* Julien Cristau:
> There's no reason the binary packages can't be named conquest-postgres
> and conquest-mysql even if the source is conquest-dicom-server. And the
> source package name is mostly user-invisible. A shorter name is very
> much not a better one.
Agreed, we had quite a bit fun wit
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:15:17AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> I suggest not to spend any time on this. Mostly since the old
> conquest's upstream[0] isn't dead, unlike stated in #591487. This just
> might have changed in the meantime. But now, if ever anyone brings the
> old "conquest" back in
Pablo Lorenzzoni wrote...
> How should I proceed?
I suggest not to spend any time on this. Mostly since the old
conquest's upstream[0] isn't dead, unlike stated in #591487. This just
might have changed in the meantime. But now, if ever anyone brings the
old "conquest" back into Debian but you hav
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 16:48:18 -0300, Pablo Lorenzzoni wrote:
> Hello ALL,
>
> I took over packaging for Conquest DICOM Server a few months ago (bug
> #680352) and I am approaching upload state. You can check my work in Debian
> Git [1].
>
> Since the shortest form of the package name would be
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 16:48 -0300, Pablo Lorenzzoni wrote:
> Hello ALL,
>
> I took over packaging for Conquest DICOM Server a few months ago (bug
> #680352) and I am approaching upload state. You can check my work in Debian
> Git [1].
>
> Since the shortest form of the package name would be "conq
5 matches
Mail list logo
