On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:53:51PM +0100, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 25.11.13, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:16:11AM +, Wookey wrote:
> > > the jed packages are now in
> > > life-support maintenance mode.
>
> > Why? I don't feel that jed is dead? Why should it be dead?
>
> I
On 25.11.13, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:16:11AM +, Wookey wrote:
> > the jed packages are now in
> > life-support maintenance mode.
> Why? I don't feel that jed is dead? Why should it be dead?
It seems my mails to the people doing the last non-maintainer update went
unnoti
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:16:11AM +, Wookey wrote:
> the jed packages are now in
> life-support maintenance mode.
Why? I don't feel that jed is dead? Why should it be dead?
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc Haber |
+++ Marc Haber [2013-11-25 09:10 +0100]:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > > I am not sure whether this is a policy violation, but it is most
> > > probably a surprise for most users. In Debian I expect all files under
> > > /usr to come from packages, and thus be
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > I am not sure whether this is a policy violation, but it is most
> > probably a surprise for most users. In Debian I expect all files under
> > /usr to come from packages, and thus be static. This is not the case
> > for the *.slc f
On 17.06.12, Marc Haber wrote:
> Package: jed-common
> Version: 1:0.99.19-2.1
> Severity: normal
> I am not sure whether this is a policy violation, but it is most
> probably a surprise for most users. In Debian I expect all files under
> /usr to come from packages, and thus be static. This is not
Package: jed-common
Version: 1:0.99.19-2.1
Severity: normal
I am not sure whether this is a policy violation, but it is most
probably a surprise for most users. In Debian I expect all files under
/usr to come from packages, and thus be static. This is not the case
for the *.slc files that are writ
7 matches
Mail list logo
