Re: Build Emacs packages from CVS with emacs-snapshot?

2005-08-29 Thread Romain Francoise
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes: > Well, I used to use Miles Bader's arch repo (which seems to have had > no recent updates :(), and having a ./debian dir available as an arch > branch as well would be awesome. The Debian dir is available as a Bazaar repo from: http://a

Re: CVS Gnus packages ?

2005-08-29 Thread Romain Francoise
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes: > Unless larsi decides to release a 5.10.7 (or even 5.10.6.1). My policy > is to never assume that upstream shall not release yet another point > release; and thus suddenly require epochs. 5.10.7 will be taken from the v5-10 branch (which i

Re: Build Emacs packages from CVS with emacs-snapshot?

2005-08-29 Thread Miles Bader
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes: > Well, I used to use Miles Bader's arch repo (which seems to > have had no recent updates :(), and having a ./debian dir available > as an arch branch as well would be awesome. The real repository on fencepost.gnu.org is updated r

Re: Build Emacs packages from CVS with emacs-snapshot?

2005-08-29 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:45:51 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > What is the problem? You still want to build snapshots yourself? Well, I used to use Miles Bader's arch repo (which seems to have had no recent updates :(), and having a ./debian dir available as an arch bran

Re: CVS Gnus packages ?

2005-08-29 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Xavier Maillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I am pretty happy to be able to just throw apt to have Emacs CVS on >> my machines. >> >> I want the same for No Gnus. Is there any plan pending for that ? > Manoj

Re: CVS Gnus packages ?

2005-08-29 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:07:28 +0200, Kai Großjohann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Xavier Maillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Damned ! I was not sure it was the right due to this weird >>> versionning. Why is this tagged 5.10.6 ? >> >> Because