Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Manas kashyap
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
pkg-go-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
* Package name: goconvey
Version : 1.6.3
Upstream Author : SmartyStreets
* URL : https://github.com/smartystreets/goconvey
* Li
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Debian GNOME's "oldlibs" bug list:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-gnome-maintainers%40lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=oldlibs
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
Hi!
The Debian GNOME team has continued working on removing obsolete GNOME
2 libraries and we wanted to provide an update on our progress and let
you know what's next.
We have identified the list of libraries we are targeting for removal
from Buster and have filed bugs for affected packages. Seve
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: ju xor
* Package name: carml
Version : 17.4.0
Upstream Author : meejah
* URL : https://github.com/meejah/carml
* License : public domain
Programming Lang: Python
Description : carml is a command-line tool to quer
Hi Ian,
> > Yes. Please file bugs for this. :)
> >
> > Note however that such a lintian check should not consider changelog
> > entries indicating another source package name.
>
> Done: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=889991
Done:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintia
On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 11:50 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Is it also the case that today we implicitly require that all
> versions
> > used in a source package name's history are unique even once the
> epochs
> > are stripped off (e.g. a given $upstrea
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can
>> never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden
>> indefinitely.
> See e.g. libpu
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can
> never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden
> indefinitely.
See e.g. libpulse0 (pulseaudio), sadly (I needed to repack a $job package
and f
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is
bumped"):
> On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
> > "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
> > back to foo upstream version
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Philipp Kern writes:
>>> But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why
>>> Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we
>>> can. Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one?
>> Ubuntu
On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>> On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>>> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
>>> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
>>> back to foo upstream version 2", I would no
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
>> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
>> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch
>> for that. I would
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:02:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is
> bumped"):
> > You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
> > reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
>
On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is
> bumped"):
>> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
>> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
>> happened to imagemagi
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is
bumped"):
> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
> happened to imagemagick multiple times.
I don't know precisely what
Hi
I'll be on vacation next week In St Sorlain D'Arves for a week of telemark
with my family.
I won't have much internet access. Feel free to nmu any package that I
maintain.
All the best
--
https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Wookey
* Package name: horizon-eda
Version : 0.2018-02
Upstream Author : Lukas Kramer
* URL : https://github.com/carrotIndustries/horizon
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : EDA layout and schem
On 2018-02-09 13:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Basically, `:' is annoying in filenames. Encoding it would have been
possible but we don't encode anything else. And I think a rule
against reusing the same upstream version with a different epoch is
entirely sensible, anyway.
You say upstream version.
Seth Arnold writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> tar will treat a filename with : in it as a command to connect to a remote
> machine via rsh and execute /etc/rmt remotely:
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/tar/html_node/tar_127.html
>
> The git repo shows that
19 matches
Mail list logo
