On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 07:18:26PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> Yes, packaging xmlroff in its current state would allow
> more people to try xmlroff and (maybe) attract developers.
> It should go into experimental, IMHO.
Forget my last sentence. xmlroff 0.5 is fit for unstable. The
new version compi
Quoting Oliver Kiddle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 0.5 is a
> significant reorganisation so will affect the Debian packaging so
> packaging 0.4 probably doesn't make sense.
Agreed.
> What you say about xmlroff's current state is true. At the moment,
> packaging it is likely to help xmlroff more than De
--- "W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:31PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > What is the current state of the ITP of xmlroff, Oliver? What is
As far as I was concerned, I had handed it to Wolfgang.
> There was a long time of no visible activity upstream, but
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:51:31PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> What is the current state of the ITP of xmlroff, Oliver? What is the
> current state of your intention to package it as part of the XML/SGML
> group, Wolfgang?
There was a long time of no visible activity upstream, but there
seems t
Hi,
What is the current state of the ITP of xmlroff, Oliver? What is the
current state of your intention to package it as part of the XML/SGML
group, Wolfgang?
Regards, Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 03:07:14PM +, David Pashley wrote:
> * Package name: xmlroff
> Version : 0.2.0
> Upstream Author : Tony Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://xmlroff.sourceforge.net/history.html
> * License : BSD
You are going to have fun with
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-02-25
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: xmlroff
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Tony Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://xmlroff.sourceforge.net/history.html
* Lic
7 matches
Mail list logo
