Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ritesh Raj Sarraf
* Package name: snapper-gui
Version : git
Upstream Author : Ricardo Vieira
* URL : https://github.com/ricardomv/snapper-gui
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Python
Description : graphical inter
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Kanashiro
* Package name: libconvert-scalar-perl
Version : 1.12
Upstream Author : Marc A. Lehmann
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Convert-Scalar
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Descri
Hello,
At DebConf yesterday, with some help from David Bremner and some testing
from Vagrant Cascadian (thanks!), I wrote a new script
notmuch-slurp-debbug, and uploaded the script and two scripts upon which
it depends to Debian experimental.
I know that a lot of DDs use notmuch, so I wanted to s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jacob Adams
* Package name: pgp-clean-room
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Jacob Adams
* URL : https://salsa.debian.org/tookmund-guest/pgpcr
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Python
Description : PGP Clean Room
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
> > rename the offensive parts of this package.
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexander Gerasiov
* Package name: dpath-python
Version : 1.4.2
Upstream Author : Andrew Kesterson
* URL : https://github.com/akesterson/dpath-python
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Python
* Stephan Seitz [180724 09:49]:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Stephan Seitz writes:
> > > He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> > > upstream consent.
> > Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
> > transitio
On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Stephan Seitz writes:
He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
upstream consent.
Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for the
* Stephan Seitz [180724 07:25]:
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are part
> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
> package or keeping it as it is.
Or,
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
>>rename the offensive parts of this package.
>
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> upstream consent.
Wh
On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
rename the offensive parts of this package.
He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and i
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: lumin
* Package name: nsync
Version : 1.20.0
Upstream Author : google
* URL : https://github.com/google/nsync
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: C
Description : C library that exports various synchronization
Hi,
"Marc Dequènes (duck)" writes:
[snip]
> So apart from objectification of women, but without
> instrumentalization or degrading message, I was not able to find
> serious consequences. As much as I would prefer things to be different
> (I already told upstream in the past) I don't feel I have
13 matches
Mail list logo
