On Fri Mar 20 13:47, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
>
> Could you upload my package as is ?
Done
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
package deleted
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.3.0-1
> of my package "png-sixlegs".
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> libpng-sixlegs-java - Sixlegs Java PNG Decoder
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
>
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.27-26
of my package "wmmoonclock".
It builds these binary packages:
wmmoonclock - WindowMaker moon phase dockapp
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 455542, 479229
The package can be found on m
Dmitry,
I made the changes in the debian/copyright file and I updated to
Standards Version 3.8.1
Here the package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/centerim/centerim_4.22.7-1.dsc
Regards.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anibal Avelar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Sorry Dmitry, I lost the ema
On Fri Mar 20 13:47, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> I finally see our misundertanding : I already build all class files with
> -source
> 1.3 and -target 1.3 (class Format 47) as recommanded by upstream. They will
> run fine on any JVM >= 1.3.
Aha, excellent.
> Could you upload my package as is ?
Hi Matt,
On Friday 20 March 2009 00:57:35 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Mar 19 21:01, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> > > Ok, can I suggest a compromise. Build-depend on default-jdk and then at
> > > build time compile with default-jdk and, if openjdk is installed, use
> > > it to run the test sui
* Chow Loong Jin [090320 09:58]:
> > > Just curiosity, what kind of problems can be caused from using
> > > --as-needed?
> > My memory of this is vague, searching the BTS I found these though:
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/379748
> > http://udrepper.livejournal.com/11056.html
> > http://udrepper
Hi,
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Yeah, that (file) looks totally reasonable to me. What has changed in the
> proposal that this is outdated now? Why not change it back?
Ok, I saw your mail on -devel now, stating that you were using revision 50 and
its at 500 now...
regards
* Giacomo A. Catenazzi [090320 10:08]:
> >Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g.
> >the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of
> >license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of
> >recipients: mere inclusion of license terms is
[Transferred to -devel as suggested. Please follow-up there].
Le Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:40:33PM +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
> It is not easy readables for humans
> It is u
Ben Finney wrote:
[note: quotations in random order]
(We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.)
Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g.
the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of
license. That's not enough for Deb
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> there were some good points of the earlier drafts of that page and I use
> these in my own packages but the current version is completely
> unusable and unacceptable. (For an example of an acceptable midpoint,
> see
> http://packages.debian.
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 13:53 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> >> A workaround is to add -Wl,--as-needed to LDFLAGS, Gentoo has a
> >> document about that here:
> >>
> >> http://www.gentoo.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
