Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bastien Roucariès
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-labeled-stream-splicer
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : James Halliday (http://substack.net)
* URL : https://github.com/substack/labeled-stream-
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libref-util-xs-perl
Version : 0.116
Upstream Author : Sawyer X
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Ref-Util-XS
* License
Le mercredi, 15 novembre 2017, 16.43:17 h CET Steffen Möller a écrit :
> I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion.
Debian updates are in fact different steps:
* inclusion of upstream changes;
* packaging updates;
* .changes signing with a key in the Debian keyring;
*
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anton Gladky
* Package name: cctz
Version : 2.1
* URL : https://github.com/google/cctz
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: C++
Description : Library for computing dates, times, and time zones
CCTZ contains tw
PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
writes:
> Sean Whitton wrote:
>> If an upstream author knows their code will go straight into an active
>> Debian suite when they push a git tag to GitHub, the trust dynamic is
>> changed, I think for the worse.
> this is the model of travis no ?, the upstream could beco
> If an upstream author knows their code will go straight into an active
> Debian suite when they push a git tag to GitHub, the trust dynamic is
> changed, I think for the worse.
this is the model of travis no ?, the upstream could become also the debian
maintainer.
And check that his package bui
Hello Steffen,
On Wed, Nov 15 2017, Steffen Möller wrote:
> I would really like to see updates performed in some automated
> fashion. Maybe into a different section of Debian like sid-auto? The
> problem with that obviously is the missing scrutiny by the human
> maintainer, so it cannot go strai
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion.
I think this is an excelent idea, at least for the case of updates from
eg 2.0.3 to 2.0.4 or some such, and also of course accompanied with
automated tests.
I'
Hello,
my QA page or our blend's task page (like
https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about
updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more
likely) with the help of my blend. The updates are often (but now
always, admittedly) easy to do.
I would
Hi Toni,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 06:10:45PM +0800, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:07:44PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> > It's been a while since we made the decision not to pull from upstream's
> > git; Toni, I'd be happy to work with you on seeing if it's doable now.
>
Hi Harlan,
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:07:44PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> It's been a while since we made the decision not to pull from upstream's
> git; Toni, I'd be happy to work with you on seeing if it's doable now.
I think I have a suitable package now, being as cheap as possible,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai)"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: ruby-shellany
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : Cezary Baginski
* URL : https://github.com/guard/shellany
* License : MIT
Pro
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai)"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: ruby-notiffany
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Cezary Baginski
* URL : https://github.com/guard/notiffany
* License : MIT
P
13 matches
Mail list logo
