Hi Tim
After our discussion in September re packaging Hudson I ran a session at
the Ubuntu Developer Summit (see [0]) at the end of October to discuss
packaging of Hudson for Ubuntu. The session generated a-lot of interest
from development teams both within and outside of Ubuntu. Its already
bein
On 10 November 2010 16:24, James Page wrote:
> I want to make sure that the work that we are doing in Ubuntu can be fed
> back into Debian; It would be good if we could collaborate appropriately
> to ensure that this happens.
Thanks; I would welcome this collaboration. As you know, the main
poin
On 22 September 2010 09:03, James Page wrote:
> If the build from source objective is not achievable, what are the
> options for Debian in terms of binary packaging?
Well, for binary packages, there's the "non-free" archive, which isn't
really considered part of Debian. DFSG #2 requires source c
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 22:20 +0100, Tim Retout wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 13:00, James Page wrote:
> > Has there been any further progress on working towards packaging Hudson
> > for Debian?
>
> Hi James,
Hi Tim
>
> I last looked at hudson at DebConf, and got hung up on some licensing
> issu
On 10 September 2010 13:00, James Page wrote:
> Has there been any further progress on working towards packaging Hudson
> for Debian?
Hi James,
I last looked at hudson at DebConf, and got hung up on some licensing
issues for the build dependencies.
I'd welcome any help/ideas you can offer - I'm
Hi Tim
Has there been any further progress on working towards packaging Hudson
for Debian?
I've been looking into this as part of my work with the Ubuntu Server
Team and have some thoughts on packaging approach which I would like to
discuss/contribute.
I've also reviewed the dependency list ag
6 matches
Mail list logo
