Maintainer: GNU Hurd Maintainers
Uploader: Samuel Thibault
Host: leda.debian.net
Accepted: libfuse_0.0.20120415-0~1_hurd-i386.changes
Files:
libfuse_0.0.20120415-0~1.dsc
libfuse_0.0.20120415.orig.tar.gz
libfuse_0.0.20120415-0~1.debian.tar.gz
libfuse-hurd-dev_0.0.20120415-0~1_hurd-i386.deb
libfuse
Hello,
Among the things we'd like to do for the wheezy release, there are
packaging incubator/hurdextra things. Some packages have already been
uploaded on debian-ports, but we should push that to main. There is just
one pending question: how should we package the sources? The source
package na
Foobar-hurd seems appropriate
On Apr 15, 2012 5:46 PM, "Samuel Thibault" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Among the things we'd like to do for the wheezy release, there are
> packaging incubator/hurdextra things. Some packages have already been
> uploaded on debian-ports, but we should push that to main. T
Samuel Thibault, le Sun 15 Apr 2012 16:46:22 +0200, a écrit :
> Essentially, what I'm wondering is whether to use hurd-foobar or
> foobar-hurd. The former makes it easy to get the list of hurdish
> packages, just having a look at h/ in the archive. The latter makes it
> easy to find the hurdish var
Vasileios Karaklioumis, le Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:28:40 +0300, a écrit :
> Foobar-hurd seems tidier for me.
Why?
> I am searching for packages mostly based on name.
That would work with hurd-foobar too.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "un
I have no problem either way.Still building a real machine with hurd.
On Apr 15, 2012 8:07 PM, "Samuel Thibault" wrote:
>
> Vasileios Karaklioumis, le Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:28:40 +0300, a écrit :
> > Foobar-hurd seems tidier for me.
>
> Why?
>
> > I am searching for packages mostly based on name.
>
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 12 Apr 2012 11:42:06 +0200, a écrit :
> > Did someone look if newer kernels applied any security updates to the
> > drivers?
>
> Linux 2.6.29 does not have a stable branch upstream, so it most probably
> misses such updates. Maybe we can give a try at 2.6.32, which is still
Samuel Thibault, le Mon 16 Apr 2012 00:25:13 +0200, a écrit :
> So, would uploading 2.6.32.59 sources (latest from kernel.org) be OK?
BTW, perhaps it would be preferred, even if it takes more room, to just
put the vanilla Linux tarball in the netdde source package?
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
8 matches
Mail list logo