unsubscribe
Hi mentors,
I'd like a sponsor to upload a new package of libdtdparser-java:
libdtdparser-java (1.21-6) unstable; urgency=low
* changed ANT_HOME (closes: #216123).
-- Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:16:36 +0200
Usual location:
http://vbstefi60.fapse.ulg.ac.be/~arnaud
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 11:51:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:26:42PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > See "(gcc)Function Names". It'd really be best to adapt it to use __func__
> > properly, since this is a standard which will be honored by other compilers.
>
> What
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:26:42PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:59:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I have some code that was using :
> >
> > printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
> >
> > This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
> > var
Hi mentors,
I'd like a sponsor to upload a new package of libdtdparser-java:
libdtdparser-java (1.21-6) unstable; urgency=low
* changed ANT_HOME (closes: #216123).
-- Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:16:36 +0200
Usual location:
http://vbstefi60.fapse.ulg.ac.be/~arnaud
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 11:51:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:26:42PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > See "(gcc)Function Names". It'd really be best to adapt it to use __func__
> > properly, since this is a standard which will be honored by other compilers.
>
> What
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:26:42PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:59:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I have some code that was using :
> >
> > printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
> >
> > This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
> > var
I've been in some discussion with another developer. He's decided it would
be nice to split out some interface modules for a package. These modules
constitute reasonably small single files and copies of the relevant
documentation.
I'm of the opinion that a few KB is too small for a .deb that could
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> I'd like to know if this justifies splitting a package. AFAIK the
> size or the existence of shared libs justify splitting a package, but
> not this.
>
> I've got a package that contains a command line program and a coupl
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:35:03AM +0200, Magosányi Árpád wrote:
> The syslog-ng package consists of two sources: syslog-ng itself, and
> libol.
> Now the packege is created by unpacking syslog-ng, dropping the libol
> tar.gz into the source tree, and adding the debian dir.
> It follows that eithe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:59:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have some code that was using :
>
> printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
>
> This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
> variable, not a string literal.
>
> What would be the best way of working around t
Hello,
I have some code that was using :
printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
variable, not a string literal.
What would be the best way of working around this ? Replacing all these
constructs with :
printf ("%sMessage", __f
I've been in some discussion with another developer. He's decided it would
be nice to split out some interface modules for a package. These modules
constitute reasonably small single files and copies of the relevant
documentation.
I'm of the opinion that a few KB is too small for a .deb that could
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> I'd like to know if this justifies splitting a package. AFAIK the
> size or the existence of shared libs justify splitting a package, but
> not this.
>
> I've got a package that contains a command line program and a coupl
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:35:03AM +0200, Magosányi Árpád wrote:
> The syslog-ng package consists of two sources: syslog-ng itself, and
> libol.
> Now the packege is created by unpacking syslog-ng, dropping the libol
> tar.gz into the source tree, and adding the debian dir.
> It follows that eithe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:59:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have some code that was using :
>
> printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
>
> This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
> variable, not a string literal.
>
> What would be the best way of working around t
Hello,
I have some code that was using :
printf (__func__ "Message", ...);
This doesn't build anymore with gcc 3.x, since __func__ is treated as a
variable, not a string literal.
What would be the best way of working around this ? Replacing all these
constructs with :
printf ("%sMessage", __f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I'd be very grateful for a sponsor for one or more of the folowing
packages:
libcgi-xmlapplication-perl -- Perl module for creating XML-DOM and OO
based CGI scripts
libcgi-xmlform-perl -- Perl module for reading/generating formatted XML
libdbix-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I'd be very grateful for a sponsor for one or more of the folowing
packages:
libcgi-xmlapplication-perl -- Perl module for creating XML-DOM and OO
based CGI scripts
libcgi-xmlform-perl -- Perl module for reading/generating formatted XML
libdbix-
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> I am seeking a sponsor for the above mentioned package(s). They claim
> to be "Open Source"*, but as far as I could judge from their (rather
> short) license, they might be considered non-free from a Debian point
> of view.
The license looks like a 3 cl
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> I am seeking a sponsor for the above mentioned package(s). They claim
> to be "Open Source"*, but as far as I could judge from their (rather
> short) license, they might be considered non-free from a Debian point
> of view.
The license looks like a 3 cl
On Thursday 09 October 2003 10:01 pm, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> I am seeking a sponsor for the above mentioned package(s). They claim to be
> "Open Source"*, but as far as I could judge from their (rather short) license,
> they might be considered non-free from a Debian point of view.
Looks DFSG fre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm currently in process of packaging jabber4r, or libjabber-ruby in it's
debianized form(ITP #207636), and I'm looking for a sponser to review my
work:-)
I've followed closely after the current ruby sub-policy, although it seems to
be in a draft s
On Thursday 09 October 2003 10:01 pm, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> I am seeking a sponsor for the above mentioned package(s). They claim to be
> "Open Source"*, but as far as I could judge from their (rather short) license,
> they might be considered non-free from a Debian point of view.
Looks DFSG fre
25 matches
Mail list logo
