Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libmechanize-ruby
Version : 0.6.1
Upstream Author : Aaron Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://rubyforge.org/projects/mechanize
* License : GPL
Prog
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libhpricot-ruby
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Why The Lucky Stiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/hpricot/
* License : MIT/X11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
This announces my intention to hijack the mozplugger package. There hasn't
been any activity from the maintainer, Bernard Blackham (not a DD), in over a
month and a half, and he hasn't responded to ping e-mails from myself or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Could you please name this gaim-python instead, to follow the convention
of the other gaim plugins? Also, please make sure you read
README.Debian.dev in the gaim-dev package so that you know how to use
the dh_gaim helper.
Thanks,
Ari
-BEGIN
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: rcov
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Mauricio Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?rcov
* License : Dual GPL/Ruby license
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> #287985: O: cantus -- Gnome tool to mass-rename/tag mp3 and ogg files
> Reported by: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 123 days old.
> obsoleted by cantus3 which is packaged already
>From what I can tell, cantus3 doesn't actually provide all of the
functionality
Daniel Burrows debian.org> writes:
> When your package Depends upon or Recommends a pure-virtual package P, you
> should always OR the dependency with a dependency on something that provides
> P,
As a totally offtopic suggestion, how come APT doesn't handle virtual packages
the way Fink does,
Isn't there already a gimp-dcraw package to do the exact same thing but
is more mature? Does UFRaw have any advantages over dcraw? Does it open
different kinds of images?
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gimp-ufraw
Version : 0.2
Upstream Au
Thanks. Sorry for the short notice, I hadn't realized how
outdated gltron and the ITAs were until I started getting
comments from friends like "gentoo has newer games" and "gltron
is so old." Needless to say, it was rather embarassing,
especially since the sarge release is tentatively December 1st
[ Please CC me on replies ]
It seems that the Debian gltron maintainer, Gregory J. Oschwald, has
been MIA for at least a year now. I can't find him anywhere in
the developers DB, and haven't seen any recent mail activity at
all on either bugs or mailing lists. I'd like to hijack this
package if I
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-20
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: streamtuner
Version : 0.9.1
Upstream Author : Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/streamtuner
* Licen
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-19
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: pork
Version : 0.7.0
Upstream Author : Ryan McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pork.ojnk.net
* License : GPL
Descri
Are there any plans to package the new GNU Aspell (0.50.x) for Debian?
Apparently there are a lot of ports of the really slick X Screensavers,
but all of them present the problem of integrating into the actual
xscreensaver, which isn't really possible system-wide as far as I can
see. And inclusion of the screensavers in upstream XScreenSaver is far
from feasible b
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-07
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: rsxs
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Michael Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://rsxs.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
I think the real issue here isn't so much actual package descriptions,
but the ITPs. Most package descriptions I've seen have been pretty
accurate, and tend to change a lot between the time of the ITP and
actual package release.
Colin Walters wrote:
I think the package descriptions are a very i
And I'm sure everyone really appreciates that kind of arrogance. You've
just exemplified the very reason why people aren't burning effigies of
me at the moment. Last time I checked (unless I'm completely off here),
users much preferred real progress over pretentious bureaucracy. I
really don't
Andrew Lau wrote:
All the more reason for a GNOME subpolicy I guess so there'd be less
of a point to argue about this. I'd glady follow policy (even a draft
one) anyday, but if it's lacking, convention rules.
Especially when the only difference is an extra digit in the description.
I agree with this logic. Generally if I search for a GTK 2.x theme
engine with apt-cache, I search for gtk2-blah, not gtk-blah, since by
convention gtk- strictly means gtk 1.x only.
Andrew Lau wrote:
But some people do deliberately "apt-cache search GNOME 2" to find new
GTK+2.0 based software th
I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the
xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of
uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking
most of the responsibility. This was a similar situation; however, I felt
it was necessa
> IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe.
> (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or
> not.)
Didn't you sponsor the upload?
did not receive respect from new maintainer Ari Pollak; and Debian did
> not receive any respect too.
...
>
> Maybe I forgot something... maybe this episode could be seen as not so
> important but it hit me strongly, in particular from the point of view
> of my idea about Our Pro
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-24
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: fontconfig
Version : 2.1
Upstream Author : Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.fontconfig.org
* License : M
23 matches
Mail list logo
