On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > istr the same thing, and was thinking that this might be the case.
> > since i don't suppose the ftp-master __ are going to come out
> > of hiding just to answer this question, i guess i'll upload, find out,
> > a
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:29:09AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Given that some people might find offensive to be compared to
> illuminati, I don't think this is the best way to engage the ftp-master.
> YMMV.
perhaps i should have made it a bit more apparent that my tongue was
slightly in-chee
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:47:51PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:18:19PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote:
> > I seem to recall hearing that NEW processing is based solely on binary
> > packages, so that the new source package would not need to go through NEW
> > if it creates a
El Sábado 26 Febrero 2005 21:47, sean finney escribió:
> istr the same thing, and was thinking that this might be the case.
> since i don't suppose the ftp-master illuminati are going to come out
> of hiding just to answer this question, i guess i'll upload, find out,
> and report back :/
>
>
> se
hi josh,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:18:19PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote:
> I seem to recall hearing that NEW processing is based solely on binary
> packages, so that the new source package would not need to go through NEW
> if it creates a binary package that is already in the archive.
>
> I coul
El sÃb, 26-02-2005 a las 14:18 -0500, Josh Metzler escribiÃ:
> On Saturday 26 February 2005 02:45 am, sean finney wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i'm maintaining a source package that produces two binary packages.
> > however, one of the packages is built from a seperately distributed (same
> > author, sam
On Saturday 26 February 2005 02:45 am, sean finney wrote:
> hi,
>
> i'm maintaining a source package that produces two binary packages.
> however, one of the packages is built from a seperately distributed (same
> author, same website, but different tarball and versioning scheme)
> tarball.
>
> so
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:56:29 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote:
>> so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
>> respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first
>> place). however, o
On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote:
> so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
> respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first
> place). however, one thing that's not clear to me is whether or not the
> new second source package
hi,
i'm maintaining a source package that produces two binary packages. however,
one of the packages is built from a seperately distributed (same author,
same website, but different tarball and versioning scheme) tarball.
so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
resp
10 matches
Mail list logo
