I plan to send the following mail about removing non-free
documentation to d-d-a tomorrow. I would welcome if people would
check it for factual mistakes before I do so. Therfore also sending
this to d-legal because of my various statements about the freeness of
certain licenses.
TIA.
*** DRAFT **
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:54:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Is it possible for gnucash/libofx/grisbi to be hinted into testing?
>
> It won't work, because both kmymoney2 and libofx depend on opensp, which
> is a C++ lib with the expected pac
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > But somehow, the package was no longer listed after a while.
> Really? I've never seen that page track anything but unstable.
This is what I recall, I'll take a screenshot and an alcohol-test next
time.
> > 2/ only 7 of the missing
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:57:49PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> 10 days ago, I prepared and got gnome-system-monitor 2.8.1-5 uploaded
> to TPU because I want to upload gnome-system-monitor 2.8.1-4 to stable
> and this is rejected if testing has a lower version.
> In the first days after the upl
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:27:31AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:56:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:59:54PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > http://www.debian.org/devel/testing :
> > >
> > > 2. It must be compiled and up to date o
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:28:30AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> that's unreproducible on crest/sid, although I can reproduce it on
> another machine with the very same versions of gcc-4.0 and libc6. So
> why not file it for libc6?
What cpu type is that other machine? I assume that ska is a 040?
reassign 327780 m68k
thanks
that's unreproducible on crest/sid, although I can reproduce it on
another machine with the very same versions of gcc-4.0 and libc6. So
why not file it for libc6?
The point of reassigning the report to an unknown package is to ask,
if it's time to drop m68k from the re
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:56:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:59:54PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/devel/testing :
> >
> > 2. It must be compiled and up to date on all architectures it has previously
> > been compiled for in unstable
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:34:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:23:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> It just occurred to me, from following previous transitions... lam also
> >> has not yet been built on m68k. Does that
9 matches
Mail list logo
