On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Mathieu Malaterre
> wrote:
>>> - Why the repackaging? All you do is to move the only existing directory
>>> from the tarball into its own tarball? Please don't do this (see the
>>> Debian rej
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Mathieu Malaterre
wrote:
>> - Why the repackaging? All you do is to move the only existing directory
>> from the tarball into its own tarball? Please don't do this (see the
>> Debian reject FAQ). This will also solve the next comment:
(...)
>
> Isn't it sugge
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Daniel Leidert
wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
>> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>
>> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.4.0-1
>> > of my package "docbook-slides-demo".
>> >
>> > It builds these binary packages:
Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.4.0-1
> > of my package "docbook-slides-demo".
> >
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > docbook-slides-demo - Demo presentation slides for the doc
Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.4.0-1
> of my package "docbook-slides-demo".
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> docbook-slides-demo - Demo presentation slides for the docbook-slides
> package
I will take a look as soon as I'm back. IIRC there were
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.4.0-1
of my package "docbook-slides-demo".
It builds these binary packages:
docbook-slides-demo - Demo presentation slides for the docbook-slides package
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 5405
6 matches
Mail list logo
