On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> > versions.
> >
> > I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> > am thinking about getting all t
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That will get a lot of people whose upstream still thinks they can get away
> with autoconf 2.13 and libtool/automake 1.4 forever pissed, but probably the
> only package we will have to tolerate violating that rule is gnucash (whose
> build
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO they are important since libtool1.4 *will* be removed and then
> the bugs are serious. The only reason we're keeping libtool1.4 for now is
> because those packages still use it.
Many developers might be using libtool1.4 without needing to decla
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> > versions.
> >
> > I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> > am thinking about getting all t
On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> versions.
>
> I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> am thinking about getting all those packages to build depend on
> libtool, autoconf and automake.
$ grep
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:02:00PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> > some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> > whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> > and any other version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
| Hi Luk, hi List,
Hi Martin, hi list
|>No, not that I know of. There was an idea to organise a seperate
|>QA meeting in Germany in August (I think Martin Zobel-Helas had
|>the idea? I don't know/remember if he plans to come to
Hi Luk, hi List,
> No, not that I know of. There was an idea to organise a seperate
> QA meeting in Germany in August (I think Martin Zobel-Helas had
> the idea? I don't know/remember if he plans to come to debconf [CCed])
yes, there is some ongoing planing for a QA event in this years August
or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Barth wrote:
| * Luk Claes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050318 16:25]:
|
|>No, not that I know of. There was an idea to organise a seperate
|>QA meeting in Germany in August
|
|
| I think a QA hack fest and the QA meeting are overlapping, but still a
|
* Luk Claes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050318 16:25]:
> No, not that I know of. There was an idea to organise a seperate
> QA meeting in Germany in August
I think a QA hack fest and the QA meeting are overlapping, but still a
bit different.
About the debconf-pre-event: Though I plan to go to debconf,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Below is the start of the organisation of a QA Hacking Event that will
be held before the official Debconf ;-)
All comments and input welcome.
Cheers
Luk
- Original Message
Subject: Re: QA hacking in Helsinki?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 14:14]:
> > We should make libtool 1.5.6 and autoconf 2.5 (*required for libtool 1.5.6),
> > as well as no usage of external autotools/libtool/autopoint (gettext) but
> > always using the Debian
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 14:14]:
> We should make libtool 1.5.6 and autoconf 2.5 (*required for libtool 1.5.6),
> as well as no usage of external autotools/libtool/autopoint (gettext) but
> always using the Debian packaged versions a release goal for etch.
>
> That
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> > some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> > whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> > and any other version forever is obviously
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > cyrus-sasl
Go ahead, but I will likely request removal from the ftp archive for
cyrus-sasl, since the maintainer is mostly MIA and it looks like I am the
one doing sort-of-QA work on it most of the time...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk t
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> and any other version forever is obviously no option) but perhaps it
> would be good to file wis
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:25:18AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 16:57]:
[...]
> IMHO they are important since libtool1.4 *will* be removed and then
> the bugs are serious. The only reason we're keeping libtool1.4 for now is
> because those packa
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 16:57]:
> > I was planning on filing bugs against the above packages, but I was just
> > wondering what severity to make it? Important, or wishlist for now and
> > upgrade it to important later?
>
> Bah, I should have looked (harder) before I opened
18 matches
Mail list logo
