Re: RFS: libllmozlib

Paul Wise wrote: >> This is where the problems start, because upstream is a mess and I have >> made the situation much worse. > > I think the best idea is to work with upstream to get it in shape > first, and then work on a Debian package. Looks like the LindenLabs > folk are interested in getting

Re: RFS: libllmozlib

Paul Wise wrote: > On Nov 14, 2007 6:50 PM, Robin Cornelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Where did the orig.tar.gz really come from? I can only find tarballs >>> and zip files that use dates as version numbers instead of 1.1.1-2. >>> >> This is where the problems start, because upstream is a m

Re: RFS: libllmozlib

On Nov 14, 2007 6:50 PM, Robin Cornelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Where did the orig.tar.gz really come from? I can only find tarballs > > and zip files that use dates as version numbers instead of 1.1.1-2. > > > > This is where the problems start, because upstream is a mess and I have > mad

Re: RFS: libllmozlib

Paul Wise wrote: > On Nov 14, 2007 8:50 AM, Robin Cornelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libllmozlib". > > Some comments on your package: > Hi Paul, Thanks for the feedback > lots of commented out stuff in debian/rules that doesn't need to be ther

Re: RFS: libllmozlib

On Nov 14, 2007 8:50 AM, Robin Cornelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libllmozlib". Some comments on your package: lots of commented out stuff in debian/rules that doesn't need to be there copyright file looks like a good candidate for reformatting as

RFS: libllmozlib

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libllmozlib". * Package name: libllmozlib Version : 1.1.1-2 Upstream Author : Callum Prentice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.ubrowser.com * License : Mozilla Tri-licence Section : libs