The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 398 (new: 7)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 83 (new: 0)
Total number of packages requeste
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jan Michael Alonzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: emacs-rails
Version : 0.5.99.5
Upstream Author : Emacs Rails Team
* URL : http://rubyforge.org/projects/emacs-rails/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Ruby
Descri
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I exchanged a couple of emails with him about GPG signing in April.
Good to know; apologies for the false alarm.
> I'm thinking there needs to be a co-maintainence team for wxWidgets,
> and ron seems open to the idea.
Sounds reasonable, though I'm sprea
On 5/25/07, Aaron M. Ucko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Likewise, bitpim has moved to 2.8 upstream, forcing me to hold back or
backport various GUI-related changes on their part, so I'd also
greatly appreciate seeing wxWidgets 2.8 in Debian.
However, I am concerned that its maintainer (Ron Lee) ma
On May 24, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The DFSG is a set of guidelines; there are many things that licenses
> can do which would be anathema to Free Software but are not
> specifically excluded by the DFSG.
But still, the first two sentences of the SC read:
"We provide the guide
Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for explaining why filezilla is not yet updated. If you have the
> time, you might want to offer help to the maintainer of wxwidgets2.6:
Likewise, bitpim has moved to 2.8 upstream, forcing me to hold back or
backport various GUI-related changes o
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit :
>> > Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
>> > ignore it.
>>
>> Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
>> Computer Information Transactions Act (UCIT
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
> ignore it.
The problem is not the choice-of-law, but the choice-of-venue clause,
as you yourself indicated in.[1] I don't know why it has yet to be
removed by Sun, but we were told
Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
> > ignore it.
>
> Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
> Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which -- among other
> things
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 10:54 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>>This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction
>>specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
>>(except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise),
>>
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:26:00PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> hi
>
> what about http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/ ?
>
> madcoder mentioned in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00822.html
> of the intention of getting the checklib service up again: any progress?
We're still waiti
Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 10:54 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction
>specified in a notice contained within the Original Software
>(except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise),
>excluding such jurisdiction's
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 24, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the
> > future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments
> > surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's
On May 24, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not the case, unfortunatly, and it really would be wise in the
> future to consult with people who are familiar with the arguments
> surrounding such licenses before expressing Debian's opinion to the
> FSF.
Do you mean the ftpmasters,
hi
what about http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/ ?
madcoder mentioned in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00822.html
of the intention of getting the checklib service up again: any progress?
also, where do I get the source code from (since the link
http://greek0.net/div/checklib.tar
Am 2007-05-24 19:44:38, schrieb Mike Hommey:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
> > > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> > > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free s
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
> solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris.
This is not the case, unfortunatly, and
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
> > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
>
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:27:36PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
> > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
> ^
Am 2007-05-22 13:30:24, schrieb Sam Hocevar:
> 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the
> CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences and would welcome any
^^
Can this start a flame now? (I mean cdrtools => Jürg Sch
Hi,
* Andrea Bolognani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-24 09:34]:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:35:48 +0530
> shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Forgive if this is not the correct list to post to. I like htop
> > & the latest version of htop is 0.6.5
> > http://htop.sourceforge.net/index.php?p
On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:35:48 +0530
shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Forgive if this is not the correct list to post to. I like htop
> & the latest version of htop is 0.6.5
> http://htop.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=downloads while the package
> even in unstable is at 0.6.3
>
Hi all,
Forgive if this is not the correct list to post to. I like htop
& the latest version of htop is 0.6.5
http://htop.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=downloads while the package
even in unstable is at 0.6.3
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/htop . Can it be
updated/upgraded? Cheers
23 matches
Mail list logo
