James Ausmus wrote:
> I might be interested in taking maintainership of this, unless another
> similar function CLI script exists?
Then maybe you want mp32ogg as well? :)
(This is late because I was traveling and dev-zero is/was on devaway.)
This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe eve
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> (This is late because I was traveling and dev-zero is/was on devaway.)
>
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I think we agreed that we would send comments about the agenda before
> the meeting. The agenda presented seems fine to me. I don't see a need
> for doing any major votes in the last meeting.
ACKing the agenda, too.
I didn't started to get the "deployment part" of the eapi-d
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Attached is the preliminary meeting agenda.
Agenda is fine with me.
> Define EAPI development/deployment cycles
> -
> Last meeting several members expressed support for Ciaran McCreesh's
> sugge
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:13:31 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> | (so that certain people can't vote and discuss things based upon
> | what they think the feature is without bothering to find out if it's
> | anything to do with what they assume).
>
> Of course that's not desirable. But can you give a
Hi all,
I would like to introduce a new USE_EXPAND variable for the about 80
different SANE backends to make it a bit easier than looking into the
source if you want to find possible backends and a bit harder to pick
invalid backend names. Any objections or questions?
Thanks for your feedback,
P
On E, 2009-06-22 at 21:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:13:31 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > | (so that certain people can't vote and discuss things based upon
> > | what they think the feature is without bothering to find out if it's
> > | anything to do with what they
