Hi,
I was horrified this morning to discover that fplll 4.0.1-2, which was
supposed to close bug #702898 (on fplll) was really closing bug #702056
(on polybori) : I put the wrong bug number in the changelog entry! :-(
What can I do to reopen the bug which was erroneously closed and close
Don't worry, nothing a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org can't fix. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
Best regards,
Tobias Hansen
Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net schrieb:
Hi,
I was horrified this morning to discover that fplll 4.0.1-2, which was
supposed to close bug #702898
Le 17/03/2013 00:36, than...@debian.org a écrit :
Is splitting the vanilla upstream sources off planned? That would be
very helpful for distributions. Another helpful thing would be a clear
distinction between fixes/adjustment to the library and Sage glue,
because we need all the Sage glue, but
Le 17/03/2013 09:29, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
Don't worry, nothing a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org can't fix. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
That is what I did to reopen the bug ; but for closing the real one, is
it the best course of action? I still have a bad changelog entry
On 17/03/2013 09:56, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 17/03/2013 09:29, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
Don't worry, nothing a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org can't fix. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
That is what I did to reopen the bug ; but for closing the real one, is
it the best course of
Yes, close the bug now and fix the changelog the next time you do an upload.
Best regards,
Tobias Hansen
Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net schrieb:
Le 17/03/2013 09:29, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
Don't worry, nothing a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org can't fix. See
Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org writes:
On 17/03/2013 09:56, Julien Puydt wrote:
That is what I did to reopen the bug ; but for closing the real one, is
it the best course of action?
you can do:
702898-d...@bugs.debian.org
Ideally with a Version: version header at the beginning of the
Le 17/03/2013 10:10, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
Sylvestre Ledrusylves...@debian.org writes:
On 17/03/2013 09:56, Julien Puydt wrote:
That is what I did to reopen the bug ; but for closing the real one, is
it the best course of action?
you can do:
702898-d...@bugs.debian.org
Ideally with a
Am 17.03.2013 10:20, schrieb Julien Puydt:
So in short, the three things I did up to now are:
- reopen the other bug
- mark the bug as fixed in 4.0.1-2
- modify the changelog in the git repository
Is it enough?
You have to close the bug by sending a mail to
bug#-d...@bugs.debian.org.
On 17 March 2013 at 08:55, Julien Puydt wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I was horrified this morning to discover that fplll 4.0.1-2, which was
| supposed to close bug #702898 (on fplll) was really closing bug #702056
| (on polybori) : I put the wrong bug number in the changelog entry! :-(
|
| What can I do
than...@debian.org wrote:
Am Samstag, 16. März 2013 20:57:13 UTC+1 schrieb leif:
But if we switch to git, improve Sage's package management (as a first
step, split vanilla upstream sources off the spkgs :P ), ...
Is splitting the vanilla upstream sources off planned? That would be
very
Le 17/03/2013 12:42, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
The package looks good. Good to see a library that properly uses libtool
in Sage. :)
Using standard tools in a standard way is definitely helpful.
Here are my comments:
- I'm not satisfied with the reason for the lintian override of
Am 17.03.2013 16:58, schrieb Julien Puydt:
Le 17/03/2013 12:42, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
- Pass --disable-silent-rules to configure to get a more meaningful
build log.
I'm not sure about that one, and I'm not the only one wondering about it:
Le 17/03/2013 15:22, leif a écrit :
than...@debian.org wrote:
Am Samstag, 16. März 2013 20:57:13 UTC+1 schrieb leif:
But if we switch to git, improve Sage's package management (as a first
step, split vanilla upstream sources off the spkgs :P ), ...
Is splitting the vanilla upstream sources off
Le 17/03/2013 17:28, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
Am 17.03.2013 16:58, schrieb Julien Puydt:
Le 17/03/2013 12:42, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
- Tip for debian/copyright: you don't need to repeat the GPL2+ in every
file paragraph, one License:GPL2+ paragraph at the end would also do the
trick.
Lintian
Am 17.03.2013 17:38, schrieb Julien Puydt:
I get:
W: pynac source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright gpl-2+
(paragraph at line 14)
which is strange since line 14 is the first line of the third paragraph
mentioning GPL-2+!
You need a distinct License paragraph, like
...
Files:
Am Sonntag, den 17.03.2013, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Tobias Hansen:
Don't worry, nothing a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org can't fix. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
I prefer the bts command (devscripts package) over writing the mail
myself (my 2 cents ;)).
Regards, Daniel
--
To
Le 17/03/2013 12:42, Tobias Hansen a écrit :
- I'm not satisfied with the reason for the lintian override of
hardening-no-fortify-functions that hardening makes no sense. Since
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is passed, this may be a false positive from
lintian, so that may be a better comment.
Done.
-
On March 16, 2013 06:55:36 AM Tobias Hansen wrote:
Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt:
a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to the
libfplll-dev package. Yesterday, I committed a fix to the git repository
for the package.
We would not use the static library
Le 17/03/2013 20:53, Steve M. Robbins a écrit :
On March 16, 2013 06:55:36 AM Tobias Hansen wrote:
Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt:
a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to the
libfplll-dev package. Yesterday, I committed a fix to the git repository
for the
On March 17, 2013 03:01:04 PM Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 17/03/2013 20:53, Steve M. Robbins a écrit :
On March 16, 2013 06:55:36 AM Tobias Hansen wrote:
Am 15.03.2013 13:56, schrieb Julien Puydt:
a few days ago, bug #702898 asked to add the static libraries to the
libfplll-dev package.
21 matches
Mail list logo
