Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ghislain Antony Vaillant
* Package name: libopenshot
Version : 0.0.8
Upstream Author : Jonathan Thomas
* URL : https://launchpad.net/libopenshot
* License : LGPL-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : library for h
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ghislain Antony Vaillant
* Package name: libopenshot-audio
Version : 0.0.6
Upstream Author : Jonathan Thomas
* URL :
https://code.launchpad.net/~openshot.code/libopenshot/libopenshot-audio
* License : GPL-3
Programming
Before the jessie release, I started a thread about the default
softphone in Debian[1]
Nothing really changed, the thread appeared to fizzle out with comments
from more than one person that Debian would ship whatever was
recommended by the desktop maintainers / GNOME upstream[2]
GNOME upstream h
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ghislain Antony Vaillant
* Package name: openshot-qt
Version : 2.0.4
Upstream Author : Jonathan Thomas
* URL : http://www.openshot.org/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : high quality video e
There's an interesting type of dependencies in RPM: "non-strict equals".
The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum will
install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
found. And also we can write dependency specifically with revision,
f.e. `pkg (= "
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:02:00PM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> we are currently planning to start the transition of libpng.
>
> Is there a repository with packages rebuilt against libpng16? Some
> dependency chains are massive, such as the gtk/gdk/... which makes
> testing fixes not possible w
Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum will
> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
> found. And also we can write dependency specifically with revision,
> f.e. `pkg (= "2.0-43")' and yum will install specifically
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote:
> Hello, let's say I have the following install:
>
> my_metapackage -> depends on windows_manager -> depends on lightdm ->
> depends on xorg
>
> So, I am forcing the following:
>
> - xorg
> - lightdm
> - windows_manager
>
> can I se
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:20:38PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> > If there's package A which depends on B and C, B depends on D (=
> > "2.0-43") and C depends on D (>= "2.0"). If there're packages D-2.0-43
> > and D-3.0 in the repository, then yum fails to resolve depen
Dmitrii Kashin writes:
> There's an interesting type of dependencies in RPM: "non-strict equals".
>
> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum will
> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
> found. And also we can write dependency specifica
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum will
>> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
>> found. And also we can write dependency specifically with revision,
>> f.e. `pkg (= "2.0-43")' a
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum will
>> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
>> found. And also we can write dependency specifically with revision,
>> f.e. `pkg (= "2.0-43")'
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:58:48PM +0300, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> Hm. It seems to be a solution. But I don't really understand how version
> comparison works with symbols `.', `~' and `+'. Where can I read
> comparison rules?
This is the specification for version comparison rules in Debian:
https
Subject: ITP: MooseFS -- MooseFS (MFS) is a fault tolerant, highly available,
highly performing, scaling-out, network distributed file system. It spreads
data over several physical servers which are visible to the user as one
resource. For standard file operations MooseFS mounted with FUSE acts
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:58:48PM +0300, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>> Hm. It seems to be a solution. But I don't really understand how version
>> comparison works with symbols `.', `~' and `+'. Where can I read
>> comparison rules?
>
> This is the specification for version c
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>
> > Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> >> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum
> >> will
> >> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maximum revision
> >> found. And also
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>
>> curl https://anonscm.debian.org/git/kernel/linux.git 2>&1 |grep -i \> kernel/linux - Debian linux repository
>
> I wonder if a redirect would be more appropriate?
I agree redirection is e
Dmitrii Kashin writes:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> In a Debian repository, there can be only one version of D at a time,
>> so this cannot happen. If you want two versions of the same package in
>> the same repository, they need to have different source and binary
>> names (the name can be som
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sean Whitton
* Package name: emacs-pdf-tools
Version : 0.70
Upstream Author : Andreas Politz
* URL : https://github.com/politza/pdf-tools
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Emacs Lisp & C
Description : advanced P
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sean Whitton
* Package name: let-alist
Version : 1.0.4
Upstream Author : Artur Malabarba
* URL : https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/let-alist.html
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Emacs Lisp
Description : let-bind
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette writes:
>>
>> > Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>> >> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum
>> >> will
>> >> install package `pkg' of version "2.0" with the maxi
X-Debbugs-Cc: piotr.konope...@moosefs.com, debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
debian-ment...@lists.debian.org, d...@moosefs.com
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear Mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for our team's package - MooseFS
Package name : moosefs
Version
Marvin Renich:
> * Vincent Danjean [151208 03:17]:
>> [...]
>>
>> I use "apt-file search" very sporadically. And even when I use it,
>> most of the time, it is to find a package containing a header file,
>> so I do not need its database to be up-to-date. So I update it only
>> when the result fr
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:13:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Good moo,
>
> I just uploaded APT 1.2~exp1 to experimental. This release includes
> the following highlights:
>
> * Automatic removal of debs after install for apt(8)
> * LZ4 support
> * Recompression of indices
> * Parallel r
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Alexandre Detiste
wrote:
> Technicaly, yes you can do it & it will work; but it's agaisnt
> the policy so this package can never enter the archive;
> but it's not the goal anyway, so why not ?
This is ultimately for a Debian Pure Blend, so it will have to abide
w
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That depends to a large extent on what you want to do with it once
> you've built the package.
I should of mentioned, ultimately it is for a Debian Pure Blend. For
now, I am just hacking things out.
> If you want to upload the package to
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:25:40PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> the following packages contain lines matching the
> expression:
> /var/lib/apt/lists/.*(Packages|Sources)
>
> Those files may be compressed by any compressor
> supported by APT and just hardcoding them is
> wrong.
27 matches
Mail list logo
