* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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 ->
* 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
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
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 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
> >
>
* 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
* 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.
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
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 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
18 matches
Mail list logo
