On 08/17/2012 01:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> 3. Repacking the original tarball just to remove those files is extra
> work.
>
Yeah, just annoying everyone for a minified jquery in upstream
tarball is, to me, a bit too extreme to my taste as well, as we all know
where it's coming from, and
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> What I didn't know until recently is that the minified version in the
> source package should be removed (or the appropriate full version should
> be appended).
Do we also require that for say, precompiled DLLs of GTK+ or SDL for
Windows pl
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: 456 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 143 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
Le Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:24:32PM +0200, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
>
> On the behalf of the FTP master team, Ansgar Burchardt explained me why
> the dependency to libjs-jquery is not enough to fulfill the "provide the
> sources" part since the source in the archive may not correspond to the
> vers
On 08/16/2012 08:59 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 16, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
>> I know this is tedious but what others think about this matter?
> This is another case in which the DFSG has become a religion to be
> followed in a literalist interpretation instead of a tool to be used
> for th
On Aug 16, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I know this is tedious but what others think about this matter?
This is another case in which the DFSG has become a religion to be
followed in a literalist interpretation instead of a tool to be used
for the purpose of advancing software freedom.
--
ciao,
Mar
Russ Allbery writes:
> Vincent Bernat writes:
>> On the behalf of the FTP master team, Ansgar Burchardt explained me why
>> the dependency to libjs-jquery is not enough to fulfill the "provide
>> the sources" part since the source in the archive may not correspond to
>> the version included in t
Vincent Bernat writes:
> On the behalf of the FTP master team, Ansgar Burchardt explained me why
> the dependency to libjs-jquery is not enough to fulfill the "provide the
> sources" part since the source in the archive may not correspond to the
> version included in the upstream tarball.
> I ag
Hi,
Many packages ship minified versions of Javascript code for things like
jQuery. The usual way to handle this is to not ship the minified code
with the binary package and to request a dependency to libjs-jquery and
replace the file with a symbolic link.
What I didn't know until recently is tha
On Jo, 16 aug 12, 07:40:52, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Is this about using removable media to store the SSH private key to
> login to machines which only have the public key? That would be useful
> (but isn't that covered by existing PAM support?)
Well, by putting the SSH private key on a removabl
On 08/16/2012 11:42 PM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:39:50PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>
>> According to its PTS ( http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpam-ssh.html ):
>> [2011-12-03] libpam-ssh REMOVED from testing (Britney)
>> [2011-12-02] Removed 1.92-14 from
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:41:08PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> What let you think this?
Carelessness in investigating (looked at
http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpam-ssh.html, noticed that the last news
entry was removal from testing and did not read closely enough to notice the
unstable r
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > The situation is ambiguous as I posted before in the
> > debian-devel@lists.debian.org list:
> > the package is not orphaned, was removed but it is still present.
>
> There is
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho (16/08/2012):
> There is no ambiguity. The package is present in unstable and thus is not
> "removed" in the sense that word is commonly used without qualifiers. (The
> proper way to describe what happened to the package is "removed from testing"
> -
> a release engineeri
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:39:50PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> According to its PTS ( http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpam-ssh.html ):
> [2011-12-03] libpam-ssh REMOVED from testing (Britney)
> [2011-12-02] Removed 1.92-14 from unstable (Alexander Reichle-Schmehl)
>
> So I guess it must be
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> The situation is ambiguous as I posted before in the
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org list:
> the package is not orphaned, was removed but it is still present.
There is no ambiguity. The package is present in unstable and thus is no
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:42:52AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> With much more pro-active removals happening these days we tend to get
>> a lot of folks wanting to reintroduce removed packages, perhaps we
>> need a comprehensive section in devref about thi
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:42:52AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> With much more pro-active removals happening these days we tend to get
> a lot of folks wanting to reintroduce removed packages, perhaps we
> need a comprehensive section in devref about this. I will file a bug
> about it.
Or perhaps we
Hello:
On 16/08/12 08:40, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 03:01:33 +0200
Jerome Benoit wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jerome Benoit
* Package name: libpam-ssh
Version : 1.97
Upstream Author : Akorty Rosenauer
* URL : http://pam-ssh.sourc
Hello:
On 16/08/12 11:29, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:01 AM, Jerome Benoit wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jerome Benoit
* Package name: libpam-ssh
Version : 1.97
Upstream Author : Akorty Rosenauer
* URL : http://pam-ssh.sourceforge.net/
On 08/15/2012 07:35 PM, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Aaron Schrab
>
> * Package name: mailscanner
You may wish to contact the previous mailscanner maintainer [0][1] and
dig through all the existing/archived bugs [2] to find out why it was
removed from the
Hello:
On 16/08/12 10:39, Jon Dowland wrote:
It would be nice if your initial upload would resolve the multiple issues
that were the cause for the package removal, rather than simply reintroduce
them.
I am totally agree with you, and I am working on it.
I guess that you understand that I wante
Thanks for your work and help! Congratulations!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/capvuj0xl+9puye-ssdjzqsisqrkao5daaeszlg2xsrosqog...@mail.gmail.com
On 08/16/2012 09:01 AM, Jerome Benoit wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Jerome Benoit
>
> * Package name: libpam-ssh
> Version : 1.97
> Upstream Author : Akorty Rosenauer
> * URL : http://pam-ssh.sourceforge.net/
> * License : BSD
> Programm
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: rosea grammostolla
* Package name: non-daw
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : J. Liles malnour...@gmail.com
* URL : http://non.tuxfamily.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C, C++
Description : please package non-
It would be nice if your initial upload would resolve the multiple issues
that were the cause for the package removal, rather than simply reintroduce
them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.
26 matches
Mail list logo
