Hey, all. I believe I finally fixed the installer. Due to not having
termcap available in postinst (evidently, stdin and stdout is very basic;
no extended functions), I put in a short script named install-lexmarkz33
to run the binary installer (in console mode as requested). That way, it
works bett
Hey, all. I believe I finally fixed the installer. Due to not having
termcap available in postinst (evidently, stdin and stdout is very basic;
no extended functions), I put in a short script named install-lexmarkz33
to run the binary installer (in console mode as requested). That way, it
works bett
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:59:35PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > > > For Sponsorship?
> > > > > Comments?
> [...]
> > Anyone el
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > > For Sponsorship?
> > > > Comments?
[...]
> Anyone else have anything to say? Should I cc -policy and let them
> debate it?
shou
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:36:56AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> - do cgi programs need man pages as well? techinically they're
> executables, but i don't know what i'd put there, and they do
> live in /usr/lib, so it's a bit ambiguous to me. i looked at
> some other packages and none of the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:04:35PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> I just had a brainstorm about the sponsorship process that I wanted to
> share for comment.
>
> What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> For Sponsorship?
This has come up before. I'm told, though, that the
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:59:35PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > > > For Sponsorship?
> > > > > Comments?
> [...]
> > Anyone el
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > > For Sponsorship?
> > > > Comments?
[...]
> Anyone else have anything to say? Should I cc -policy and let them
> debate it?
shou
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:36:56AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> - do cgi programs need man pages as well? techinically they're
> executables, but i don't know what i'd put there, and they do
> live in /usr/lib, so it's a bit ambiguous to me. i looked at
> some other packages and none of the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:04:35PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> I just had a brainstorm about the sponsorship process that I wanted to
> share for comment.
>
> What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> For Sponsorship?
This has come up before. I'm told, though, that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > For Sponsorship?
> > > Comments?
> >
> > AFAIK, the set of RFS is not a subset of
hey -mentors,
stephen gran volunteered to give my package a looking over and eventually
an upload (thanks!), and as a result i have another couple of packaging
issues for you (and by couple i mean 6):
- do cgi programs need man pages as well? techinically they're
executables, but i don't know
Hello,
I would like to adopt worklog, which is in the list of the packages up
for adoption, but I'm not a debian developer.
I retitled the bug report [1], and uploaded my work which is available
here [2].
Is this the correct way to proceed?
Thanks in advance.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > For Sponsorship?
> > > Comments?
> >
> > AFAIK, the set of RFS is not a subset of
hey -mentors,
stephen gran volunteered to give my package a looking over and eventually
an upload (thanks!), and as a result i have another couple of packaging
issues for you (and by couple i mean 6):
- do cgi programs need man pages as well? techinically they're
executables, but i don't know
Hello,
I would like to adopt worklog, which is in the list of the packages up
for adoption, but I'm not a debian developer.
I retitled the bug report [1], and uploaded my work which is available
here [2].
Is this the correct way to proceed?
Thanks in advance.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
16 matches
Mail list logo
