Re: visualos

2004-06-23 Thread Andrew Pollock
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:52:01AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:36:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-23 11:33]: > > > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was

Re: visualos

2004-06-23 Thread Andrew Pollock
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:36:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-23 11:33]: > > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was > > also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). > > &

Re: visualos

2004-06-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:36:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-23 11:33]: > > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was > > also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). > > &

Re: visualos

2004-06-23 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:36:20PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-23 11:33]: > > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was > > also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). > > &

Re: visualos

2004-06-23 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-23 11:33]: > VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was > also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). > > So should I convert this to a normal style package instead? Is it as > strai

visualos

2004-06-22 Thread Andrew Pollock
Hi, VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). So should I convert this to a normal style package instead? Is it as straightforward as renaming the tarball? regards Andrew