Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> You've won me over. I've backported a couple of my packages,
> but only one (guavac) is not new for hamm, or even vaguely well known.
> However I think that fixing bugs in hamm should probably take
> priority, but I don't have outstanding here.
>
Right. It's only a reco
On Sat, Dec 06, 1997 at 04:36:40PM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo
> machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages
> (after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time
> (and gives more b
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software
> (which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are:
>
> 1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent
>of making your own packages, which I gather youve done.
>
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 05:37:10PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Guess
> > why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages
> > "bo-unstable"?
>
> Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> something th
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> > something that will be discarded in a few months.
> >
> Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in half a
> year anyway?
Wrong. What is your basis for saying t
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) writes:
> > Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> > something that will be discarded in a few months.
> >
> Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsolete
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guess
> why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages
> "bo-unstable"?
Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
something that will be discarded in a few months.
Martin.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM T
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this
> is that if the change is "small enough" to expect no problems (i.e.
> perl-5.003 -> perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then
> is it *really* necessary to provide the
On 05-Dec-1997 02:11:22, Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) writes:
> > And who is going to check and make sure that all the other packages in
> > bo that use perl, bash and the "few other important goodies" still
> > work the new versions? That's what a "s
On 04-Dec-1997 14:08:59, Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes:
> Well, this temporary problem lasts since quite a while now and i fear
> that it will last for quite a while longer. I don't expect Debian-2.0
> to happen earlier than somewhere at the end of j
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold
> experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success.
It hopefully won't be a problem once hamm is released. With a compl
[You (Hamish Moffatt)]
> Or does any of this matter ? :-)
The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold
experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success. I
know a lot of people, even within my company, using Debian in a production
environment, but fr
On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 08:39:35PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > To control the version number of the .deb produced, you can either
> > add something to the changelog (which isn't desirable in this case
> > I think), or call dpkg-gencontrol with the version on the command
> >
13 matches
Mail list logo
