> picking one way or the other, and going all the way with it. As it stands,
> you're going to have trouble uploading a -2 of anything without a new
> upstream ta
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:06:14PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:12:39PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On the whole, I think you've made a poor compromise. I would suggest
> > picking one way or the other, and going all the way with it. As it stands,
> > you're go
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
subdir in any case. It makes no sense to ship a debian directory
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> > but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
>
> Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
> subdi
Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> debian-native package.
I also agree. I am both upstream and Debian maintainer for my package,
and I find that a non-native package has
Brian Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: RFS schoolbell - A calenaring server for schools
s/calenar/calendar/, or is this a new english word?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Matthew Palmer:
I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff.
Weird, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
That usually works just fine, and it what I do when I release jwhois, since
I have also been doing the upstream releases. The debian subdirectory
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> debian-native package.
Thanks to you and the others on the list, now that I understand
the sit
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> > packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> > debian-native package.
>
> Thanks to you
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
Indeed.
--
Brian Sutherland
"There has got to be more to life than just being really,
really, really, ridiculously good-looking." -- Derek Zoolander
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
>
> Indeed.
These few .so files are imported from zope and maybe slightly modified.
So there is prob
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> These few .so files are impo
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Palmer:
>> I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty
>> diff. Weird, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
> That usually works just fine, and it what I do when I release jwhois,
> since I have also been d
30 matches
Mail list logo
