Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Boyuan Yang <073p...@gmail.com>
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
pkg-deepin-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
* Package name: deepin-qt5dxcb-plugin
Version : 1.1.5
Upstream Author : Deepin Technology Co., Ltd.
* URL : http
On Sunday, December 10, 2017 11:11:20 PM CST gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:44:52 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > However, the consensus voiced in this thread (as was the case of the same
> > in 2016) is that while license summarizing (which can include, if the
> > license has lang
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:28:16AM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> So all I can present is that it was accepted for a long time and then
> suddenly not accepted.
Accepted or just not checked?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:09:16 PM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> I would also point out that regardless of the merits of some particular
> interpretation, if a perceived violation of it was potentially discovered,
> it does not seem a terribly logical defense that "it is been like that
> for some t
Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of 2017-12-12 15:38:29 +:
> The work of reviewing each source file, first by the maintainer, and
> then by ftpmaster when auditing, would still have to be done, I think.
>
> Or do you think we can avoid both the maintainer and then ftpmaster
> looking at eve
Am 12.12.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:42:54AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or
>> /usr/share/free-licenses instead? It would save a lot of developer and
>> maintenance time if we could jus
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:42:54AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Why don't we add all DFSG-free licenses to /usr/share/common-licenses or
> /usr/share/free-licenses instead? It would save a lot of developer and
> maintenance time if we could just reference those licenses on a standard
> Debian sy
[Removing the bugs crossposting.]
> > If you're interested, how about becoming a member of the team?
>
>Actually, I'm already listed as a member... (Robert Clay, 'jame-
> guest')
Oops, so have at it and fix the bugs. Just kidding, but thanks for
being part and helping.
Art, any idea when
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Robert,
>
>> If not I'm going to have it removed I guess.
>>
>> I'd be against that.
>
> Me too, but somebody has to be able to put some time into it. :)
>
>> I have a Jessie installed system that I can't update to Stretch
>> because ci
Robert,
> If not I'm going to have it removed I guess.
>
> I'd be against that.
Me too, but somebody has to be able to put some time into it. :)
> I have a Jessie installed system that I can't update to Stretch
> because citadel won't run on it yet; and the Citadel install there
> is
> one
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Art Cancro wrote:
>
> On 2017-12-11 7:42 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
>> Anyone interested in citadel/webcit?
I am, as I prefer to use the Debian packages for my systems. And
will do what I can in support of keeping it in Debian. (As well as
the other Citadel
Firstly, I suspect you are going to disagree wth much of what I'm
about to say. Perhaps I have misunderstood you or you have
misunderstood me.
I feel I am in danger of repeating myself. So it would help me if you
could try to find the specifics where you disagree with me, and
disagree with me in
Michael,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Anyone interested in citadel/webcit?
I am. (As well as the rest of the citadel packages of course.)
> If not I'm going to have it removed I guess.
I'd be against that.
I have a Jessie installed system that I can't update
> We patched some of the sources in an attempt to make it work on the
> latest Debian, but that effort seems to have missed the mark. That
> having been said, we've got everything working with both old and new
> libical versions now, and it seems to build cleanly on both previous
> and
> curre
> You can change the b-d to libical2-dev to still build with the old
> libical
> version. afaics it doesn't link with packages now linked with
> libical3.
Sorry, should have said that I was referring to libssl 1.0 vs 1.1
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes d
15 matches
Mail list logo
