<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>David, </div><div><br></div><div>Assetic is not a mandatory dependency. </div><div>Please note if you want to enable it a configuration option has to set to true: asset-management.enabled</div><div><br></div><div>In addition a folder called assets has to be created in the owncloud web root. </div><div><br></div><div>Hope this helps. </div><div><br></div><div>Tom</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:9px;color:#575757">Von Samsung Mobile gesendet</div></div><br><br>-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------<br>Von: David Prévot <david@tilapin.org> <br>Datum:05.05.2014 04:25 (GMT+01:00) <br>An: pkg-owncloud-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org <br>Betreff: Re: [Pkg-owncloud-maintainers] ownCloud 7 prerelease in
experimental? <br><br>Hi Diederik,<br><br>I was about to push owncloud 7 to experimental when I realized Assetic is<br>still in NEW [1]. Ive thus uploaded the packages to people [2,3] in the<br>mean time.<br><br> 1: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/assetic_1.1.2-1.html<br> 2:<br>http://people.debian.org/~taffit/owncloud/owncloud_7~20140503+dfsg-1_all.deb<br> 3: http://people.debian.org/~taffit/owncloud/php-assetic_1.1.2-1_all.deb<br><br>I may either push owncloud 7 to experimental with the missing dependency<br>(provided via people [3]), or use the embedded copy until assetic gets out<br>of NEW, as you prefer.<br><br>> How about either not pushing betas anymore or (my preference) uploading it<br>> to unstable (priority=low)? You/we could opt to file a RC bug at the same<br>> time to prevent it from entering testing, which we could close one the<br>> RC/Beta stage is over and the normal/official release has taken place.<br><br>Good idea for the RC bug: Ive not yet understood how the sticky priority<br>works (so I may mess it up again as I did for the first owncloud 6<br>package)
<br><br>> I hope you won't feel alone now :-P<br><br>Thanks ;).<br><br>> PS: KMail reported your msg as having an invalid signature, which I've<br>> seen before (once iirc). Dunno if it's important, but wanted to let you<br>> know anyway.<br><br>It was good on my side (the copy I received from the list), maybe its<br>something not properly handled with UTF-8 and inline signature, I may set<br>my MUA to use PGP/Mime as default if that becomes annoying.<br><br>Regards<br><br>David<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Pkg-owncloud-maintainers mailing list<br>Pkg-owncloud-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org<br>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-owncloud-maintainers<br></body>