On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 07:28:09AM +0530, Jaisen wrote:
> Hello...,
>
> Please help..,
> I need to make this.
> I feel bad that, nobody in this list paying no attention in this.. :(
Try the '--only 5' option of dh-make-pecl
Uwe
--
MMK GmbH, Fleyer Str. 196, 58097 Hagen
uwe.steinm...@mmk-
Hello...,
Please help..,
I need to make this.
I feel bad that, nobody in this list paying no attention in this.. :(
2011/10/27 Jaisen :
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to make a .deb package of uploadprogress-1.0.3.1.tgz,
> (downloaded from PECL - http://pecl.php.net/package/uploadprogress)
> using dh-ma
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn
* Package name: lolcat
Version : 42.0.99-1
Upstream Author : Moe
* URL : https://github.com/busyloop/lolcat
* License : WTFPL
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : colorful `cat`
lolcat concatenates files
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn
* Package name: libpaint-ruby
Version : 0.8.3
Upstream Author : Jan Lelis
* URL : http://rubygems.org/gems/paint
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : terminal paint library with 256 color a
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 398 (new: 5)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 144 (new: 2)
Total number of packages request
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-10-27, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In other words, given the haziness in this area and the wildly
>> divergent practices of people when creating non-code works, I think we
>> should look at whether the provided "source" provides reasonable
>> opportunity to meet the cor
On 2011-10-27, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In other words, given the haziness in this area and the wildly divergent
> practices of people when creating non-code works, I think we should look
> at whether the provided "source" provides reasonable opportunity to meet
> the core definition of free software
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > WHAT? You mean it doesn't have polygen integration?
> >
> > How dare they make something like this without using polygen!
>
> And then have
> „It is okay to express happy people?“
> Cool!
This (and the parent message) made my
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Malaterre
* Package name: micromanager
Version : 1.4.6
Upstream Author : University of California, San Francisco
* URL : http://valelab.ucsf.edu/~MM/MMwiki/index.php/Micro-Manager
* License : GPL
Programming La
[Russ Allbery]
> Compressing all the whitespace out of it seems fine to me; you can
> fix that well enough using an indenter.
Yes, but why would _any_ obfuscator, I mean minimizer, compress
whitespace but not remove comments? The cleverest re-intender in the
world isn't going to be able to resto
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 27.10.2011, 20:43 +0200 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:07:57PM +, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> > In case it helps anyone's decision, I think the list of affirmative
> > messages is short enough to
> > include here:
> >
> > It is okay to express your needs
On 10/27/11 20:53, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Compressing all the whitespace out of it seems fine to me; you can fix
> that well enough using an indenter. If the variables are also rewritten
> into meaningless names, I think it becomes more borderline. If the code
> is part "compiled" by, for instance
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:07:57PM +, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> In case it helps anyone's decision, I think the list of affirmative messages
> is short enough to
> include here:
>
> It is okay to express your needs and feelings.
[...]
> You've made people happy.
WHAT? You mean it doesn't have
Roland Mas writes:
> Raphael Hertzog, 2011-10-27 09:08:37 +0200 :
>> Obfuscated != minified.
> Intent is all very well, but if the effects of the operation make the
> resulting "code" unusable, even for the best of reasons, then said code
> can't be said to be the source.
I agree with this.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:38:47PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Ole Wolf wrote:
> >* Package name: cheermeup
> >
> >Send an an affirmative message to the currently logged in users via the
> >notification library. The
> >affirmative messages are intended to boost the user's self-esteem by tel
Hi!
2011/10/13 Paul Wise :
>> [...]
>> Title: AppStream and Component Metadata for Debian
>> DEP: 11
>> URL: http://wiki.debian.org/AppStreamDebianProposal
>> Drivers: Matthias Klumpp ,
>> Julian Andres Klode ,
>> Michael Vogt
>> Abstract:
>> Propo
Ole Wolf wrote:
>Package: wnpp
>Severity: wishlist
>Owner: Ole Wolf
>
>
>* Package name: cheermeup
> Version : 0.5-1
> Upstream Author : Ole Wolf
>* URL : http://debian.blazingangles.net/cheermeup.html
>* License : GPLv3
> Programming Lang: Bash script
> Descri
Hi!
2011/10/17 Olivier Berger :
> Hi.
>
> I'm not subscribed to ftpmasters, so feel free to CC me in response, and
> I hope d-d@l.d.o is the proper place it will be debated, then (even
> thouh -project already holds some bits too).
Unfortunately, ftpmasters don't have a mailinglist - I hope it is
Zygmunt Krynicki dijo [Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:09:52PM +0200]:
> We could use this pattern:
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.min.js
>
> libjsfoo package ships a file that is exposed as
> http://*/javascript/foo/foo.js
>
> A config option somewher
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 646795 debian-installer
Bug #646795 [general] debian-6.0.3-amd64-gnome-desktop: after used a usb stick
to install debian, the usb stick cannot mount automaticly
Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'debian-installer'.
> retitle 64679
reassign 646795 debian-installer
retitle 646795 debian-installer: after used a usb stick to install debian, the
usb stick cannot mount automaticly
thanks
Hi,
I get a similar issue after installing a system using an USB key.
It seems that the d-i is adding entries in /etc/fstab for USB key/disks
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Malaterre
* Package name: clooj
Version : 0.2.4
Upstream Author : Arthur Edelstein
* URL : http://github.com/arthuredelstein/clooj
* License : EPL-1
Programming Lang: Java
Description : lightweight IDE fo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ole Wolf
* Package name: cheermeup
Version : 0.5-1
Upstream Author : Ole Wolf
* URL : http://debian.blazingangles.net/cheermeup.html
* License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: Bash script
Description : Send affirmative
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 646795 general
Bug #646795 [debian-6.0.3-amd64-gnome-desktop]
debian-6.0.3-amd64-gnome-desktop: after used a usb stick to install debian, the
usb stick cannot mount automaticly
Warning: Unknown package 'debian-6.0.3-amd64-gnome-desktop'
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:43, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki
wrote:
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in provi
Pau Garcia i Quiles, 2011-10-27 11:22:08 +0200 :
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roland Mas wrote:
>>> Requiring the non-minified file to be provided in the same source
>>> package is not a very productive use of our time.
>>
>> Right. In the same way that providing the source for our binar
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki
wrote:
> W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
>
>> I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
>> the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in providing only
>> the minified version in the binary
W dniu 27.10.2011 11:22, Pau Garcia i Quiles pisze:
I said this in the original thread and I'll repeat it here: if we have
the non-minified JavaScript, then I see no problem in providing only
the minified version in the binary package.
I'd like to twist this to a different viewpoint. For me as
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Roland Mas wrote:
>> Requiring the non-minified file to be provided in the same source
>> package is not a very productive use of our time.
>
> Right. In the same way that providing the source for our binaries
> isn't very productive, I guess, because who's goin
Raphael Hertzog, 2011-10-27 09:08:37 +0200 :
[...]
>> I think this is exactly the same as xserver-xorg-video-nv, which
>> contained obfuscated C code instead of the actual source code. I
>> personally considered that a DFSG violation but I guess you would not?
>
> I would consider it a DFSG viola
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
Hum, it looks like some ftpmaster added a new entry in the FAQ (since it's
dated October 2011). Probably Mike O'Connor since he replied to #646729
and re-raised its severity.
Mike, it would be still ni
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I don't agree that minified files are a violation of DFSG #2. If the
> > library is under the GPL then it would be a problem because it's not the
> > preferred form of modification.
>
> I think this
32 matches
Mail list logo
