Quoting Barry deFreese ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Christian Perrier wrote:
>> Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>>
>>> Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I've file a preliminary proposed removal for dag2html.
I then suggest that,
Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
I've file a preliminary proposed removal for dag2html.
Thanks,
Barry deFreese
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Is it an updated version, or still the same code do you know?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/debian/geneweb/geneweb-5.01/dag2html> ls -l
total 88
-rw--- 1 bubulle bubulle 1936 jan 1 2006 dag2html.1
-rw--- 1 bubulle bubulle 42802 déc 13 2005 dag2ht
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 18:38 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > For the geneweb part I am Ccing Christian. Christian, do you know of
> > anybody that would be interested in the dag2html package? Would it
> > be worth contacting your upstream?
>
>
> I
Quoting James Westby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> For the geneweb part I am Ccing Christian. Christian, do you know of
> anybody that would be interested in the dag2html package? Would it
> be worth contacting your upstream?
I don't have any real idea of who could be interested in it.
However, on sho
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 11:14 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM, James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Is it even worth it? It's buggy, has a popcon of 12, and hasn't seen an
> > > upstream update since 2001?? My vote would be for removal.
> >
> > I agree, and
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM, James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it even worth it? It's buggy, has a popcon of 12, and hasn't seen an
> > upstream update since 2001?? My vote would be for removal.
>
> I agree, and I haven't seen any interest in picking it up.
>
> Would anyone
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:15 -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
> >
> >> Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
> >> and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
> >> for removal?
> >>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
for removal?
Personally I'm not, though of course I'm in favour of having it in the
pkg-oc
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
> Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
> and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
> for removal?
Personally I'm not, though of course I'm in favour of having it in the
pkg-ocaml-maint team as it would be a
10 matches
Mail list logo
