On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Matt Taggart wrote:
Are you saying you would rather move it to a separate package than
remove it from the main package?
I'm saying it should remain the the upstream fossology tarball, but
for
Debian I can put it in a separate package that won't be required
I agree. We did it mostly as an example to show our
potential. But now I'm thinking that we shouldn't have
released it until we actually use the data. Right now it's a
cost with no benefit unless people are doing direct db
queries or are counting on a UI to use it in the future. The
On August 10, 2009 Bob Gobeille wrote:
On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Todd Beverly wrote:
I recently install fossology v 1.1 and made the decision to not use
the /repo/ sub directory in Apache. I got everything to work, except
the link in the email message always returns
Bob,
I agree with you, the best user experience would come from backup and
restore of the entire repository. In our case, however, there's a big
problem: We do not have enough unallocated disk space on the RFO cluster to
implement this.
So I don't see a problem in recommending the full
Dear Mary,
I have read this in the Postegresql wiki page of the French Ubuntu community
about the release 8.3 :
Il est important de remarquer que lors de l'installation, les bases de
données sont créées en unicode et qu'à cause de cela, il ne sera pas
possible de créer une base de données dans
5 matches
Mail list logo
