[sr #110945] The cvsweb program is not maintained anymore since 2014.

Follow-up Comment #1, sr #110945 (project administration): Ah sorry savannah is not using cvsweb, so I should probably bugreport to Debian instead. ___ Reply to this item at: __

[sr #110945] The cvsweb program is not maintained anymore since 2014.

URL: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110945> Summary: The cvsweb program is not maintained anymore since 2014. Group: Savannah Administration Submitter: gnutoo Submitted: Thu 19 Oct 2023 11:48:51

Re: [sr #110909] gnuboot git repository cleanup

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 01:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Ineiev wrote: > Enabling non-fast-forward commits in master and changing the default > branch conflicts with our policies; The issue we have is that the master branch has only one commit and the commit was a work in progress that wasn't supposed to end in

[sr #110911] Remove libreboot project

URL: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110911> Summary: Remove libreboot project Group: Savannah Administration Submitter: gnutoo Submitted: Sat 29 Jul 2023 12:47:55 PM UTC Category: Source code reposi

[sr #110908] Additional repositories for gnuboot

URL: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110908> Summary: Additional repositories for gnuboot Group: Savannah Administration Submitter: gnutoo Submitted: Sat 29 Jul 2023 12:13:06 AM UTC Category: Addition

[sr #110909] gnuboot git repository cleanup

URL: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110909> Summary: gnuboot git repository cleanup Group: Savannah Administration Submitter: gnutoo Submitted: Sat 29 Jul 2023 12:18:41 AM UTC Category: Sourc

Re: [savannah-help-public] Replicant source code hosting

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:20:36 GMT Karl Berry wrote: > There is only 36gb available on the relevant Savannah partition right > now (and 112gb used). I don't know how much disk space is available > on the underlying hardware or if FSF sysadmins have time to look into > resizzing. (They are the only

Re: [savannah-help-public] Replicant source code hosting

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:51:22 +0200 Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > I read somewhere that the license used must be GPL-compatible, but > perhaps that's only for GNU projects. If we take GPLv3 (and not the v2), it should be compatible with the Apache2 License. So I then what parts wound't be. Are any l