Bug#406729: Patch from ubuntu fixes this bug
tag 406729 patch thanks The diff to ubuntu version scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1 is a complete patch to this bug, as suggested by the original reporter. http://patches.ubuntu.com/s/scanerrlog/scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1.patch signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#406729: Patch from ubuntu fixes this bug
Le samedi 06 octobre 2007 à 01:20 -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz a écrit : tag 406729 patch thanks The diff to ubuntu version scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1 is a complete patch to this bug, as suggested by the original reporter. http://patches.ubuntu.com/s/scanerrlog/scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1.patch Of course this patch is wrong as well, because it adds XS-Python-Version: current, which is incorrect for an architecture: all package. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Bug#406729: Patch from ubuntu fixes this bug
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:44:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 06 octobre 2007 à 01:20 -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz a écrit : The diff to ubuntu version scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1 is a complete patch to this bug, as suggested by the original reporter. http://patches.ubuntu.com/s/scanerrlog/scanerrlog_2.01-4ubuntu1.patch Of course this patch is wrong as well, because it adds XS-Python-Version: current, which is incorrect for an architecture: all package. Where is this documented? And what's the proper value for an application package, shipping no modules? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#406729: Patch from ubuntu fixes this bug
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:31:17AM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:44:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Of course this patch is wrong as well, because it adds XS-Python-Version: current, which is incorrect for an architecture: all package. Where is this documented? And what's the proper value for an application package, shipping no modules? I found http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/manoj-policy/x316.html which states that the correct value is 'all'. Could you please confirm that? Thanks. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#406729: Patch from ubuntu fixes this bug
Le samedi 06 octobre 2007 à 08:44 -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz a écrit : On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:31:17AM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:44:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Of course this patch is wrong as well, because it adds XS-Python-Version: current, which is incorrect for an architecture: all package. Where is this documented? And what's the proper value for an application package, shipping no modules? I found http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/manoj-policy/x316.html which states that the correct value is 'all'. Could you please confirm that? Yes, the correct value is all (which equals to no field at all) for an architecture: all package. For an application package that doesn't ship any module, there is no need for X?-Python-foobar headers, you just need proper python dependencies. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
