On 28.09.2012 03:53, Paul Wise wrote:
> Has the FSF been asked to switch to plain GFDL so that we can move the
> GCC docs to main? They did that for the autoconf documentation
> recently.
yes. but you may want to try again.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
Has the FSF been asked to switch to plain GFDL so that we can move the
GCC docs to main? They did that for the autoconf documentation
recently.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Hi,
On 09/28/2012 01:05 AM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make?
> Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free?
> (with regular package names)
It's in a similar way to GNU Make indeed. The only difference is more
than one versi
Why not just do GCC docs in a way similar to GNU Make?
Separately build docs from separate source package, and upload to non-free?
(with regular package names)
2012/9/27 Guo Yixuan :
> Hi,
>
> On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>
Hi,
On 02/15/2012 04:02 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko
>> wrote:
>
>>> In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
>>> used git repos to managed entire thin
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> I should probably resign from Debian... but I don't feel ready for this.
> Once it was not easy to become a DD. And I still hope for some changes
> that will allow me to give more time to Debian. As for now, I hope my
> @debian.org ac
Samuel,
I'm terribly sorry, but most likely I won't look into this in the near
future. On weekdays, when done with current work and family stuff, I'm
usually too tired to do anything useful. And it is already clear that at
least next two weekends will also be occupied.
It is a bad idea to post
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:02:43PM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko
> > wrote:
>
> >> In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
> >> used git repos to ma
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko
> wrote:
>> In good old days when I had time and motivation to maintain gcc-doc, I've
>> used git repos to managed entire thing.
>> I've just created externally-available mirror for tho
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> > I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when.
>
> Hello Samuel
>
> The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete.
>
> Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and
> several
> > I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when.
Hello Samuel
The gcc-doc thing you've done looks great, however it is incomplete.
Complete solution consists of gcc-doc-defaults package [contrib], and
several gcc-X.Y.doc-non-dfsg [non-free], that all must match each other.
There s
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson
> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose
> wrote:
>> >> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5
>> >> removed from unstable soonish, so
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson
wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose
wrote:
> >> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5
> >> removed from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for
> >> gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as found in experi
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
>> from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as
>> found in experimental). Cou
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed
> from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as
> found in experimental). Could you do this? Nikita, could you sponsor the
> package?
Su
Dear GCC Maintainers,
Perhaps I should have CC'd you in the first place, but here's a copy now:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Bronson
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Subject: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I a
Dear GCC Maintainers,
Perhaps I should have CC'd you in the first place, but here's a copy now:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Samuel Bronson
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Subject: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Dear mentors,
I
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Samuel Bronson , 2012-01-21, 13:44:
>
> * Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What if
FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
>>>
>>> Then this sourc
* Samuel Bronson , 2012-01-21, 13:44:
* Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What
if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built
from pristine gcc sources.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:09:35PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> * Samuel Bronson , 2012-01-21, 00:38:
>> >* Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
>>
>> Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name?
>> What if FSF decides t
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:09:35PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Samuel Bronson , 2012-01-21, 00:38:
> >* Package name: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
>
> Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name?
> What if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
Then this source package wi
* Samuel Bronson , 2012-01-21, 00:38:
* Package name: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What if
FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg".
It provides the manuals for GCC 4.5, including its many compilers, and
paves the way for "gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg". (Figuring out what this
package will do is left as an excercise for the reader.)
* Package name:
23 matches
Mail list logo
