On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It
> > would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and
> > the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith
> >
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > > Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:08:51AM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
> > tarball corresponding to this archive).
>
> Thanks for the explaination.
>
> > -n
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
> tarball corresponding to this archive).
Thanks for the explaination.
> -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we
> don't ha
christophe barbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it a common practice to use this kind of numbering (without a second part
> after
> a dash) for what I presume is a debian-made tarball (multiple upstream
> tarballs
> put together).
>
>gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb
>
> Also (related) why no
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:32:10PM -0400, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Source: gdesklets-data
> Binary: gdesklets-data
> Architecture: source all
> Version: 0.13.1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTE
6 matches
Mail list logo
