On Jul 2, 2005, at 16:20, David H. wrote:
Apart from all this, will Apple gift us the necessary
infrastructure to do
this? I doubt it. That means we will have to focus a lot on getting
the
necessary environment setup prior to getting deeper into this
direction.
Well I am already doing bui
Le 3 juil. 2005 à 01:20, David H. a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Sachs wrote:
On Jul 2, 2005, at 07:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Apart from all this, will Apple gift us the necessary
infrastructure to do
this? I doubt it. That means we will have to focus
Le 3 juil. 2005 à 00:22, Nigel Stanger a écrit :
On 3/7/2005 9:05 AM, Michèle Garoche at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spake
thus:
3 - A package foo at version x compiles, but it is desirable that the
same package foo exists also at version x-1, because otherwise other
packages would not compile
This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Sachs wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2005, at 07:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>
Apart from all this, will Apple gift us the necessary infrastructure to do
this? I doubt it. That means we will have to focus a lot on getting the
necessary environment setup p
Le 2 juil. 2005 à 22:24, Matthew Sachs a écrit :
On Jul 2, 2005, at 07:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I agree with you. Well, almost :). We need a way to validate package
submissions, and build them automatically. If the validation and
building go
~ okay then they go into this new tree. From t
On Jul 2, 2005, at 07:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I agree with you. Well, almost :). We need a way to validate package
submissions, and build them automatically. If the validation and
building go
~ okay then they go into this new tree. From the new tree they can be
automatically moved to unstab
On 2 Jul 2005, at 13:20, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 2, 2005, at 1:07 PM, David H. wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005, at 10:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 2, 2005, at 1:07 PM, David H. wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005, at 10:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
|
| I don't know wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2005, at 10:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Kevin Horton wrote:
>> |
>> | I don't know what to call the new tree - I originally thought that
>> | "testing" could work
On 2 Jul 2005, at 10:26, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
|
| I don't know what to call the new tree - I originally thought that
| "testing" could work, but after looking at the way Debian does
things I
| think this would simply cause co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Horton wrote:
|
| I don't know what to call the new tree - I originally thought that
| "testing" could work, but after looking at the way Debian does things I
| think this would simply cause confusion. How about "kamikaze"? That
| would cert
I wonder if it might be useful to add another tree to the existing
stable and unstable ones. I envision a third tree, for packages that
have been submitted by non-core developers, but not yet reviewed so
they can get in the unstable tree.
The current process would work well if there were e
On Jul 2, 2005, at 12:16 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
No...the *default* for Type:perl has not changed, and probably will
not, since that would mean different people would get different .deb
depending on which fink they used to build it. The easiest
implementation appears to be: use the default, the
13 matches
Mail list logo
