¿¬¶ôÁÖ¼¼¿ä

컴퓨터를 이용하시는데 필요한 컴퓨터 관련프로그램을 엄청 저렴한 가격에 팝니다 최신풀버전게임. 컴퓨터유틸프로그램. 성인시디 등등 없는게 없습니다 물론 신용은 기본입니다 이 메일을 보낸 아이디로는 연락이 되지 않ì

RE: Upstream changelog

Ultimately as packager it is your decision. If NEWS is the right file for a user to see what has changed since the last version (was my bug fixed? di they implement feature X yet?) then go with that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

¿¬¶ôÁÖ¼¼¿ä

컴퓨터를 이용하시는데 필요한 컴퓨터 관련프로그램을 엄청 저렴한 가격에 팝니다 최신풀버전게임. 컴퓨터유틸프로그램. 성인시디 등등 없는게 없습니다 물론 신용은 기본입니다 이 메일을 보낸 아이디로는 연락이 되지 않ì

Re: Upstream changelog

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:16:49AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote: > > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"? > > Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that > are not interesting for those that do not download the source package. > The NEWS file,

RE: Upstream changelog

Sean 'Shaleh' Perry: > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"? Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that are not interesting for those that do not download the source package. The NEWS file, on the other hand, just lists the actual compound ch

¿¬¶ôÁÖ¼¼¿ä

ÄÄÇ»Å͸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇϽôµ¥ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ °ü·ÃÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» ¾öû Àú·ÅÇÑ °¡°Ý¿¡ ÆË´Ï´Ù ÃÖ½ÅÇ®¹öÀü°ÔÀÓ. ÄÄÇ»ÅÍÀ¯Æ¿ÇÁ·Î±×·¥. ¼ºÀνõð µîµî ¾ø´Â°Ô ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù ¹°·Ð ½Å¿ëÀº ±âº»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù ÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» º¸³½ ¾ÆÀ̵ð·Î´Â ¿¬¶ôÀÌ µÇÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ¾ÐÃàÈ­Àϼӿ¡ ¿¬¶ôó°¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù(¸ÞÀÏ.ÀüÈ­¹øÈ£) ÇÚµåÆùÀ¸·Î ¿¬¶ôÁÖ½Ê½Ã¿ä ³¡À¸·Î Çã¶

¿¬¶ôÁÖ¼¼¿ä

ÄÄÇ»Å͸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇϽôµ¥ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ °ü·ÃÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» ¾öû Àú·ÅÇÑ °¡°Ý¿¡ ÆË´Ï´Ù ÃÖ½ÅÇ®¹öÀü°ÔÀÓ. ÄÄÇ»ÅÍÀ¯Æ¿ÇÁ·Î±×·¥. ¼ºÀνõð µîµî ¾ø´Â°Ô ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù ¹°·Ð ½Å¿ëÀº ±âº»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù ÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» º¸³½ ¾ÆÀ̵ð·Î´Â ¿¬¶ôÀÌ µÇÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ¾ÐÃàÈ­Àϼӿ¡ ¿¬¶ôó°¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù(¸ÞÀÏ.ÀüÈ­¹øÈ£) ÇÚµåÆùÀ¸·Î ¿¬¶ôÁÖ½Ê½Ã¿ä ³¡À¸·Î Çã¶

Re: Upstream changelog

Why not have both! On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:24:53PM +0200, peter karlsson wrote: > Hi! > > I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the > binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which > contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is the

RE: Upstream changelog

On 18-Sep-2001 peter karlsson wrote: > Hi! > > I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the > binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which > contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any > policy on what should be considered t

Re: Upstream changelog

Why not have both! On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:24:53PM +0200, peter karlsson wrote: > Hi! > > I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the > binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which > contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is th

Upstream changelog

Hi! I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any policy on what should be considered the upstream changelog? Must the source level chang

RE: Upstream changelog

On 18-Sep-2001 peter karlsson wrote: > Hi! > > I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the > binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which > contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any > policy on what should be considered

Upstream changelog

Hi! I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any policy on what should be considered the upstream changelog? Must the source level chan

Re: cannot build under m68k

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:12:28 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:15:27PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > I uploaded 'gpw' under unstable 20 days ago. > > > Currently status is for m68k as f

Re: cannot build under m68k

On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:15:27PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > > I uploaded 'gpw' under unstable 20 days ago. > > Currently status is for m68k as follows: > > > > http://m68k.debian.org/cgi/build-info.pl?pkg=gpw > > >

Re: cannot build under m68k

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 15:12:28 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:15:27PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > I uploaded 'gpw' under unstable 20 days ago. > > > Currently status is for m68k as

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In order to package HTML 4.01 specification from www.w3c.org > > Please have a look at doc-html-w3. Maybe you should even take it over, > the current maintainer is missin

Re: cannot build under m68k

On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:15:27PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > > > > I uploaded 'gpw' under unstable 20 days ago. > > Currently status is for m68k as follows: > > > > http://m68k.debian.org/cgi/build-info.pl?pkg=gpw > > >

Re: new version number needed to repair broken download?

Marc, simply re-upload. Marc Haber wrote: I recently goofed and invoked debsign twice on a package. This resulted in a Signature on a Signature on my .dsc file, causing katie (?) to reject my upload. Can I simply re-upload a correctly signed package, or do I need do bump the version number fo

new version number needed to repair broken download?

Hi, I recently goofed and invoked debsign twice on a package. This resulted in a Signature on a Signature on my .dsc file, causing katie (?) to reject my upload. Can I simply re-upload a correctly signed package, or do I need do bump the version number for katie (?) to pick the upload up again?

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In order to package HTML 4.01 specification from www.w3c.org > > Please have a look at doc-html-w3. Maybe you should even take it over, > the current maintainer is missi

Re: new version number needed to repair broken download?

Marc, simply re-upload. Marc Haber wrote: > I recently goofed and invoked debsign twice on a package. This > resulted in a Signature on a Signature on my .dsc file, causing katie > (?) to reject my upload. > > Can I simply re-upload a correctly signed package, or do I need do > bump the versio

new version number needed to repair broken download?

Hi, I recently goofed and invoked debsign twice on a package. This resulted in a Signature on a Signature on my .dsc file, causing katie (?) to reject my upload. Can I simply re-upload a correctly signed package, or do I need do bump the version number for katie (?) to pick the upload up again?