It's been a week or so, and no response from the author on the non-free
licence. It's a spamming tool, and may not be worth keeping around in
the archive.
Jaldhar, any objections to removing it from the archive?
--jay
--
Jay Bonci| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG: E0B8B2DE| 562B 35D
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:42:44 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line (no subject)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reo
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 07:29:06PM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:35:31PM +0200, Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-10
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: ladcca
> > Version : 0.3.1
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 03:14:37PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 14:55, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > DebPool is a pool-based DEB
>
> s/DEB/Debian/ ?
Hmmm. I'd been hesitant to say it that way, but on reflection, I think
it's actually *more* accurate - since debpool will handle
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-10
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libdaemon
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Lennart Poettering
* URL : http://www.stud.uni-hamburg.de/~lennart/projects/libdaemon/
* License : GPL
Description : leigh
In the hopes that it will be illuminating, I have attached a copy of the
README.Why file from my working copy of debpool.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why have yet another Debian package repository tool?
* Most or all of the other tools require extensive non-core support.
While many users
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:48:16 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#199518: fixed in libcommons-lang-java 1.0.1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:38:11 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194748: fixed in tcd 2.0.1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your res
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:39:39 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#196687: fixed in pop3vscan 0.4-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 14:55, Joel Baker wrote:
> DebPool is a pool-based DEB
s/DEB/Debian/ ?
> package archiver designed with a goal of
> removing any dependancy on code not shipped as part of the core Debian
> system.
By "core" here do you mean priority >= standard?
> It is capable of all of
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:34:35 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#193612: fixed in fbpanel 1.0-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:28:59 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#178957: fixed in vim-latexsuite 0.20030605-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:24:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#180337: fixed in libextractor 0.2.3-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is n
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:30:59 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#184605: fixed in eagle-adsl 1.0.4-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:37:38 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#198104: fixed in positron 1:1.0-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now y
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:35:31PM +0200, Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-10
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: ladcca
> > Version : 0.3.1
> > Upstream Author
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:35:31PM +0200, Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-10
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: ladcca
> Version : 0.3.1
> Upstream Author : Bob Ham
> * URL : http://www.some.org/
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-10
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ladcca
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : Bob Ham
* URL : http://www.some.org/
* License : GPL2
Description : linux audio developers configuration and connection AP
The status is effectively on hold. FCPTools is not yet stable enough, and
still needs much more work before I can with confidence advertise it as a
debian package.
On Sunday 06 July 2003 07:25 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what's the status of uploading fcptools?
--
Jay Oliveri
tags 126386 -moreinfo
thanks
I am still working on arkanae. I was mostly inactive last year, which
explains why nothing was done.
The preparation of arkanae depends GL4Java which is the big issue...
It depends on libpng-sixlegs-java (now available in sarge) and javacc
(it is ready).
Now, I enc
Hello.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> >I would like someone to take over libxalan-java. I do not really
> >have the time it deserves.
>
> Shouldn't this package be removed and all other packeages use
> libxalan2-java instead? It's not ma
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 200458 ITA: libbsf-java
Bug#200458: RFA: libbsf-java
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Hello
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-09
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: debpool
> * Version: 0.1.0
> Upstream Author: Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL: N/A
> License: BSD
> Description: pool
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
I would like someone to take over libxalan-java. I do not really
have the time it deserves.
Shouldn't this package be removed and all other packeages use
libxalan2-java instead? It's not maintained upstream any longer.
Regards
Stefan Gybas
retitle 200458 ITA: libbsf-java
thanks
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
I would like someone to take over libbsf-java. I do not really
have the time for it.
I'll add it to the Java packing project at
http://pkg-java.alioth.debian.org/ and will upload a new version with
all open bugs fixed in a couple o
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 200513 wnpp
Bug#200513: Request for package - OTS (open text summarizer)
Warning: Unknown package 'ots'
Bug reassigned from package `ots' to `wnpp'.
> retitle 200513 RFP: libots -- open text summarizer
Bug#200513: Request for package - OTS (op
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Magnus Ekdahl wrote:
retitle 130483 RFP: asmutils -- set of very small UNIX-like utilities
written in i386 assembly language
thanks
Andreas Barth wrote:
tags 130483 +moreinfo
Hi,
are you still packaging asmutils -- set of ve
27 matches
Mail list logo
