Hi,
When changing only the binary package name, it is easy to do it. All I
have to do is package an empty transitional package with the old binary
package name in its new source package with proper dependencies and
upload it :-)
But what is needed when changing both the source and binary package
Hi,
On 18/12/17 13:06, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When changing only the binary package name, it is easy to do it. All I
> have to do is package an empty transitional package with the old binary
> package name in its new source package with proper dependencies and
> upload it :-)
>
> But what
tags 850803 + help
thanks
Hi, as I'm not an KDE user and the bug submitter is unreachable:
Can somebody check this bug with gajim 1.0.0~alpha2-1? TIA!
Please comment directly on the bug...
On Monday, December 18, 2017 02:39:20 PM James Cowgill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18/12/17 13:06, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > When changing only the binary package name, it is easy to do it. All I
> > have to do is package an empty transitional package with the old binary
> > package name in its
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:06:08PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> When changing only the binary package name, it is easy to do it. All I
> have to do is package an empty transitional package with the old binary
> package name in its new source package with proper dependencies and
> upload it :-)
your
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:24:08PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It'll go through New anyway (if I remember correctly) because it's taking
> over
> a binary from another source package
No, that doesn't go through NEW. E.g. (from my not to distant memory)
https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/scowl/
On Monday, December 18, 2017 08:00:49 PM Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:24:08PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It'll go through New anyway (if I remember correctly) because it's taking
> > over a binary from another source package
>
> No, that doesn't go through NEW. E.g. (f
On 19 December 2017 at 09:12, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 08:00:49 PM Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:24:08PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > It'll go through New anyway (if I remember correctly) because it's
> taking
> > > over a binary from ano
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andrew Shadura
* Package name: libpostal
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : openvenues, Mapzen
* URL : https://github.com/openvenues/libpostal
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: C
Description : parse and normalise s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andrew Shadura
* Package name: pypostal
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : openvenues, MapZen
* URL : https://github.com/openvenues/pypostal/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: C
Description : Python bindings to libpo
On 12/07/2017 05:57 AM, Steve Robbins wrote:
> So: if I changed the boost copyright file to say "Copyright: $Dates Boost
> authors", would it pass ftp-master scrutiny?
No, I don't think so.
I'm not sure what the FTP master logic is, but for me, the kernel is so
much a high profile package, that
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "W. Martin Borgert"
* Package name: gajim-plugininstaller
Version : 0.20.0
Upstream Author : Gajim authors
* URL :
https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim-plugins/wikis/PluginInstallerPlugin
* License : GPL3
Programming Lang
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 05:57 AM, Steve Robbins wrote:
>> So: if I changed the boost copyright file to say "Copyright: $Dates Boost
>> authors", would it pass ftp-master scrutiny?
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> I'm not sure what the FTP master logic is
13 matches
Mail list logo
