reassign 642934 wnpp
retitle 642934 ITP: aircrack-ng -- wireless WEP/WPA cracking utilities
severity 642934 wishlist
owner 642934 !
* Package name: aircrack-ng
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : Thomas d'Otreppe
* URL : http://www.aircrack-ng.org
* License : GPL
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kamal Mostafa
This package was removed from Debian due to lack of maintenance. Recently
the upstream has released fresh versions, which I will package and maintain
for Debian.
* Package name: twpsk
Version : 4.0
Upstream Author : Ted Will
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kamal Mostafa
This package was removed from Debian due to lack of maintenance. Recently
the upstream has released fresh versions, which I will package and maintain
for Debian.
* Package name: twclock
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Ted Wil
Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> Earlier when this particular situation was being discussed, someone mentioned
> the generic name "node" was bad for a computer binary. 10-15 years ago it
> was a different landscape. The node.js folks should probably have given
> more thought to their binary's name give
Quoting Neil Williams :
For amd64 to i386, create an i386 chroot with debootstrap and build the
package inside that chroot. This ONLY works for particular combinations
of architectures and amd64 -> i386 is one of those pairs. i386 -> amd64
is NOT the same thing.
Yes, I expected that amd64
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Karolina Kalic
* Package name: xfce4-netspeed-plugin
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Calin Crisan
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/xfce4-netspeed-plugin/
* License : GPL2
Description : traffic monitor plugin for th
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:11:49PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:50:09 +0100
> Ole Wolf wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to build packages for multiple architectures. The package builds
> > fine on the native system (amd64), but when I issue "debuild -ai386"
>
> For amd64 to i386,
On 10/11/2011 00:50, Ole Wolf wrote:
> I'm trying to build packages for multiple architectures. The package builds
> fine
> on the native system (amd64), but when I issue "debuild -ai386", I'm
> eventually
> greeted with an error stating that "dh_strip: i686-linux-gnu-strip" doesn't
> exist.
>
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:50:09 +0100
Ole Wolf wrote:
> I'm trying to build packages for multiple architectures. The package builds
> fine on the native system (amd64), but when I issue "debuild -ai386"
For amd64 to i386, create an i386 chroot with debootstrap and build the
package inside that chro
]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
| Not that I care either way, libexec really is fluff, but at least it is
| harmless fluff that will cost us one inode in / and one inode in /usr so
| if people want it, I certainly won't get in the way.
I'd be more annoying with it breaking tab-completion than the
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hey,
>
> * Joerg Jaspert [2011-11-03 22:39:02 CET]:
>> I just merged a patch from Ansgar to generate the Packages files without
>> the English description embedded inside them. Instead they are now
>> written into a new file, the "English T
I'm trying to build packages for multiple architectures. The package builds
fine on the native system (amd64), but when I issue "debuild -ai386", I'm
eventually greeted with an error stating that "dh_strip:
i686-linux-gnu-strip" doesn't exist.
Google reveals that several people have flagged thi
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:33:38AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> On 2011-11-08, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual
> > resolution of the issue.
>
> I don't know what's wrong with Jonathan Nieder's advise in [0] about helping
> users
Thanks for your answers!
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
Does mingw[32] have any particular advantages over mingw-w64, I wonder?
Not that I know. mingw-w64's CRT is more complete (it includes LFS,
which mingw32 does not, for instance), includes more up-to-date
compilers
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> So if I understand it correctly, it would be best to entirely drop mingw32,
> gcc-mingw32, mingw32-runtime and the other members of that family from
> Debian and concentrate on mingw-w64 (which then, as a bonus, could be split
> into packa
Hi again *,
given that my previous mail was dropped by every list expect
debian-l10n-devel (which dropped it into moderation queue) [1]
let me be offensive and just forward it to debian-devel again
(as i haven't the time to bother [various] listmasters now)
where at least Eugenes mail ended up, ev
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Does mingw[32] have any particular advantages over mingw-w64, I wonder?
Not that I know. mingw-w64's CRT is more complete (it includes LFS,
which mingw32 does not, for instance), includes more up-to-date
compilers and handles threading bett
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 01:33:14PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> is there a reason why we have both a mingw32 and a gcc-mingw32
> package in Debian? Both seem to contain the same, i.e. the GCC from
> the MinGW project (please note they dropped the "32" for a while),
> but the version in gcc-ming
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 at 13:33:14 +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> is there a reason why we have both a mingw32 and a gcc-mingw32
> package in Debian? Both seem to contain the same, i.e. the GCC from
> the MinGW project (please note they dropped the "32" for a while),
> but the version in gcc-mingw32
Para: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
La Licenciatura en Gerenciamiento Intercultural LiGEI, de la Facultad de
Ciencias Económicas de la Universidad del Salvador, invita al Concierto de
Presentación.
Dúo de Guitarras Color a Nuevo
Prof. Federico DAttellis
Prof. Juan Pablo Esmok Lew
Conócelos
Hi,
It's even more complex than that, actually:
mingw32 contains gcc 4.2.1 for 32-bit targets
gcc-mingw32 contains gcc 4.4.4 for 32-bit targets. IIRC is not an
official mingw.org release, this may be the reason why there is
mingw32 and gcc-mingw32.
gcc-mingw-w64 contains gcc 4.6 for both 32-bit
Dear -devel,
is there a reason why we have both a mingw32 and a gcc-mingw32 package
in Debian? Both seem to contain the same, i.e. the GCC from the MinGW
project (please note they dropped the "32" for a while), but the
version in gcc-mingw32 is newer than the one in mingw32.
For the 64-bit v
Hey,
* Joerg Jaspert [2011-11-03 22:39:02 CET]:
> I just merged a patch from Ansgar to generate the Packages files without
> the English description embedded inside them. Instead they are now
> written into a new file, the "English Translation" file in
> "main/i18n/Translation-en.bz2". They thu
On 2011-11-08, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> I hope to avoid any issues with breaking old boxes with the eventual
> resolution of the issue.
I don't know what's wrong with Jonathan Nieder's advise in [0] about helping
users with the conversion automatically. That's how it's usually done.
He even pr
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 07:41:27AM +0900, Iustin Pop wrote:
> Sorry for reviving and old email. To what extend do you think this
> should apply - even at individual package level?
>
> I ask this because of the following: recently I had a 1-1 discussion
> with a co-maintainer of one of my packages,
25 matches
Mail list logo
