Hi William!
Actually, I do not thing you have to apologize for anything. You did
not do anything wrong. And it was not your actions that caused a stir,
after all. It was Jack's decision to do what he did, not yours.
Cheers,
Max
Am 10.09.2009 um 23:39 schrieb William G. Scott:
> Dear Fink co
Dear Fink community:
I want to apologize, because I think this is really mostly my fault.
I made a faulty assumption about ownership of the scipy package
without looking, and suggested he (Jack) added it to stable because he
was spending a few hours trying to work out a bug that was prevent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/09 12:02 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Benjamin,
>Your concept of personal space also assumes that we have adequate
> manpower to maintain fink in a usable state. I would remind you that if I
> hadn't pushed through some of the changes I made
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:02:49PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:46:38AM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> > On 9/10/09 11:38 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >
> > > Benjamin,
> > >What about the case where the maintainer himself has already
> > > checked in packaging for x86_6
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:46:38AM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/10/09 11:38 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > Benjamin,
> >What about the case where the maintainer himself has already
> > checked in packaging for x86_64 and 10.6 into unsta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/09 11:38 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Benjamin,
>What about the case where the maintainer himself has already
> checked in packaging for x86_64 and 10.6 into unstable. Consider...
> http://fink.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fink/dists/10.4/unst
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:09:31AM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/10/09 9:05 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > I would add the resync'ing to stable is somewhat of a special case.
> > We aren't really changing the maintainers packaging but ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/09 9:05 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I would add the resync'ing to stable is somewhat of a special case.
> We aren't really changing the maintainers packaging but rather attempting
> to move his latest packaging over from unstable. Unless we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> The maintainer should be informed when something is done to one of their
>> packages, regardless, as a courtesy, even if it is after the fact.
>
> Alexander,
> I would add the resync'ing to stable is somewhat of a special case.
> We aren't rea
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:46:31AM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:08:22PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> >
> >> Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>
> >>> The scipy-core in stable is very old and
> >>> doesn't support python26. Can we get this
>
Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:08:22PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> The scipy-core in stable is very old and
>>> doesn't support python26. Can we get this
>>> stale 1.1.0-1 package updated to the 1.3.0-3
>>> package from unstable?
>>>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:08:22PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > The scipy-core in stable is very old and
> > doesn't support python26. Can we get this
> > stale 1.1.0-1 package updated to the 1.3.0-3
> > package from unstable?
> > Jack
> >
> >
> ccing
Jack Howarth wrote:
> The scipy-core in stable is very old and
> doesn't support python26. Can we get this
> stale 1.1.0-1 package updated to the 1.3.0-3
> package from unstable?
> Jack
>
>
ccing the maintainer, as the responsible party.
-
The scipy-core in stable is very old and
doesn't support python26. Can we get this
stale 1.1.0-1 package updated to the 1.3.0-3
package from unstable?
Jack
--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free
14 matches
Mail list logo
