IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian GNU|Linux) writes:
> anyhow here's my 2¢:
> according to you¹, upstream have simply botched their package
> versioning, which i would consider *a bug*.
> bugs cause pain.
AIUI the botching was done by whoever put the PPA together.
If that's the same as upstream, fair
Alec Leamas writes:
> On 02/07/2024 20:46, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
>>> So, at least three possible paths:
>>>
>>> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
>>> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with san
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:27:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian GNU|Linux) writes:
>
> > anyhow here's my 2¢:
> > according to you¹, upstream have simply botched their package
> > versioning, which i would consider *a bug*.
> > bugs cause pain.
>
> AIUI the botching w
On 03/07/2024 10:10, Philip Hands wrote:
Alec Leamas writes:
It seems better to take an "If we build it, they will come" approach.
New installs will likely get the Debian version without ever needing to
discover the PPA, and the rumour will spread (assuming the Debian
package works at least a
hi Alec,
please stop mailing this thread and just use an epoch.
Before adding^wintroducing an epoch one should consult debian-devel@l.d.o,
you have done this, arguments were exchanged and (IMNSHO) no better
solution was found, so please do what has done to >1000 source packages
in the archive alr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Benjamin Drung
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, bdr...@debian.org
* Package name: git-ubuntu
Version : 1.1
Upstream Contact: ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com
* URL : https://launchpad.net/git-ubuntu
* License
Hi,
Unvendoring libraries that are already in Debian seems like the pragmatic
approach to lower code duplication and be closer to better packaging pratices.
#1073005 asks for the vendoring back of an unvendored library, arguing
that this particular library is unmaintained upstream, implying that
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Josefsson
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: cppi
Version : 1.18-1
Upstream Author : Jim Meyering, FSF, et al
* URL : https://www.gnu.org/software/cppi/
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang
Enriching original email:
This is about whether packages transmission-gtk should use embedded copy of
libb64 or depend on the outdated Debian package libb64.
Upstream for libb64 seems dead and transmission devs have improved their
embedded/vendored copy of libb64.
Direct link: https://bugs.debia
On 2024-07-03 Alexandre Rossi wrote:
[...]
> #1073005 asks for the vendoring back of an unvendored library, arguing
> that this particular library is unmaintained upstream, implying that the
> vendored fork is better maintained.
> My view on this is that if the vendored fork is better maintained,
Dear list,
The opencpn program can use an usb dongle to administrate commercial
chart licenses. Most opencpn users purchases licenses locked to a
specific computer and don't use this dongle. Using a dongle users can
use one license on several machines by just moving the dongle.
The dongle
On Jul 03, Alec Leamas wrote:
> 1. Is it possible to package such a solib in the non-free section?
Is it actually redistributable?
> 2. opencpn would have a weak Suggests: or Recommends: on this package. Would
> it mean it has to move to contrib?
Suggests, no. Recommends, yes. See policy 2.2.1.
Hi Marco,
thanks for taking time
On 04/07/2024 00:56, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Alec Leamas wrote:
1. Is it possible to package such a solib in the non-free section?
Is it actually redistributable?
Yes
2. opencpn would have a weak Suggests: or Recommends: on this package. Would
it
13 matches
Mail list logo
