On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 21:17, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Hello,
>
> That was me who propose you to take care of the package... I am not a DD
> and cannot say i can upload the package ( i need a sponsor ).
>
> I will inject it in svn of ocaml-maint and correct the bugs i can next
> monday. The new u
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:02:15PM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 15:17, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > I think that a user who has unison-stable on debian n+1 and who wants it
> > to work with a debian n machine will install the package with the same
> > name...
> >
> > Nicola
Hi,
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:02:15PM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 15:17, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > I think that a user who has unison-stable on debian n+1 and who wants it
> > to work with a debian n machine will install the package with the same
> > name...
> >
> > N
Hi,
Sven Luther writes:
> > even though I was the person who issued the first ITA, I gave up
> > that intention entirely when the ocaml-maint team expressed the
> > wish to adopt the package.
> Well, just go ahead, adopt the package,
As I said, I gave up that intention entirely.
Regards, Jens.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:14:55PM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Robert McQueen writes:
>
> > you've still not uploaded a new package
>
> Whom exactly are you (Robert) talking to? JFTR, even though I was the
> person who issued the first ITA, I gave up that intention entirely
> when t
Hi,
Robert McQueen writes:
> you've still not uploaded a new package
Whom exactly are you (Robert) talking to? JFTR, even though I was the
person who issued the first ITA, I gave up that intention entirely
when the ocaml-maint team expressed the wish to adopt the package.
Have you (the ocaml ma
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 15:17, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> I think that a user who has unison-stable on debian n+1 and who wants it
> to work with a debian n machine will install the package with the same
> name...
>
> Nicolas
This all sounds very hopeful... However, you've still not uploaded a new
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 16:40, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> I didn't know this, and it sounds completely and utterly sick. Is
> there a chance of getting a more reasonable approach (such as taking
> care of backwards compatibility) out of upstream?
>
> Regards, Jens.
I don't know, or really care that
Hello,
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:10:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> > direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need
> > three source packages:
> > * unison, which builds two transition binary packa
Hi,
Robert McQueen writes:
> The problem with unison is that as far as I am aware, each version
> is protocol incompatible with all other versions
I didn't know this, and it sounds completely and utterly sick. Is
there a chance of getting a more reasonable approach (such as taking
care of backw
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 08:10, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I suggest not to use version number neither in source package names nor
> in binary package ones. It would delay archive entering due to the need
> of manual processing and this would happen each time we will need to
> upload a new unison ver
Hi,
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:06:18PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > That means that unison-stable from debian n+1 would be compatible with
> > unison-devel from debian n? That sounds quite odd...
>
> What does sound odd exactly? If it's just the name ... who cares? If
> you're instead wo
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:30:10PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > upload a new unison version. Why don't simply use some symbolic names?
> > "unison" is fine for the transition package, for the other two dunno,
> > maybe unison-devel or unison-latest and unison-stable.
> That means that unison-s
Hi,
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:10:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> > direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need
> > three source packages:
> > * unison, which builds two transition binary packages
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need
> three source packages:
> * unison, which builds two transition binary packages "unison", which
> * unison-2.9.1, which builds two binary packages "unison-2.9.1
Hi,
Robert McQueen writes:
> Sylvain Le Gall from the pkg-ocaml-maint team on Alioth asked me on
> ICQ if the team could take over the package.
Fine with me.
Regards, Jens.
--
J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe!
Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 09:10, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Dear Rob,
>
> I've been a user of unison for quite some time, and therefore more
> than happy to answer your request for adoption of the package. I'm
> not sure whether I fully understand your intentions for the gtk ->
> gtk2 transition, but t
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I've not been using unison very much so I'd quite like someone else to
look after it and do what I've had planned for a while. Upstream have
released no new stable versions, but the beta version (2.9.20) has Gtk2
support, so should be made available in sid and hopefu
18 matches
Mail list logo
