On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:57:02PM +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> There is already a "gwt" package in unstable [1]
Sorry I had already realised this and closed this bug report again.
One of the other gwt dependencies had been removed completely, and gwt
has been removed from testing but not
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Halls
Package name: gwt (binaries libgwt-dev-java and libgwt-user-java)
Version : 2.4.0
Upstream Author : Google Inc
URL : http://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com
License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Halls
Package name: jsilver
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : David Beaumont, Ben Dodso
URL : http://code.google.com/p/jsilver
License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: Java
Description : Clearsilver
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Halls
Package name: sablecc
Version : 3.2
Upstream Author : Etienne M. Gagnon and others
URL : http://www.sablecc.org/
License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Java
Description : Object-oriented fully featured parser
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to merge this with apt-cacher and combine your
> skills and time? They do seem awfully similar in what they do if not
> how they do it.
Well, when apt-cacher started out, it needed an apache installation to work
an
On Monday 19 June 2006 01:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Howdy. Just wondering if anyone knows the whereabouts of two maintainers:
>
> Otavio Salvador (apt-proxy)
Otavio has asked me to maintain apt-proxy again and I am in the process of
preparing an upload.
> I have not noticed many updates to
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2005 10:09, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I didn't see anyone proposing prelinking so far. I've seen rumors
> > that program start time for some programs decrease a lot if prelinking
> > is enabled. It would be
the unstable version of the package.
Early versions of v2 from Ranty had this behaviour, but I fixed it a
while ago.
apt-proxy (1.9.12) experimental; urgency=low
[...]
* Fix max_versions to work in the same way as version 1
did, taking distributions into account (part of #242197)
-- Chris H
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 04:04, Brian May wrote:
> * If the above point wasn't bad enough by itself, the apt-proxy binary has
> hard coded:
>
> WGET_CMD="$WGET --timestamping --no-host-directories --tries=5
> --no-directories -P $DL_DESTDIR"
Hmm, seems you are talking about version 1, which has be
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 11:11, martin f krafft wrote:
> 1. apt-proxy:
> While I love the concept of apt-proxy, it works very unreliably.
> Frequently, the proxy fails to download the package or imposes
> very long delays (#272217, and others).
This seems to be the result of a patch that fixed
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 20:18, John Goerzen wrote:
> Debian Enterprise will have to support 64-bit platforms, which
> OpenOffice doesn't.
..yet. That will be fixed by 2.0 at the latest. Help is appreciated.
Chris
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 05:49, John Goerzen wrote:
> > * Office Suite - OpenOffice (there's no other near as feature complete)
>
> And OpenOffice is the only one that runs on only two -- yes, two --
> architectures that Debian supports.
You missed two. OOo is available on i386, powerpc, sparc and
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:50:07PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Besides, if dumb names were a problem we'd do something about
> openoffice.org.
$ ls /usr/bin/*openoffice*
/usr/bin/openoffice
What is dumb about that? The thread is about naming of files within
/usr/bin.
Chris
pgpsBIj7fhkCn.pgp
D
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:12:52PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> We didn't have OpenOffice at last release and it doesn't seem to be in
> unstable yet. 'apt-cache search openoffice' only find myspell
> dictionaries.
It's in contrib, package openoffice.org. It is scheduled to
move into main around
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:35:01AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > In my particular case (gforge), I'll have to hack around the
> > no-binary-in-diff limitation of dpkg-source. I work in the same
> > repository as upstream, and some images were changed.
>
> Ugly. The best idea I have about tha
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> Word documents.
Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug report
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:38:52PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Still, the Packages files should only be removed after no software in
> our stable distribution depends on it. If you remove the Packages file
> from unstable now you will break apt-proxy (and perhaps other tools
> too).
Well, apt-
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 12:11:18PM -0700, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> The other question is how it should be enabled. One way is "hdparm -d 1
> /dev/hd?" or moral equivalent in an init script.
The hwtools package includes a script with a placeholder for such hdparm
tuning in /etc/init.d/hwtools:
#
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:46:17AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:39:00AM +0200, Chris Halls wrote:
>
> How will the translated Description be stored in the deb Package?
Sorry, I wasn't addressing that :-) I was expecting to use the solution
that wo
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:58:59AM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> The more controversial point of our proposal is that we where planing
> to centralize the translation in a way that keeps the maintainer out
> of the loop. But it's not the key point, it's an add-on which ease the
> work of transla
20 matches
Mail list logo
