On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Packages with unknown dependencies:
>
> clanlib0-display-fbdev-dev
> clanlib0-display-ggi-dev
> clanlib0-display-glx
> clanlib0-display-glx-dev
> clanlib0-display-svgalib-dev
> clanlib0-display-x11-dev
>
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 17:50:30 +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Does anybody use 9wm, 9term, and 9fonts? Can we dump them?
9term and 9fonts provide for the only UTF-8 (unicode) capable terminal
emulation for X currently packaged AFAIK; it would be convenient to have
them available for i18n testing p
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 18:11:06 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> #41356 lesstifg-dev: should depend on xlib6g-dev
>
> Any comments on that?
Just an AOL. It should indeed.
> I think I had some more comments, but I have no connection to
> bugs.debian.org and can not research them. (think I have some
Le Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 03:58:34PM +0200, Peter Makholm écrivait:
> If I want to work on unmaintained packages (without adopting them)
> taht kind of links would be nice. The mailto is only useable if
> somebody wants to take over the package. (Hmmm, lets have both links)
Ok, the package name is n
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have 38 outstanding bug maintained by us. and this is just some
> random thoughts on them:
>
> #4243, #5409, #6439, #6772 9term and 9wm
>
> These are very old bug (986-1137 days). Somebody should look at these
> and try to contact the submitter if he
We have 38 outstanding bug maintained by us. and this is just some
random thoughts on them:
#4243, #5409, #6439, #6772 9term and 9wm
These are very old bug (986-1137 days). Somebody should look at these
and try to contact the submitter if he still lives.
I would like to do it but my debianbox is
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I'm experimenting with a script to work out whether packages are
> installable or not. I figured the world at large might be interested in
> some of the results.
>
> The following packages are not installable (ie,
On http://qa.debian.org/wnpp.html there is a mailto link to the
maintainers of orphaned packages.
Wouldn't it be more useable to have links to the description of the
package or the buglist for the package?
If I want to work on unmaintained packages (without adopting them)
taht kind of links would
Hello world,
I'm experimenting with a script to work out whether packages are
installable or not. I figured the world at large might be interested in
some of the results.
The following packages are not installable (ie, their Depends:,
Recommends:, and Conflicts: can't be concurrently satisfied) u
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 05:49:26AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 09:33:05AM +0200, Jim Mintha wrote:
> > I have been talking to Christian. The new packages of slang are ready
> > to go. I have been waiting for other people to upgrade their packages
> > to slang1_1.2.2-3 which
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 09:33:05AM +0200, Jim Mintha wrote:
> I have been talking to Christian. The new packages of slang are ready
> to go. I have been waiting for other people to upgrade their packages
> to slang1_1.2.2-3 which fixes a dependancy problem. Most people have
> updated their packages
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 01:34:51AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Format: 1.6
> > Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 13:17:33 +0200
> > Source: jed
> > Binary: jed-sl jed-common xjed jed
> > Architecture: source i386 all
> > Version: 0.99.9-1
> > Distribution: un
Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Format: 1.6
> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 13:17:33 +0200
> Source: jed
> Binary: jed-sl jed-common xjed jed
> Architecture: source i386 all
> Version: 0.99.9-1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Des
13 matches
Mail list logo
