Hi,
I added and pushed 'upstream' and 'pristine-tar' branches, now, too.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:49:44PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> If I knew there was an ITP on it, I'd have given my git tree to someone. I
> did a total rebuild of his debdir.
No problem - there wasn't, yet ;).
> I us
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:34:53AM -0600, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
But no, CDBS is not out of fashion, if that is what you implied above.
Sorry, wasn't trying to spread FUD. :-) Roughly 10 out of the last 10
packages from 'sid' that I've lo
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
But no, CDBS is not out of fashion, if that is what you implied above.
Sorry, wasn't trying to spread FUD. :-) Roughly 10 out of
the last 10 packages from 'sid' that I've looked at are DH 7
with a Quilt format... so I thought perhaps that was
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:15:02PM -0600, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
* The package I provide also uses CDBS,
whereas DH 7 is the current fashion.
Most Debian packages use debhelper. Some use the classic style of
explicitly declaring each long-form debhelper tool in debian/rules,
wher
...and please push upstream and pristine-tar branches, too :)
--
Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer | quadris...@ubuntu.com
0FEC 59A5 E18E E04F 6D40 593B 45D4 8C7C DCFC 3FD0
___
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2010 12:49:44 pm Paul Tagliamonte
> wrote:
>
>> >> There was an odd license on it, too, iirc.
>> >
>> > Looks like it's regular GPLv2+ now
>>
>> Cool. I remember reading something about a stipulation of
>> us
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 12:49:44 pm Paul Tagliamonte
wrote:
> >> There was an odd license on it, too, iirc.
> >
> > Looks like it's regular GPLv2+ now
>
> Cool. I remember reading something about a stipulation of
> using it with Jesus or something like that. That might
> have just been the
ember, it's been a while :)
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> Arnout
>
>> On Nov 28, 2010 12:46 PM, "Arnout Engelen" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which was fairly easy
>> because up
k you can send patches to him.
Do you remember what was wrong with it? Seems to work fine now.
> There was an odd license on it, too, iirc.
Looks like it's regular GPLv2+ now
Thanks!
Regards,
Arnout
> On Nov 28, 2010 12:46 PM, "Arnout Engelen" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 18:44:42 (CET), Arnout Engelen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which was fairly easy
> because upstream (Gabriel M. Beddingfield) already had an ubuntu package
> ready.
>
> I now have the lintian list down to:
&g
Hi Arnout,
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 11:44:42 am Arnout Engelen
wrote:
> I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which
> was fairly easy because upstream (Gabriel M.
> Beddingfield) already had an ubuntu package ready.
Thank you!
> W: stretchplayer source:
>
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 14:44, Arnout Engelen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which was fairly easy
> because upstream (Gabriel M. Beddingfield) already had an ubuntu package
> ready.
>
> I now have the lintian list down to:
>
>
ot; wrote:
Hi,
I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which was fairly easy
because upstream (Gabriel M. Beddingfield) already had an ubuntu package
ready.
I now have the lintian list down to:
Now running lintian...
W: stretchplayer source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
W: stret
Hi,
I started on packaging stretchplayer (ITP 605256) - which was fairly easy
because upstream (Gabriel M. Beddingfield) already had an ubuntu package
ready.
I now have the lintian list down to:
Now running lintian...
W: stretchplayer source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
W: stretchplayer
14 matches
Mail list logo
