On 28/02/14 21:25, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> Hey guys, look: https://github.com/GhostBSD/networkmgr
I'm not sure what specifically this networkmgr offers compared to
Debian's already very versatile ifupdown, and maybe wpa_supplicant for
wireless LANs.
Slightly off-topic, but that code
Hey guys, look: https://github.com/GhostBSD/networkmgr
Look the development of GNOME 3.12:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/GNOME-Display-Manager-3-12-Beta-1-Brings-FreeBSD-Build-Fixes-429616.shtml
What do you think about those informations?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.
Steven Chamberlain (2014-02-28):
> The actually useful bits for Linux were later reverted by KiBi due to
> d-i build issues, but the other changes (including some that are
> problematic for kFreeBSD) are still there.
>
> Perhaps I could undo Turbo's changes in master, and we can later
> carefully
On 28/02/14 15:13, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> It's very flattering that people thought my stuff was good enough to accept
> without further review,
> but it's also a bit frightening - I'm good, but not THAT good (as we could
> see :).
ISTR it was committed to master by mistake? Then reverted, b
On 28/02/14 17:58, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> > However, I will wait for a resolution from ftp-master before
>> > resuming my work on the package, because there is the possibility
>> > of ftp-master not allowing the upload and I don't like to waste my
>> > time.
> Just because your package
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 05:37 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> > I advise against this. The upload is to experimental, is OK if the
> > package has RC bugs.
> Why? If the maintainer has made some changes in the meantime while the
> package ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/28/2014 05:37 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> I advise against this. The upload is to experimental, is OK if the
> package has RC bugs.
Why? If the maintainer has made some changes in the meantime while the
package has been waiting in
On 28/02/14 17:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 04:13 PM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is
>> still stuck in incoming?
>
> I suggest asking the FTP masters to mark the package as REJECT if you
> want to change
On 02/28/2014 04:13 PM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is
> still stuck in incoming?
I suggest asking the FTP masters to mark the package as REJECT if you
want to change something again. As long the package is still stuck
in NEW (n
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is
> still stuck in incoming?
yes!
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D.
http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org
Senior Research Associate, Psychol
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> The proposed package is poorly integrated with existing ZFS packages (e.g.
> zfsutils for native
> kFreeBSD support).
>
> First and foremost, there's a namespace grab which is likely to result in
> trouble, as I explained
> last November (and
On 28/02/2014 10:20, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 28 February 2014 09:30, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> I'm basically Ccing half the world in this (only half sorry about that :)
>> and I don't know who half
>> of you are :), but there have been very little information on what's
>> h
12 matches
Mail list logo
