Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Public bug reported:
You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package
Norton Ghost®, and its OpenSource counterpart, Partition Image. The
problem with these software packages is that it takes a lot of time to
massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also h
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
I am presenting on this topic at Ubuntu LIve. Can I mention any updates
to this bug at the conference?
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_sess/12510
http://www.ubuntulive.com/cs/ubuntu/view/e_spkr/3455
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You recei
I can't find source tarballs for this software. The maintainers provide
only source rpms and binary rpms on the english sourceforge download
site[1]. Binary debs are also available from a ftp site associated with
the project [2] which claim to be ubuntu 7.04 compatible but are
actually alien'd rpms
Steven Shiau [1] has placed the source online [2]. He notes:
"1. Some commands are done when we create the rpm from tarball, so we
will use autotools in the tarball in the future. For the time being,
some of the file path are done in rpm sepc file, therefore in the future
the autotools is a must a
** Summary changed:
- [need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
+ [needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
Thanks for your bug report.
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
Assignee: (unassigned) => MOTU
Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed
** Tags added: needs-packaging
--
[need-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://launchpad.net/bugs/98886
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
apt-get away.
--
[needs-packaging] drbl / clonezilla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/98886
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
On 8/14/07, Bryan McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, many of the scripts were not written by the authors. There
> are scripts in these packages using a number of different licenses,
> including GPL, MPL, Perl Artistic, BSD (with advertising clause), and
> many pieces of code withou
2009/3/18 Freyr Gunnar Ólafsson :
> Has anything happened with this or what? The last comment is from 2007.
> Clonezilla is immensely useful and would even more so if it was just and
> apt-get away.
The best resource so far is here...
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/one4all/
--
Kristian Erik Hermanse
54 matches
Mail list logo
