Marc Leeman wrote:
> > (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn"
> > under another name just because
>
> Don't read to much into this;
Well, as a matter of fact I don't. Probably I wouldn't have replied
to the thread if pth wasn't a GNU package, but my opinion would be the
> (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn" under
> another name just because the prospective new maintainer cannot
> communicate successfully with the original one to negotiate the
> takeover. I once again urge you to write to to
> avoid this unpleasant scenario.)
Don't rea
Martin Koegler wrote:
> I must admit, that I have not read anything about GNU maintainers,
> but GNU has usually a bigger "philosophical overhead".
Then I suggest you to read the appropriate documenation [1] before
jumping to premature and possibly incorrect conclusions (what does the
phrase "phil
> I need pthsem, so I only want a working version with all features I
> need.
All I care about is that there is an agreement between the Debian
community and the upstream developer. Martin is very active in
supporting his environment and in that respect I am to inclined to
support his decision.
C
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48:24AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > * Package name: pthsem
> > >
> > > Mmm, could this perhaps rather
JFTR.
Cheers,
Flo
--- Begin Message ---
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > * Package name: pthsem
>
> Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the existing pth
> package? Else you'll have to share the Debian patches.
The si
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > * Package name: pthsem
> > > Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the
> > > existing pth p
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
>> > > * Package name : pthsem
>> >
[..]
>
> The problem is that people know pth, but
Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > * Package name: pthsem
> >
> > Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the existing pth
> > package? Else you'll have to s
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > * Package name: pthsem
>
> Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the existing pth
> package? Else you'll have to share the Debian patches.
The situation with GNU pth is:
* pth in debian
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marc Leeman
* Package name: pthsem
Version : 2.0.7
Upstream Author : Martin Koegler
* URL : http://www.auto.tuwien.ac.at/~mkoegler/index.php
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : pth replacement with
11 matches
Mail list logo
