On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:04:03PM +0200, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > istr the same thing, and was thinking that this might be the case.
> > since i don't suppose the ftp-master __ are going to come out
> > of hiding just to answer this question, i guess i'll upload, find out,
> > a
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:29:09AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Given that some people might find offensive to be compared to
> illuminati, I don't think this is the best way to engage the ftp-master.
> YMMV.
perhaps i should have made it a bit more apparent that my tongue was
slightly in-chee
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:47:51PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:18:19PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote:
> > I seem to recall hearing that NEW processing is based solely on binary
> > packages, so that the new source package would not need to go through NEW
> > if it creates a
El Sábado 26 Febrero 2005 21:47, sean finney escribió:
> istr the same thing, and was thinking that this might be the case.
> since i don't suppose the ftp-master illuminati are going to come out
> of hiding just to answer this question, i guess i'll upload, find out,
> and report back :/
>
>
> se
hi josh,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 02:18:19PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote:
> I seem to recall hearing that NEW processing is based solely on binary
> packages, so that the new source package would not need to go through NEW
> if it creates a binary package that is already in the archive.
>
> I coul
El sÃb, 26-02-2005 a las 14:18 -0500, Josh Metzler escribiÃ:
> On Saturday 26 February 2005 02:45 am, sean finney wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i'm maintaining a source package that produces two binary packages.
> > however, one of the packages is built from a seperately distributed (same
> > author, sam
On Saturday 26 February 2005 02:45 am, sean finney wrote:
> hi,
>
> i'm maintaining a source package that produces two binary packages.
> however, one of the packages is built from a seperately distributed (same
> author, same website, but different tarball and versioning scheme)
> tarball.
>
> so
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:56:29 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote:
>> so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
>> respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first
>> place). however, o
On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote:
> so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
> respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first
> place). however, one thing that's not clear to me is whether or not the
> new second source package
9 matches
Mail list logo
