* Alexander Sack wrote:
> Any idea why libical has been removed from the archive? e.g. sunbird
> uses/includes it too, so maybe it makes sense to have it back in the
> archive.
At that time, libical was upstream-dead, had bugs and almost every project
that neede it used a customized and modified
* Christian Perrier wrote:
> Let's nitpick a little:
Well, especially when nitpicking, you should be sure of what you are
writing ;-)
> This allow for modifications of the driver
s/allow/allows/
Regards,
Sebastian
--
PGP-Key: http://www.withouthat.org/~sebastian/public.key
Fingerprint: A46
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2005 08:45 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > please excuse this blatant cross-posting, i wouldn't do it if i didn't
> > think it were critical that i do so...
> >
> > http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200506142140
> >
>
Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 16:20 schrieb Humberto Massa Guimarães:
> > Does calling it "firefox" or "thunderbird" hurt "free software"?
>
> At first, no. But it *does* hurt our users. Why? Because they are
> confident that getting something from the Debian mirror, modifying
> it and re-distributin
Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 13:04 schrieb Julien BLACHE:
> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
> their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: "eh, wtf, Debian hasn't
> got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them!"
Uh? If we ship their produc
* Søren Boll Overgaard wrote:
> During packaging, that is, during the installation of a package, I need to
> determine which MTA is currently installed, since I need to set certain
> permissions specific to my package, so that they match with those of the
> currently running MTA.
Might be hackish
* Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Note that some packages, directly or indirectly, build-depend on
> packages containing daemons that will be started by default if
> installed. In that light, a firewall really is required to keep things
> safe.
IMO most notably, because many users will hit that:
KDE ->
* Steve Langasek wrote:
> The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> crafting of a prospective release plan for etch.
Thanks to the team for your work on that. I support the direction of the
proposal itself (modulo minor issues) and I hope that Debian reckognizes that
* Adam Heath wrote:
> It *may* require a versioned depends on a newer version, but that's just a
> normal bug.
...and no reason to introduce this dependency in the -source package.
Btw: Leaving old packages build from -source packages around would quite well
do the trick. But I suppose W.B. wan
* William Ballard wrote:
[...crap...]
Do you need the -utils apckage to build the -source package? No. So no Depends
and no Recommends for you. Period. Depends and Recommends have a certain
well-defined meaning and I am greatful that we are not arbitarily misusing
them.
The resulting -modules
* Andreas Tille wrote:
> This stupid thread made its way even in a German Linux news feed ...
>
>http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2004/7569.html
...and on the frontmatter of this week's LWN issue...
> even if you do not understand German: I would love if Debian would
> become famous for rele
* Jonas Meurer wrote:
> can you give further information about this 'Godwin law'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Sebastian
--
PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key
Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6
* Alberto Rodriguez Galdo wrote:
> * Package name: rdflib
> Description : A python library for working with RDF
Please consider naming the package according to the python policy, prefixing
it with "python-".
Regards,
Sebastian
--
PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.l
* Ricardo Mones wrote:
> * Package name: libical0
Are you aware that libical is currently pretty unmaintained upstream and has a
lot of nasty bugs? In fact all projects who needed an ical parser (e.g. KDE
PIM, evolution, OpenGroupware.org...) all dropped libical, forked it or wrote
somethi
Am Di, den 18.11.2003 schrieb Andreas Tille um 08:48:
> Just note that Klaus Knopper was *very* interested about my idea to
> integrate Knoppix stuff into Debian. He recognized that this could
> save him time even if the first step of sane inclusion is quite hard.
The idea to integrate Knoppix s
Am Mo, den 13.10.2003 schrieb Martin Michlmayr um 07:37:
> Is anyone interested in adopting libical? It has been orphaned for
> 193 days (#187030). I wouldn't mind removing it, but mozilla
> build-depends on it (perhaps this can be changed, tho?).
I had a look at it, but upstream seems to be not
Am Do, den 02.10.2003 schrieb Martin Michlmayr um 07:42:
> * Debian-Installer HOWTO Sebastian Ley
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200309/msg7.html
During the last debcamp we took the opportunity to introduce some last
major changes which
* GOTO Masanori wrote:
> AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixed?) (4) misterious
> apache on ia64 bug. Note that (3) becomes ok to revert patches, (4)
> may be non-glibc bug. Well, they are still something hard work.
18 matches
Mail list logo
