On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:21:51AM +0900, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> I just did run through my monthly packaging status update and was
> pleased to see that efl 1.20.7 has entered Debian unstable a few days
> back.
>
> I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Ross for his constant work
> on getting
Hello.
On 11/14/2016 05:59 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 11/11/16 14:34, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>
>> We uploaded to experimental for additional testing opportunity, since
>> Debian contains packages which depend on EFL. When we're happy with the
>> status, they'll be uploaded to unst
On 11/12/2016 12:04 AM, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:06:04AM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> I did my monthly packaging update again and was hoping this moved to
>> unstable by now. It is still in experimental only as far as I can see.
>> Is there an automatic way this pa
Hello.
On 11/11/16 14:34, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:06:04AM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> I did my monthly packaging update again and was hoping this moved to
>> unstable by now. It is still in experimental only as far as I can see.
>> Is there an automatic way this pac
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:06:04AM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> I did my monthly packaging update again and was hoping this moved to
> unstable by now. It is still in experimental only as far as I can see.
> Is there an automatic way this packages get from experimental to
> unstable, testing s
Hello.
On 14/10/16 15:46, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> I just did my monthly round to update our packaging status and happily
>> saw that your packaging for efl 1.18.1 and e 0.21.2 hit experimental.
>> Congrats and thanks for your pers
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:46:02 -0400 Ross Vandegrift said:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > I just did my monthly round to update our packaging status and happily
> > saw that your packaging for efl 1.18.1 and e 0.21.2 hit experimental.
> > Congrats and thanks
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:58:39AM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> I just did my monthly round to update our packaging status and happily
> saw that your packaging for efl 1.18.1 and e 0.21.2 hit experimental.
> Congrats and thanks for your persistent work on getting this moved forward!
Thanks St
Agreed, buy that man a drink !
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Jean Guyomarc'h
wrote:
> Yes! Nice! Thanks a lot to the people involved :-)
>
> Jean
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Stefan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > On 14/09/16 02:44, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > > On 09/13/2016 07
Yes! Nice! Thanks a lot to the people involved :-)
Jean
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Stefan Schmidt
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 14/09/16 02:44, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > On 09/13/2016 07:07 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> >>> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, St
Hello.
On 14/09/16 02:44, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 07:07 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>>> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>> The current Debian maintainer has been missing, but supposedly returning
>>> soon.
>>
>> Soon as in th
On 09/14/2016 08:37 AM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>> I guess you would need to ask the Debian packagers to update or find new
>>> ones wanting to keep up with the work. To me the maintainers seem
Hello.
On 14/09/16 02:44, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 07:07 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>>> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>> The current Debian maintainer has been missing, but supposedly returning
>>> soon.
>>
>> Soon as in th
On 09/13/2016 07:07 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> The current Debian maintainer has been missing, but supposedly returning
>> soon.
>
> Soon as in this year?
Yep, that's what I've heard - of course people's
Hello.
On 14/09/16 00:13, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> I guess you would need to ask the Debian packagers to update or find new
>> ones wanting to keep up with the work. To me the maintainers seem to be
>> missing in action and so far everybody stepped
On 09/13/2016 05:58 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> I guess you would need to ask the Debian packagers to update or find new
> ones wanting to keep up with the work. To me the maintainers seem to be
> missing in action and so far everybody stepped up to replace them. Part
> of the problem is that in
Hello.
On 13/09/16 23:39, Jean Guyomarc'h wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> OSX has a better packaging status than Debian (1.14 vs 1.8), and
> hopefully, OSX will soon ship 1.18. So, I wonder, what's going on with
> the debian package?
>
> I can see on the Debian tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/efl)
>
Hi all,
OSX has a better packaging status than Debian (1.14 vs 1.8), and
hopefully, OSX will soon ship 1.18. So, I wonder, what's going on with
the debian package?
I can see on the Debian tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/efl)
that the 1.18 release has be noted, and that an "action is neede
18 matches
Mail list logo
