Hi!
I just discovered this package.. I believe it should be removed, icecast2 has
been around for a while now and is a clear alternative..
Romain
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arc
Gerardo, Ivan,
as Romain said, it doesn't make sense to continue supporting icecast-server.
We should file a removal request, I think.
--
Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer | quadris...@ubuntu.com
0FEC 59A5 E1
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:47:37AM +, Alessio Treglia wrote:
Gerardo, Ivan,
as Romain said, it doesn't make sense to continue supporting icecast-server.
We should file a removal request, I think.
Recently in this bugreport someone showed interest in taking over
maintainance of icecast-ser
I agree though I am not sure whether Gerardo and Ivan were talking
about icecast 1 or 2..
I any case, I believe they are welcome to maintain either of them
among the multimedia team, right ?
Romain
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:47:37AM +
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:33:41AM -0600, Romain Beauxis wrote:
I agree though I am not sure whether Gerardo and Ivan were talking
about icecast 1 or 2..
I any case, I believe they are welcome to maintain either of them
among the multimedia team, right ?
Sure! Except if it is v1 they want to m
Well my main concern is about the confusion that can result of having
two packages. I believe it would be important to know whether or not
the old icecast provides something that icecast2 does not..
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:33:41AM -060
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Ivan Diaz wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi Ivan and Gerardo!
> Yes you are right, icecast2 is the only active package and it don't make
> sense have active the old release, in this case we support the idea that
> icecast must be dropped and make it as transitional package to
[posting only to the bugreport, dropping other CCs]
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:53:04AM -0600, Romain Beauxis wrote:
By the way, should we try to remove the package before the next release
?
Yes, try it!
Fastest is probably to simply request it dropped from the archive now
(i.e. file a bugrep
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:48:06AM -0600, Romain Beauxis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Ivan Diaz wrote:
Hi All,
Hi Ivan and Gerardo!
Yes you are right, icecast2 is the only active package and it don't
make sense have active the old release, in this case we support the
idea that i
Hi All,
Yes you are right, icecast2 is the only active package and it don't make
sense have active the old release, in this case we support the idea that
icecast must be dropped and make it as transitional package to icecast2.
Thank you, and have a good day,
*Ivan, Gerardo*
2011/2/1 Jonas Smed
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:48:06AM -0600, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Ivan Diaz
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>
>> Hi Ivan and Gerardo!
>>
>>> Yes you are right, icecast2 is the only active package and it don
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:46:59AM -0600, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Well my main concern is about the confusion that can result of having
two packages. I believe it would be important to know whether or not
the old icecast provides something that icecast2 does not..
Confusion on what packages do i
Hi all,
and sorry for the late reply.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> By the way, should we try to remove the package before the next release ?
Yes, we should (I think).
Cheers.
--
Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@de
13 matches
Mail list logo
