On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:51, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:14:57PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You edited debian/control, but Jonas added debian/control.in for
build-dependencies
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51:47AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:14:57PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You edited debian/control, but Jonas added debian/control.in for
build-dependencies autogeneration.
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51:47AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:14:57PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You edited debian/control, but Jonas added
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:49:53AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51:47AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I suggest we only drop the
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:14:57PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You edited debian/control, but Jonas added debian/control.in for
build-dependencies autogeneration. If you disagree about the use of
debian/control.in, we should disable
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 16:29, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote:
On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 02:09, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at
wrote:
On Dec 25, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 14:55,
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:14:57PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You edited debian/control, but Jonas added debian/control.in for
build-dependencies autogeneration. If you disagree about the use of
debian/control.in, we should disable it. If not, we should use it. But
having it and not using it
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 14:55, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote:
On Dec 24, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:10:27PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:27, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at
wrote:
I just pushed some
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:27, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote:
I just pushed some changes to pd-cyclone that create a split-out binary
package called 'cyclist'. As far as I understand it, I don't need to ITP
this new 'cyclist' package since its split off of the pd-cyclone source
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:10:27PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:27, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at
wrote:
I just pushed some changes to pd-cyclone that create a split-out
binary package called 'cyclist'. As far as I understand it, I don't
need to ITP this
On Dec 24, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:10:27PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:27, Hans-Christoph Steiner
h...@at.or.at wrote:
I just pushed some changes to pd-cyclone that create a split-out
binary package called
I just pushed some changes to pd-cyclone that create a split-out
binary package called 'cyclist'. As far as I understand it, I don't
need to ITP this new 'cyclist' package since its split off of the pd-
cyclone source package, but it does need to go thru the NEW queue.
'cyclist' is a
12 matches
Mail list logo
