Package: google-mock
Version: 1.5.0-2
Severity: serious
Tags: unstable
google-mock version 1.5 is incompatible with libgtest-dev version 1.6
(currently in Debian): attempting to compile the attached program (which
does nothing but include mock.h) results in screenfuls of errors along
the lines
The immediate problem should be fixed with
4a021fb5d4963d4e0756fcc182223b05939062d6.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I can cut a security release before
the weekend (it'll take some time and I'm still decobwebbing my dev
box). Anyone who wants to cut a security NMU that cherry-picks the
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 04:53:54PM -0800, Kees Cook k...@debian.org was heard
to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.3-3.2ubuntu1
Severity: grave
Tags: security
Justification: user security hole
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu natty
This bug report was also
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 05:06:54PM +0930, Ron r...@debian.org was heard to
say:
Serious as per policy 2.5
Guess we'd better increase the priority of iostreams, then.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
I looked into this a bit today and I don't see how it can be happening.
The code in question is basically doing this, if you rip out some STL
and de-factor it:
int where = idx;
try
{
if(isspace(s[idx]))
++idx;
else
throw ParseException();
}
catch(ParseException )
I'm preparing an upload for this now.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 04:52:56PM +0200, Benjamin Cama ben...@free.fr was
heard to say:
Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 08:54 +0200, Sven Joachim a écrit :
- The submitter of #575137 uses btrfs which reportedly may cause severe
corruption of dpkg's database and other data:
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0200, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de was
heard to say:
On 2010-04-03 17:53 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 08:13 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit :
I can't find it anywhere on the Web. But since it's just a bin-NMU
of the lenny
So, I haven't had time to do actual work on this bug yet, but I've
mulled it over a bit. Here's what I think we know for sure:
1) On some people's systems, /usr/bin/aptitude isn't being restored
after the upgrade.
2) On other people's systems, it is.
3) I don't know why.
4) Even
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 07:33:53PM +0100, Benjamin Cama ben...@free.fr was
heard to say:
I just updated from aptitude 0.4.11.11-1+b2 to version 0.6.1.5-3 and
lost the 'aptitude' command. It is no more listed in 'dpkg -L aptitude'
too.
Have you ever had aptitude version 0.5+ installed on
Package: libapt-pkg-dev
Version: 0.7.25.2
Severity: serious
Since the latest apt upload, no source file that includes
apt-pkg/error.h will compile:
In file included from temp.cc:30:
/usr/include/apt-pkg/error.h:56:20: error: system.h: No such file or directory
In file included from temp.cc:30:
The attached patch should fix this problem. In addition to installing
system.h in apt-pkg, it's necessary to update all the #includes to refer
to it as apt-pkg/system.h instead of just system.h.
Daniel
diff -Nru --exclude configure --exclude changelog --exclude '*.pot' --exclude '*.po'
I have an upload prepared to fix these bugs, but I can't upload it
because the apt includes are broken (just filed a bug about it).
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44:08AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org (18/01/2010):
It looks like the build succeeded on all the release
architectures, so I think I might downgrade this so that aptitude
can get into testing
Weird thing is: I get the same failure, but it doesn't kill the build.
It should. So by my count that's two bugs here :-/.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Ah, I got fooled by some garbage printed by the cppunit test. The
actual problem is the double-free in the Boost tester. D'oh.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
OK, I can't see any sign of a double-free in either valgrind or
libefence, which are usually pretty good about catching this sort of
thing. Can you run something similar on FreeBSD and see what it says?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:32:36AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org was
heard to say:
Only keeping the #include line is sufficient, I can't reproduce this
issue double free issue.
Weird.
It looks like the build succeeded on all the release architectures, so
I think I might downgrade
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:56:01PM +, peter green plugw...@p10link.net
was heard to say:
The attatched patch resolves the FTBFS by taking the simple approach
of building with -fno-strict-aliasing .
That obviously avoids this, but I'd rather fix the bug directly
(besides, doesn't
I can't reproduce this with the latest cwidget and g++ versions
(0.5.16 and 4.4.2 respectively). Can anyone else?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 10:46:16PM +0200, George Danchev danc...@spnet.net
was heard to say:
Hi, the following patch fixes that crash on amd64.
--- src/gtk/gui.cc.orig 2009-12-05 22:43:21.0 +0200
+++ src/gtk/gui.cc 2009-12-05 22:43:40.0 +0200
@@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 01:36:19PM +0100, Petr Salinger
petr.salin...@seznam.cz was heard to say:
IMHO, yet better would be patch below, some library might use some
other signal internally, you really want to only block SIGWINCH.
Sounds good to me.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
This is a bug about apt-get (and, IMO, specifically its delayed
handling of autoremove -- it looks like the reporter got a lot of
cruft on his system without noticing until he ran autoremove).
It's true that aptitude won't let you remove a package without also
removing packages that depend on
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:58:02PM +0100, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
was heard to say:
reopen 557982
kthxbye
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:28:31 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
With any luck, this is fixed in 0.5.16-1 in unstable. I addressed the
problem by having the tests query
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:58:02PM +0100, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
was heard to say:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:28:31 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
With any luck, this is fixed in 0.5.16-1 in unstable. I addressed the
problem by having the tests query for the system limit
Since basically nothing changed between the last version and this
one, that's (more than) a little weird, particularly since this built
and passed its unit tests on every other architecture. In particular,
none of the code invoked by testBox has changed at all since 0.5.13.
Daniel
--
To
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 04:28:10PM +0100, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org
was heard to say:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 16:21:08 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
See e.g. bug#554218, which also corresponds to EAGAIN returned by
pthread_create.
So apparently hppa has trouble running thread stress
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:45:26AM -0800, Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org
was heard to say:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 04:28:10PM +0100, Julien Cristau
jcris...@debian.org was heard to say:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 16:21:08 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
See e.g. bug#554218, which also
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:54:32AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
ivan@gmail.com was heard to say:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:45:26 -0800
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org wrote:
update-alternatives runs in the postinst of aptitude 0.6.0.1-1.
That package doesn't provide /usr/bin
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:54:32AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
ivan@gmail.com was heard to say:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:45:26 -0800
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org wrote:
update-alternatives runs in the postinst of aptitude 0.6.0.1-1.
That package doesn't provide /usr/bin
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:28PM +0100, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de was
heard to say:
On 2009-11-18 12:25 +0100, Daniel Burrows wrote:
According to packages.debian.org, ia32-apt-get doesn't exist. I guess
this is some local package you built?
No, ia32-apt-get had been in unstable
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:05:37AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
ivan@gmail.com was heard to say:
0.4.11.11-1+b2 - 0.6.0.1-1
during install:
update-alternatives: using /usr/bin/aptitude-curses to
provide /usr/bin/aptitude (aptitude) in auto mode.
update-alternatives: warning: not
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 08:11:39PM +0530, Kartik Mistry kar...@debian.org was
heard to say:
As shown below. I tried to read README/README.Debian provided with package but
it doesn't provide help about gtk frondend startup etc
20:02:24-kar...@olive:~$ aptitude-gtk
GThread-ERROR **: GThread
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:36:02AM +0200, Felix Zielcke fziel...@z-51.de was
heard to say:
Am Donnerstag, den 22.10.2009, 20:06 -0700 schrieb Daniel Burrows:
Is your /dev/mapper/emurlahn-root a symlink to some /dev/dm-X device?
If so you need to run `update-initramfs -c -t -k all' and if you
Package: grub-pc
Version: 1.97~beta4-1
Severity: serious
The error I get is:
Setting up grub-pc (1.97~beta4-1) ...
grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for /.
My / is just a normal LVM partition on this machine.
Daniel
-- Package-specific info:
*** BEGIN
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:36:37PM +0100, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com was
heard to say:
1) An entry in /var/log/messages:
Oct 2 10:48:44 conquest3 kernel: cdrom[4987]: segfault at 200 ip b807b71d sp
bf
a34890 error 4 in ld-2.9.so[b8068000+1c000]
Oct 2 10:48:56 conquest3 kernel:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:50:31PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it
was heard to say:
In data mercoledì 9 settembre 2009 16:06:17, Daniel Burrows ha scritto:
:Have you seen this at all since you reported it?
No
OK. Well, I'm going to reassign this to apt, since it handles
Have you seen this at all since you reported it?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 06:58:24PM +0200, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de was
heard to say:
It is libapt that is segfaulting, and reportedly this happens also with
apt-get.
Thanks for all the triage, Sven. :-)
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:44:19PM +0400, Andrey cmr.p...@gmail.com was heard
to say:
I've just installed the latest experimental version of aptitude, and
it crashes when I'm trying to examine a conflict.
Backtrace is attached.
I'm ready to provide any additional info,
I believe this
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:49:36PM -0700, Bill Wohler woh...@newt.com was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org wrote:
I have no idea what's causing these symptoms. A backtrace from an
affected system (or maybe a state snapshot generated by
aptitude-create-state-bundle
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:51:06PM -0700, Bill Wohler woh...@newt.com was
heard to say:
Any ideas on how I got into this situation? The only unusual thing I did
was uninstall some packages that were recommended after selecting
blueman for installation in aptitude. This was mostly just
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:57:41PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer
christoph.anton.mitte...@physik.uni-muenchen.de was heard to say:
I'm running several intrusion detection systems, e.g. rkhunter
(which in turn uses unhide). For quite some time now, unhide gave me
false positives (I'm quite
I've had a discussion in private email with Henry about this bug.
It's not entirely clear what bit him, but it sounds like the problem is
something I've seen scattered reports of on emailing lists and on the
Web. Here it is: since aptitude removes unused packages by default and
apt-get does
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:26:33PM -0700, Henry hking...@gmail.com was heard
to say:
Aptitude is so similar to apt-get, newbies assume the syntax is the same.
Yet, the obvious choice, upgrade is not safe. It tries to remove all
kinds of needed packages.
Could you please post a transcript
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:20:17PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.org
was heard to say:
On 2009-02-26 07:25:43 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
But of course the dependencies of the new coq are already installed,
and apparently these don't supply what's needed for the old coq to run.
I
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.org
was heard to say:
On 2009-02-25 19:34:02 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
The problem is that the new version of coq that you were trying to
install has an undeclared conflict with coq-libs. I'll reassign the
bug
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:50:44PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.org
was heard to say:
Unpacking replacement coq ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/coq_8.2~rc2+dfsg-3_amd64.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/coq/contrib/interface/vernacrc', which is also
I just had a realization. We don't need to mess around with bisect
and recompiling; you can just grab old versions from
snapshot.debian.net and see whether the bug shows up in them.
Once we have a tighter range of versions, it might be worth trying
bisect out, but it'll be easier too.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:28:21PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor
eddy.petri...@gmail.com was heard to say:
I just upgraded this system yesterday to Debian Lenny from Debian Etch
and since the upgrade I have seen that aptitude's TUI interface blocks
after any set of operations that is done with dpkg.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:23:55AM +0200, Eddy Petrișor
eddy.petri...@gmail.com was heard to say:
Daniel Burrows a scris:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:28:21PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor
eddy.petri...@gmail.com was heard to say:
I just upgraded this system yesterday to Debian Lenny from Debian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:47:34PM -0800, Daniel Burrows dburr...@debian.org
was heard to say:
Something that would be even better if you can manage it would be to
use hg bisect. This will be time-consuming, but has the potential to
track down exactly what's happening, or at least what
Just FYI, I've committed a patch to bzr that restores the old ABI.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:12:21AM +, Jisakiel [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
In fact aptitude dist-upgrade also dies for me with segfault on amd64...
Michael,
I'd like to take a look at fixing this ABI issue. It looks like you
aren't working in the debian-sid tree; could you
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Jason Riedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
And Sven Joachim writes:
They are not necessary since the problem is in apt, see #499322.
Thanks! Should I file a wishlist for aptitude's lack of diagnostic
output? It'd be nice if aptitude pointed
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 03:24:28PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
It turns out non-starting part of the bug only appears when using using
a $HOME that had GNOME on it at one time, then XFCE and doing a fresh
install of the system (e.g. only $HOME is the same).
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:22:27AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
It appears that selecting the task (+ on the task) selects gdm before
xfce4-terminal, therefore gdm's dependencies pull on
gnome-session-manager before xfce4-terminal is selected in the gui.
I see
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
severity 495954 critical
thanks
This bug makes unrelated software on the system break. Well,
aptitude is a package manager, so most of its bugs do...
Are you interested in a dpkg.log or some
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
severity 495954 critical
thanks
This bug makes unrelated software on the system break. Well,
aptitude is a package manager, so most of its bugs do...
Are you interested in a dpkg.log or some
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 08:30:14PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. A typescript of the upgrade with -o Debug::pkgDpkgPM=true
added (both to get more debugging information and to see what
happened
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Other comments:
As for the claim that this is an apt bug instead of an aptitude bug:
I think it pretty much confirms this: particularly the fact that
aptitude believes that it's installing the
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:43:10AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
[snip]
dpkg: latex-ucs: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
latex-ucs-contrib depends on latex-ucs.
Removing latex-ucs ...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/latex-ucs.postrm: line 12:
=[127.0.1.1])
by algebraicthunk.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1KGDh9-0007WX-9q; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:57:27 -0700
From: Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:17:48PM +0200, Sven Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On 2008-07-08 16:14 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Package: tetex-ucs
Severity: serious
When I reassigned a bug report to tetex-ucs, I got the attached
bounce. The Maintainer address
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 07:30:09AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Interesting question, though: I checked packages.debian.org and this
*does* have a real maintainer (Martin Pitt). So maybe
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 08:32:34AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:33:40PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Which architectures besides amd64 are failing? I'd like to verify the
fix, but there doesn't seem to be an amd64 emulator
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:13:50PM +0100, peter green [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
tags 488132 +patch
thanks
DO NOT SEND THIS MESSAGE YET
I'd like to verify the
fix, but there doesn't seem to be an amd64 emulator in the archive...
I have added int casts to all the printf calls
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 06:53:22PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.6-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build on some arches with the following
error:
cmdline_resolver.cc:239: error: format '%d' expects type
Which architectures besides amd64 are failing? I'd like to verify the
fix, but there doesn't seem to be an amd64 emulator in the archive...
and it looks like everything else succeeded.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Package: compiz-gtk
Version: 0.7.6-2
Severity: serious
I saw this while upgrading today:
Preparing to replace compiz-gtk 0.7.4-1 (using .../compiz-gtk_0.7.6-2_i386.deb)
...
Unpacking replacement compiz-gtk ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/compiz-gtk_0.7.6-2_i386.deb
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:49:02AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
cp ./build/scripts/dselect/* debian/apt/usr/lib/dpkg/methods/apt/
cp -r ./build/locale debian/apt/usr/share/
cp debian/bugscript debian/apt/usr/share/bug/apt/script
cp debian/apt.logrotate
These bugs should be fixed by apt 0.7.12, which I've just uploaded to
the archive. Once it migrates to testing I'll close them.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Le jeudi 24 avril 2008 à 00:48 +0100, Tom Parker a écrit :
Installed from Etch 4.0r2 DVDs a little while back. Using a mix of
stable,testing,unstable and experimental packages. Been upgrading with
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:16:48AM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Obviously the prompt should happen up-front, but it's not the case
that aptitude will happily remove mktemp without a prompt.
...of course, I mean not the case in my tests. I don't see in the
code
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:03AM +0400, Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Monday 07 April 2008 20:21:20 you wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:06:50PM +0400, Aleksey Midenkov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.1-1
Severity:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 09:24:03AM +0200, Sven Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.1-1
Severity: important
Today's aptitude safe-upgrade failed, apparently aptitude gets into an
endless loop resolving the dependencies:
I was wondering if this
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:06:50PM +0400, Aleksey Midenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.1-1
Severity: grave
The program get terminated at very start.
I don't think it's grave for aptitude to break when its database is
corrupt, so I'm downgrading
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:51:26PM +0100, Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 3.5
Missing dependency for package debtags
$ dpkg -s debtags
Package: debtags
Status: install ok installed
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:34:13PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 06:02:03AM +, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Changes:
libsigc++-2.0 (2.0.18-1) experimental; urgency=low
.
* New upstream release (Closes: #443651).
.
* Disable
Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this bug and so I can't see exactly
what's happening. But according to screenshots the submitter sent me in
private email, the dependency in question isn't being marked as broken
by apt. I suspect some sort of consistency violation is happening at
that level,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:56:55AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On 2008-02-12 08:27:18 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Could you please tell me:
(a) what command you used to upgrade bibtex2html,
I don't remember exactly but I could reproduce the problem
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:23:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
reassign 465241 aptitude
kthxbye
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 17:12:09 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
reopen 465241
thanks
On 2008-02-11 15:41:43 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
* Gaudenz Steinlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-09 21:01]:
I tried to fix this today, but quickly discovered that #456971 on
libsigc++-2.0-dev is blocking this further down the path. As I currently
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 11:09:03AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
The markauto and unmarkauto commands work in reverse as specified in
the manual, and in reverse as common sense would say they should.
I have a manually installed package, libdirectfb-1.0-0:
$
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:48:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
(cd . ikiwiki --setup ikiwiki.setup)
ikiwiki.setup: Can't locate HTML/Scrubber.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
/etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8
/usr/lib/perl5
Package: libghc6-hunit-doc
Version: 1.1.1-2
Severity: grave
The only documentation files contained in the libghc6-hunit-doc
package are some index files and an empty documentation page for the
module Main. The module itself is completely undocumented, unless a
link to the JUnit page counts.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:21:49AM +0100, Michal Politowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
aptitude 0.4.10-1 depends on libgcc1 (= 1:4.3),
which is only available in experimental.
Ow. So, release team, is the correct way of handling this without
making everyone even more angry at me to
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:07:55AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
reopen 451400
found 451400 0.5.5-3
thanks
Is it failing with the same error? I tested building this release on
a real system without doxygen.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 06:18:04PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
reopen 451400
Bug#451400: cwidget: FTBFS: /bin/sh: -c: line 0: syntax
Grrr. I even tested an arch-only build in pbuilder (or at
least I thought I did, apparently not).
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
package apt
reassign 452377 synaptic
thanks
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:53:02AM +, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard
to say:
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.9
Severity: grave
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Today, in sid, I marked for upgrade xserver-xorg-core (2:1.4-3) to
Package: hyperestraier
Version: 1.4.9-1.1
Severity: grave
Hyperestraier can't be installed in unstable because it depends on
libfcgi0c2, which has been removed from unstable. I note that
libfcgi0ldbl conflicts and replaces libfcgi0c2; maybe hyperestraier
should depend on that instead?
It looks to me like the problem is a missing break statement at
line 181 of offlineimap/folder/Maildir.py. In an installed offlineimap,
the file is:
/usr/share/python-support/offlineimap/offlineimap/folder/Maildir.py
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 04:07:20PM -0500, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but applying this patch to 0.4.5.4-1
did not make my lockups go away.
I did the following on my sid system:
apt-get source aptitude
apt-get build-deps
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:12PM -0500, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On 26-Jul-07, 08:42 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the new .deb in unstable fix this for you?
Yes and no. It works in an rxvt, but not in a console. (It's possible
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 10:56:27PM +0200, Jiří Paleček [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
tags 432323 -unreproducible
thanks
These bugs are also easily reproducible. Just try to run aptitude, attach
debugger, stop, and continue. This will fairly likely interrupt the select
which will
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:09:42PM -0500, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
You will no doubt be delighted to know that the lock up is still
happening, despite my previous report.
It's definitely not tied to the particular 'g,g' sequence; I can trigger
it just by starting
Excellent! Thanks for hunting this down.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:03:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Ok, I could solve the problem.
By the way, anyone knows why the diff showed no difference before and
after?
Probably the erroneous file was in /var/cache/apt; killing /var/lib/apt
has a side-effect of causing the
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:16:12PM +0800, manphiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard
to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
I've rebuilt aptitude without being stripped and got 2 backtraces when
'g' is finished, one is the bad one with lib6-i686 and the other is
the good one without it. I've attached them
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
