On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:16:46AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> On the other hand, it is also obvious that the libjpeg-turbo upstream does
> not
> have a full understanding of the libjpeg code, so we are better off with Guido
> as upstream maintainer.
It's no reason to hold the whole distro
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >
> > I think there are some misunderstanding about what offer libjpeg8:
> >
> > 1) by default, libjpeg8 creates JFIF files which are compatible with
> > libjpeg62.
> >
> > 2
Daniel Pocock writes:
> Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
> git-bundle?
ftp-master has previously made a hard objection to using the package
format in the Debian archives because of...
> - much harder to scan the whole history of the repo for non-DFSG content
On Wed, 01 May 2013 21:28:10 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
> git-bundle?
Like "Format: 3.0 (git)" in dpkg-source(1)?
IIRC it works, it's "just" not allowed in the archive.
> Then again, some of that behavior could be achieved
Just following up on the earlier discussion about VCS (not just git) in
the packaging workflow
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
In other words, dpkg-source would extract all repository history (or all
of the branch used to build the package) usi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hideki Yamane
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.or.jp,
pkg-ruby-extras-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Package name: ruby-twitter-text
Version: 1.6.1
Upstream Author: Twitter, Inc.
URL: https:
Package: wnpp
Owner: Dirk Eddelbuettel
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: r-cran-gss
Version : 2.0-13
Upstream Author : Chong Gu
* URL or Web page : http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gss/index.html
* License : GPL (>= 2)
Description : GNU R package for multivar
7 matches
Mail list logo