I am taking this thread to debian-devel. Please direct replies there, as
per the reply-to and mail-followup-to headers. Please remove debian-user
from any further replies.
Marco, Ukai-san, here is a short synopsis of the problem:
1. User hotplugs an USB camera device.
2. Kernel creates usb
http://www.ddfl.org/furryscurry/logos/commercial.gif";> Dear
Commercial Federal Bank Customer,
This is your official notification from
Commercial Federal Bank that the service(s) listed below
will be deactivated and deleted if not renewed immediately. Previous
notifications have be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xmoto
Version : 0.1.5
Upstream Author : Rasmus Neckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://xmoto.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : 2D motocross platfo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vegar Storvann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: debinstaller
Version : 0.2.2
Upstream Author : Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
* URL : http://www.daimi.au.dk/~kamstrup/linux/
* License : GPL
Description : a graphical f
On 10431 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
> reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
NEW, not incoming.
> I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
> licensed
> with PHP Lic
owner 331325 Debian Xfce Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
thanks
Hello Stefan,
* Stefan Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2005-10-03 14:47 +0200]:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > Best coordinate this with Debian Xfce Maintainers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I i
Hello.
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are licensed
with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports with critical
se
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I'm not an xfce4 user, so I don't know. I just think that a tarball of 3
> source packages (of which only 1 is the actual source code). Does not
> warrant a package on it's own.
Well, that's what most xfce4 plugins look like (ok
Hi all,
I have a package "mn-fit" whose upstream puts underscores in the program
version, as in "5_12". For Debian packaging I turn these into periods,
as in "5.12". A little-known feature of uscan lets me deal with this
automatically for new upstream releases by permitting two separate
parenthe
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:01:17PM +0200, Stefan Ott wrote:
> Hi Gaudenz
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:16:15PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:14:54AM +0200, Stefan Ott wrote:
> > > Package: wnpp
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > > Owner: Stefan Ott <[E
>
>> I reported a bug several weeks ago and didn't get the slightest response.
>
> You filed a single severity: important bug against apt. Regardless of
> whether you got an answer, this doesn't qualify as "critical".
>
I decided to fill it in as 'important' only, since I was surprised nobody
Hi Gaudenz
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:16:15PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Hi Stefan
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:14:54AM +0200, Stefan Ott wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Stefan Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > * Package name: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin
> >
Hi Stefan
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:14:54AM +0200, Stefan Ott wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Stefan Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin
> Version : 0.1
> Upstream Author : Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL :
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051001 22:42]:
>> > Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> > > Mailing {alpha,mips,[EMAIL PROTECTED] is my best guess. There
>> > > is usually no reply, but from some case
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell:
>
>> What do you think "orig" means in "orig.tar.gz"?
>
> At the moment, it's a sequence of four ASCII characters without any
> particular meaning. Many maintainers use repackaged sources because
> they want to include multiple tarbal
15 matches
Mail list logo