Please backport codeblocks

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:02AM -0400, Francois-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: "Francois-Denis Gonthier" <email address hidden>
>
>
> * Package name : codeblocks
> Version : x.y.z

No version?

> Upstream Author : Name <email address hidden>

No upstream author?

> * URL : http://www.example.org/

No homepage?

> * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)

No license?

> Description : Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built.
>
> Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built specifically to meet the most
> demanding needs of its users. It has been designed, right from the
> start, to be extensible and configurable... Code::Blocks is built around
> a plugin framework that allows it to be extended through the use of
> external libraries (plugins). Actually, much of Code::Blocks
> functionality already available, is provided by plugins. Code::Blocks
> even includes a plugin creation wizard to help you create your own
> plugins easily!

Another C/C++ IDE? There is not much new in being able to support
plugins. What is different with code::blocks?

Michael
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

On April 14, 2005 12:39 am, Michael Koch wrote:

Aww. I screwed up again. I must have been too tired and/or enthusiastic when
I submitted this.

> > * Package name : codeblocks
> > Version : x.y.z

Version: 1.0-beta6

> No version?
>
> > Upstream Author : Name <email address hidden>

Yiannis Mandravellos (<email address hidden>)

> No upstream author?
>
> > * URL : http://www.example.org/
>
> No homepage?

http://www.codeblocks.net & http://www.sf.net/projects/codeblocks

>
> > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)

> No license?

GPL

>
> > Description : Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built.
> >

This is the official description copied from the site:

> > Code::Blocks is a free C/C++ IDE built specifically to meet the most
> > demanding needs of its users. It has been designed, right from the
> > start, to be extensible and configurable... Code::Blocks is built around
> > a plugin framework that allows it to be extended through the use of
> > external libraries (plugins). Actually, much of Code::Blocks
> > functionality already available, is provided by plugins. Code::Blocks
> > even includes a plugin creation wizard to help you create your own
> > plugins easily!

> Another C/C++ IDE? There is not much new in being able to support
> plugins. What is different with code::blocks?

The first thing that made me find Code::Blocks was my search for a light C/C++
IDE supporting code completion out of the box. KDevelop & Anjuta both do
that but not as good as Eclipse for example. Code::Blocks does it fine
already.

Code::Blocks is now packaged. The package is at

http://www.lostwebsite.net/debian/

(maybe not fully correct yet but it's a matter of details)

but is not ready for mainstream usage. The upstream package is still too
unstable.

I will keep on releasing debian packages for new versions of Code::Blocks as
they are release.

Hi there,

The other day I was looking for a cross platform C++ IDE that's a bit
lighter and better integrated than Eclipse + CDT. The description and
screenshots of Codeblocks on their website looked quite good, and I'm a
fan of wxWidgets to begin with. After that I saw your ITP on the WNPP
list and went to your website to look at the packages you created.
Unfortunately, the link you gave is dead now, and it doesn't look like
you've updated the ITP in the last 9 months or so.

Do you still intend to package codeblocks?

Do you have any packages built from the -rc2 release?

Thanks

John

On Friday 27 January 2006 11:31, you wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> The other day I was looking for a cross platform C++ IDE that's a bit
> lighter and better integrated than Eclipse + CDT. The description and
> screenshots of Codeblocks on their website looked quite good, and I'm a
> fan of wxWidgets to begin with. After that I saw your ITP on the WNPP
> list and went to your website to look at the packages you created.
> Unfortunately, the link you gave is dead now, and it doesn't look like
> you've updated the ITP in the last 9 months or so.
>
> Do you still intend to package codeblocks?
>
> Do you have any packages built from the -rc2 release?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> John

Yes I do, see http://neutronic.mine.nu/unstable.

The package is not of Debian-quality right now. Somebody was supposed to take
over them but it seems like the guy is not in a hurry. I'll ping him and
finish those packages if he doesn't give a satisfying answer.

submitter 304570 <email address hidden>
thanks

owner 304570 <email address hidden>
thanks

Hello,

http://neutronic.mine.nu/unstable likely does not contain any debian
packages atm.

Do you still intend to package codeblocks?

--
Regards,
Andrew Pogrebennyk

Andrew Pogrebennyk schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> http://neutronic.mine.nu/unstable likely does not contain any debian
> packages atm.
>
> Do you still intend to package codeblocks?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Andrew Pogrebennyk
>

Hello,
sorry, atm i've no time to package codeblocks.
(Job, Family...)
Can anyone else do this?

Regards,
Matthias Gutmann

Code::blocks is a great application. And it is indeed different to Eclipse.
Please release it in the debian repository.
I think that now, after 660 days, the current version is stable enough.

the web page is: http://codeblocks.org
License: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL)

Current stable version: 1.0-RC2

If you still think that the version is unstable, at least realease it in the
unstable branch. Please.

I (and I think many poeple too) need a solution for this issue.

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

I am using Code::Blocks for a while and I usually make the debian packages for
myself. I think the software is very good and I would like to upload the
packages so other debian users can be benefitted as well.

It is a wonderful IDE:
 * Made entirelly on wxWidgets
 * Plug-ins achitecture directed
 * wxWidgets driven
 * Multi-platform
 * Small size
 * Compiler frontend to many free compilers
 * Debugger frontend for GDB (and CDB for windows platforms)
 * Source formatter (based on AStyle)
 * Code profiler (based on gprof)
 * Wizard to create new classes
 * Code-completion / class-browser (work in progress)
 * Code statistics (SLOCs etc)
 * Source exporter to PDF/HTML/ODT/RTF
 * Help
 * Keyboard shortcuts configuration
 * Wizard to create new Code::Blocks plugins
 * To-do list
 * GUI RAD builder (wxSmith)

Respectfully,
 Erick Mattos.

owner 304570 !

Hi,

Is anyone working on the Debian package now? Erick, have you made any
progress regarding it?

Just my two cents why Code::Blocks is better than others.

Code::Blocks is extremely interesting since it provides multiplatform
compatibility -- project files support specification of target as being
for GNU/Linux, MacOS or Windows. Code::Blocks runs on those platforms, and
the transition of project folder between platform and compiling is
extremely easy.

It's a lot more lightweight than KDevelop. It isn't limited to Windows
like Dev-Cpp. It has less bugs than Dev-Cpp. In fact, it's the best IDE I
have seen feature/size/speed-wise.

------------
Ivan Vucica

Hi Eric,

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:08:49PM -0300, Erick Mattos wrote:
> I am using Code::Blocks for a while and I usually make the debian packages for
> myself. I think the software is very good and I would like to upload the
> packages so other debian users can be benefitted as well.

Could you please upload your packages somewhere and give other Debian
users the opportunity to benefit from them? I am very eager to checkout
Code::Blocks...

Regards
  Micha

Hi,
is there any news on this package? I'd like to takeover the ITP, if there are
no objections.

Kindly,
David

--
 . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello David,
no problem for me. if you want it, just do it. ;-)

Matthias

David Paleino schrieb:
> Hi,
> is there any news on this package? I'd like to takeover the ITP, if there are
> no objections.
>
> Kindly,
> David
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBR7hoBEybrE/6+P3kAQKingf/XNlajqDcTGDX0J5bDelpNhhuoASYuuxa
UP5+1NzA0RGJs/9bbFsgOKMsoPQNhFMz1mCPjBZMJBX3R9YbgcAbsLL1g8K78hCX
+THwhrNY+U/1zn8B7hVy4b9h4n9dLUoza8wOYZPBgVNVuOUpa7wZiTcw642H9HSN
c4p8DWTUkEpZa6+B0/yESlfELb+Y/jjFMTDkBVTSQh8ku5D1eYThWcmId3w+Bz90
kRB7cAB80vmdG+wjjc5qR++nfB1o4UR2hzjpGKi2x7IGyNd1ErEy3vPWbbIrPWVP
+gpvcfDXRhR1CNAxItOqrJej6WbToTnmsjjDeVkRpcyO0Cgp8Vv1IQ==
=KJdK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello David,

I am the owner of the ITP and I had been trying to add Code::Blocks to
Debian repositories.
I had created the packages more than once but always having to change
something to fulfill mentor's demands. When everything was looking like it
would be finally solved then Code::Blocks team started to use the new
updated version of wxWidgets 2.8 which is not in the repositories. I had
tried to ask the maintainer of the previous versions for a new version but
he told me he wasn't in accordance that the new version was really stable
and that he was not intending to add it to the repositories and that he
thought it was better to wait for a version 3.0 of wxWidgets which was
planned to be released on last January.
After talking to a debian developer friend of mine for councils he argued to
me that it is not a good policy to build the uptodate version of wxWidgets
passing over the previous maintainer opinions and that he thought it would
be a good idea to wait for him to update wxWidgets before packaging
Code::Blocks again.
Afterwards I realized that:

   - the point-of-view of wxWidgets maintainer should be respected;
   - Code::Blocks is not really a stable software for now although I am
   using it anyway;
   - I do not intend to fork their work to make Code::Blocks compatible
   to the previous version wxWidgets 2.6;
   - I had been talking to the Code::Blocks creator and he thinks it will
   be better to package it after the release of 1.0 stable version.

Then I was forced to wait for this situation to be cleared up into any
direction before continuing the work and to accept that Debian distro really
gets stuck some times if some dependecies could not be satisfied by
community or even by one's point-of-view.
I have uploaded a lot of packages to debian mentors and the
first-before-last package is still available there so if you want you can
see it by yourself.
If you would like, I can forward all my communications to all of the people
involved.

Best regards,
Erick Mattos.

2008/2/17, David Paleino <email address hidden>:
>
> Hi,
> is there any news on this package? I'd like to takeover the ITP, if there
> are
> no objections.
>
> Kindly,
> David
>
> --
> . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
> : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
> `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
> `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
>
>

Il giorno Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:30:28 -0300
"Erick Mattos" <email address hidden> ha scritto:

> Hello David,

Hi Erick,

> I am the owner of the ITP and I had been trying to add Code::Blocks to
> Debian repositories.
> I had created the packages more than once but always having to change
> something to fulfill mentor's demands. When everything was looking like it
> would be finally solved then Code::Blocks team started to use the new
> updated version of wxWidgets 2.8 which is not in the repositories.

I just realized that after sending my reply to that ITP :(

> I had tried to ask the maintainer of the previous versions for a new version
> but he told me he wasn't in accordance that the new version was really stable
> and that he was not intending to add it to the repositories and that he
> thought it was better to wait for a version 3.0 of wxWidgets which was
> planned to be released on last January.

Can't we propose him to upload it to experimental? That wouldn't hurt unstable
(thus also testing -- and stable) users, but we could still have Code::Blocks
inside Debian repositories.

> After talking to a debian developer friend of mine for councils he argued to
> me that it is not a good policy to build the uptodate version of wxWidgets
> passing over the previous maintainer opinions and that he thought it would be
> a good idea to wait for him to update wxWidgets before packaging Code::Blocks
> again. Afterwards I realized that:
>
> - the point-of-view of wxWidgets maintainer should be respected;
> - Code::Blocks is not really a stable software for now although I am
> using it anyway;
> - I do not intend to fork their work to make Code::Blocks compatible
> to the previous version wxWidgets 2.6;
> - I had been talking to the Code::Blocks creator and he thinks it will
> be better to package it after the release of 1.0 stable version.

Fully agree w.r.t. respecting upstream's decisions (ando also other
maintainers')

> Then I was forced to wait for this situation to be cleared up into any
> direction before continuing the work and to accept that Debian distro really
> gets stuck some times if some dependecies could not be satisfied by
> community or even by one's point-of-view.

Again, why don't you propose it for experimental?

> I have uploaded a lot of packages to debian mentors and the
> first-before-last package is still available there so if you want you can
> see it by yourself.

I'm currently using packages provided by the Code::Blocks team itself, plus the
wxWidgets from wxwidgets.org:

deb http://jens.lody.name/debian/ any main
deb-src http://jens.lody.name/debian/ any main
deb http://apt.wxwidgets.org/ etch-wx main

> If you would like, I can forward all my communications to all of the people
> involved.

Sure: I've changed "netzmeister" to Matthias Gutmann <email address hidden>
(which is the real name / address).
Before your reply we were planning on team-maintaining Code::Blocks -- if it
was the case. What do you think about this? (again: I'm talking about an
experimental package -- not unstable as its dependencies wouldn't be satisfied
in Debian at the moment)

Kindly,
David

--
 . ''`. Debian maint...

Hi David,

2008/2/17, David Paleino <email address hidden>:
>
>
> Can't we propose him to upload it to experimental? That wouldn't hurt
> unstable
> (thus also testing -- and stable) users, but we could still have
> Code::Blocks
> inside Debian repositories.

As he told me, he doesn't believe on 2.8 version but he believes in
the 3.0version in the near future.
I think he wouldn't be interested about having a lot of work on a version he
doesn't see as stable enough just to let it go to experimental which is a
version only used or even known by people who are really testing softwares.

Fully agree w.r.t. respecting upstream's decisions (ando also other
> maintainers')

So do I, for two reasons:

   - He knows better than me the real situation of the softwares he have
   been involved for so much time.
   - I really want to help Debian because I am very grateful to this
   distro. It worths nothing to start fighting other members which are helping
   Debian for more time than me.

Again, why don't you propose it for experimental?

I really don't think it is a good idea as I told you before. I am conformed
to wait though it is not my point-of-view.

I'm currently using packages provided by the Code::Blocks team itself, plus
> the
> wxWidgets from wxwidgets.org:
> deb http://jens.lody.name/debian/ any main
> deb-src http://jens.lody.name/debian/ any main
> deb http://apt.wxwidgets.org/ etch-wx main

My packages were based upon their job but the developers made those only to
let Debian users to have a package.
To create a package is completely different of that package be in
conformance to all Debian standards and able to go to the repositories.
That's why so much work.

Before your reply we were planning on team-maintaining Code::Blocks -- if it
> was the case. What do you think about this? (again: I'm talking about an
> experimental package -- not unstable as its dependencies wouldn't be
> satisfied
> in Debian at the moment)
>
Maintaining a package in the repositories is not a hard job. There is
always someone looking forward to be a maintainer. It is not something that
one doesn't need too much help except by some rare cases.
So the only reasons for me not uploading it into the repositories are the
problems already related.
Anyway I really appreciate you are in a hurry to have Code::Blocks on the
repositories too. I have been using it and I am very fan of the project. I
really believe it will be very good to Debian and to Code::Blocks itself.
If you still will be so helpful at the moment of some change of the actual
blocks then write to me again so we can always help each other and the whole
community.
I think future communications from now on should be made without cc to
mentors and to the ITP bug hence we don't fill Debian systems with things we
can not be helped anyway.

Best regards,
     Erick Mattos.

Hi

As wxwidgets2.8 were uploaded to unstable today I guess Code::Blocks can
now be packaged again.

It seems you already have plenty of people wanting to help you package I
don't know if another one helping would be usefull but if so I would
really like helping you.

Regards

  Christoph

--
GPG-Key ID: 0x0372275D

/"\ ASCII Ribbon
\ / Campaign
 X against HTML
/ \ in eMails

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've packaged code::blocks for Ubuntu, passing lintian tests, and I'm
willing to submit and handle package maintenance for Debian if someone
is willing to sponsor me. I'm currently working with upstream to
resolve two minor issues with C::B (one with icons not showing up, and
a second with a path that required a rather nasty hack to be changed
to place plugins outside of /usr/share).

If any DD who is interested in Code::Blocks for Debian, I'm willing to
work with them to get my pre-existing package into the archive.
Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iD8DBQFIgfGppblTBJ2i2psRAp0zAJ9My3dX4XJiIGjGsdVADk6niVLY+wCfZLly
f/78+ikgBtY3ZwcMdwuu5iI=
=4q7C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Michael, have you posted an RFS at debian-mentors@l.d.o?

--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.

No, I haven't. With Lenny in freeze, I haven't seen the point in submitting
an RFS.
Michael

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
<email address hidden>wrote:

> Michael, have you posted an RFS at debian-mentors@l.d.o?
>
> --
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Woo, I had almost given up trying to find a sponsor for this package,
most people took off screaming :-).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjBm80ACgkQpblTBJ2i2pufMgCbBretKAaIRDzB3S3h6/syJJL2
6f8An3S2klIL/QWGbFwVygH+ZFMEFt7L
=j+IH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:57 PM, George Danchev <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> I found your package on mentors archive, and I'm generally interested in
> uploading codeblocks to Debian archive, since I intend to use it. In fact we
> have already gave it a try and found it much lightweight and intuitive as
> compared to eclipse + CDT for instance and AFAICS reading that buglog there
> are quite some people interested in codeblocks package who are now using
> their own local ones. Packaging looks fine to, but some comments though:
>
> * I found some pieces of code which seem to be external projects (tinyxml,
> wxscintilla, both hosted at sf.net); a simple grep for `author' or `file by'
> would reveals these details. Also licensecheck (devscripts) would be helpful.
> So, these licences and copyrights should also be listed in debian/copyright
> file, which presumably is in machine interpretable format. However, having so
> much code duplication doesn't help security, so we would be better off
> approaching upstream and find ways to use these packages (not packaged yet)
> separately, and not carry them with codeblocks source tree. These could be
> sort of tedious and time consuming dealing with upstream.
>
Probably a good idea, but it requires a lot of coordination with
upstream, which I'm not sure they're willing to do. The copyright file
however I agree can be updated.

> * I haven't looked at their trunk lately, but is there any progress on sorting
> out that `global plugins path' hack you have applied to the package ?
>
No response on multiple threads and posts (not just me) to fix this
bug. I get the feeling its not going to get fixed anytime soon.

> * I also think that such a tremendous package as a codebase should be
> maintained by a team, ubuntu guys are also welcome of course. Any
> suggestions ?
>
The package is maintained by the MOTU team in Ubuntu (I did the
initial packaging work, and a peek at the changelog shows that its
already an accepted Ubuntu package), but I have no objections to
making it a team package; My only condition is I allow day-zero NMUs
on my packages, and any co-maintainer must allow that on packages I
co-maintain with. Other then that, no issues with any NM or DD who
wishs to work on it.
Michael

> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> --
> pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
>

Hello Michael,

I found your package on mentors archive, and I'm generally interested in
uploading codeblocks to Debian archive, since I intend to use it. In fact we
have already gave it a try and found it much lightweight and intuitive as
compared to eclipse + CDT for instance and AFAICS reading that buglog there
are quite some people interested in codeblocks package who are now using
their own local ones. Packaging looks fine to, but some comments though:

* I found some pieces of code which seem to be external projects (tinyxml,
wxscintilla, both hosted at sf.net); a simple grep for `author' or `file by'
would reveals these details. Also licensecheck (devscripts) would be helpful.
So, these licences and copyrights should also be listed in debian/copyright
file, which presumably is in machine interpretable format. However, having so
much code duplication doesn't help security, so we would be better off
approaching upstream and find ways to use these packages (not packaged yet)
separately, and not carry them with codeblocks source tree. These could be
sort of tedious and time consuming dealing with upstream.

* I haven't looked at their trunk lately, but is there any progress on sorting
out that `global plugins path' hack you have applied to the package ?

* I also think that such a tremendous package as a codebase should be
maintained by a team, ubuntu guys are also welcome of course. Any
suggestions ?

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

# Wed Oct 29 07:03:09 UTC 2008
# Tagging as pending bugs that are closed by packages in NEW
# http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
#
# Source package in NEW: ppl
tags 501926 + pending
# Source package in NEW: libhttp-response-encoding-perl
tags 503848 + pending
# Source package in NEW: qmhandle
tags 458976 + pending
# Source package in NEW: codeblocks
tags 304570 + pending
# Source package in NEW: amtterm
tags 448208 + pending

package wnpp
# REJECTED:
tags 503879 - pending
tags 500755 - pending
tags 450602 - pending
tags 500194 - pending
tags 501727 - pending
tags 305676 - pending
tags 489369 - pending
tags 494043 - pending
tags 467038 - pending
tags 501137 - pending
tags 304570 - pending
tags 480478 - pending
tags 416269 - pending
tags 491025 - pending
tags 496264 - pending
tags 471356 - pending
tags 442275 - pending
# in NEW but don't match package name specified in WNPP bug:
retitle 506841 ITP: rtpg -- web based front end for rTorrent
retitle 489768 ITP: ng-spice-rework -- A Spice circuit simulator
retitle 499186 ITP: libapache2-mod-authn-sasl -- SASL authentication backend provider for Apache
retitle 488753 ITP: passenger -- Rails and Rack module for Apache2
retitle 500697 ITP: mootools-core -- a compact javascript framework
retitle 496264 ITP: cuneiform -- A high quality OCR system
retitle 501190 ITP: moon -- open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight
retitle 494729 ITP: deal.ii -- Finite element library
# old ITAs tagged as pending:
tags 483773 - pending
tags 416278 - pending
tags 421536 - pending
tags 465881 - pending
tags 453677 - pending
# ITPs tagged as pending but not in NEW:
tags 502615 - pending
tags 443212 - pending
tags 497613 - pending
tags 498167 - pending
# bug is O/RFP/RFA but is tagged as pending
tags 352440 - pending
# ITP uploaded, bug not closed
close 405431
thanks

Hi,

This bug has a very long history :-)

The entries of 2008-10-29 and 2008-12-07 suggest that the package was
uploaded then rejected. What is the problem? How can I help get
CodeBlocks into Debian?

Thanks,
-Steve

On Sunday 08 March 2009 23:06:36 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> This bug has a very long history :-)
>
> The entries of 2008-10-29 and 2008-12-07 suggest that the package was
> uploaded then rejected. What is the problem? How can I help get
> CodeBlocks into Debian?

I left some traces on that bug, but I didn't uploaded the package, thus I have
no clue what the reasoning behind that rejection was, though I'd like to know
too.

--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>

I'm the person who submitted this package to Ubuntu, and to Debian.
There was some issues with the copyright file which caused the Debian
REJECT (it's currently in Ubuntu's universe repo). It's been on my
TODO list to fix the copyright and reupload.
Michael

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, George Danchev <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Sunday 08 March 2009 23:06:36 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>> This bug has a very long history :-)
>>
>> The entries of 2008-10-29 and 2008-12-07 suggest that the package was
>> uploaded then rejected.  What is the problem?  How can I help get
>> CodeBlocks into Debian?
>
> I left some traces on that bug, but I didn't uploaded the package, thus I have
> no clue what the reasoning behind that rejection was, though I'd like to know
> too.
>
> --
> pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
>