On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 14.04.2017 14:34, ian_br...@mail.ru wrote:
> [...]
> By the way: is there any automatic way for creating the -dfsg trees out
> of the upstream ? (I prefer working directly w/ git repos instead of
> additional patching)
On 14.04.2017 14:34, ian_br...@mail.ru wrote:
> I was right -- it IS a Debian Policy violation:
>
> * 4.13 Convenience copies of code *
I've got a similar problem while packaging recent webkit (latest surf
needs a newer one). Their git repo is >GB (!). No idea how much I&#
Control: reopen -1
Control: found -1 gegl/0.3.8-3
Hi Ian.
On 2017-04-14 at 05:34 (-0700), ian_br...@mail.ru wrote:
> I was right -- it IS a Debian Policy violation:
>
> * 4.13 Convenience copies of code *
>
> Some software packages include in their distribution convenien
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:25:29 -0700
wrote:
>> I'm not going to try a 'merge-on-the-fly' on headers to save a bunch
>> of kilobytes. Sorry.
>
> Saving a bunch of kilobytes is really not the issue, as I suggested
> when I said "isn't that a Policy viol
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:36:37PM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
> But you are free to assist with the package in what ever
> way you can. All contributions are welcome.
Patrick, as you see you are clearly welcome. So please cool down
and submit patches :)
> Perhaps in the longer term we could con
[removing non-related maillists and recipients, this is a purely devel
comment]
Patrick wrote:
> Till did never deal with my correspondence so far, which is why I think
> he should not maintain it - apart from that I am a CDBS fan, and things
> look far cleaner than with his debian/rules.
A bit o
Hi Patrick,
Patrick [2008-04-21 17:55 +0200]:
> You have not _explicitely refused it - but you didnt add me either.
Oh, that might have been the point of confusion. I am an administrator
for the cupsys package alioth project, but you didn't state that you
wanted to work on cupsys itself (and, be
is debian/rules.
You didn't change the RFP to an ITP and the WNPP is full of people who haven't
issued an ITP and say they will but then never do anything. Policy states
you should change the WNPP bug to ITP, which you didn't, so there has been no
policy violation. But you are fre
Hello Martin,
Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Patrick Ringl [2008-04-21 3:46 +0200]:
I am concerned about 'cupsddk' which recently passed NEW. On 25th of
march I contacted pkg-cups for joining the team and working on cupsddk
[1] since I am about to repackage 'splix' (a driver for samsung l
sensible place.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-printing/2008/02/msg00043.html
You didn't change the RFP to an ITP and the WNPP is full of people who haven't
issued an ITP and say they will but then never do anything. Policy states
you should change the WNPP bug to ITP, which you
Hi Patrick,
Patrick Ringl [2008-04-21 3:46 +0200]:
> I am concerned about 'cupsddk' which recently passed NEW. On 25th of
> march I contacted pkg-cups for joining the team and working on cupsddk
> [1] since I am about to repackage 'splix' (a driver for samsung laser
> printers).
> Martin Pitt
Patrick Ringl wrote:
But - back to the actual topic:
Is this common sense in debian? Not respecting responses to WNPP's and
even ignoring volunteers work? I am gutted!
It is common practice to retitle the RFP (request for packaging) to ITP
(intend to package) and changing the owner of the
Hello,
I am concerned about 'cupsddk' which recently passed NEW. On 25th of
march I contacted pkg-cups for joining the team and working on cupsddk
[1] since I am about to repackage 'splix' (a driver for samsung laser
printers).
Martin Pitt did not accept my request for NO reason and told me to
The following message sent by this account has violated system policy:
From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:17:53 -0400
Subject: Mail Delivery (failure [EMAIL PROTECTED])
The following violations were detected:
--- Scan information follows ---
Vir
14 matches
Mail list logo
