to standard, as it is in sarge.
Thanks. Hopefully, I should stop receiving the following message some day:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:18:07 -0700
Subject: gettext override disparity
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Jakob Bohm wrote:
2. The text has been reformatted, removing all form-feeds and
changing some spaces, this is less important but still not ok
for a legal document.
You seem to be too much worried about this: The license which *really*
counts as a legal document is the one
reassign 381729 debian-policy
severity 381729 wishlist
thanks
Licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses are added or removed if the
debian-policy group says they should be added or removed, as this is
definitely something I don't want to decide as base-files maintainer.
Please see Why isn't license
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.1.14
Severity: minor
File: /etc/nsswitch.conf
Hi,
/etc/nsswitch.conf mentions that the info documentation is in glibc-doc,
but actually the info documentation is included in glibc-doc-reference.
Hmm, do you
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I strongly suspect, for example, that the FSF address change was
made by editing the existing files in the package rather than
downloading the updated copies from the FSF; hence the spelling
differences like St vs Street.
The licenses say that
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Andy Grover wrote:
Package: postfix-gld
Version: 1.6-2+b1
Severity: wishlist
Upstream postfix-gld supports Postgres as well as MySQL, but only as a
compile-time option. I'm switching to postgres from mysql so I'd love a
separate package with pgsql support enabled,
Package: sbuild
Version: 0.45
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
The string 0 is valid as a string version for a Debian package.
Therefore, sbuild should not complain about it.
[ This was already reported as Bug #300205. Sorry for reporting it again
but it seems the fix was not applied, or it was
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Roger Leigh wrote:
That's my fault, I think.
- if (!$version) {
+ if ($version eq ) {
$version may not always be defined, so it should probably be
if (!defined $version || $version eq )
Would that be OK?
I don't speak perl, but an undefined
Package: crosshurd
Version: 1.7.25
Severity: important
This is what happens when I boot for the first time (in single user mode)
and try to run /native-install:
/native-install: line 16: /dev/null: Read-only file system
/native-install: cannot make pipe for command substitution: Protocol family
Package: zope2.9
Version: 2.9.3-1
The binary package zope2.9-sandbox should be created by the binary-indep
target of debian/rules, and it should not be created by the binary-arch
target of debian/rules.
Moreover, the binary target should depend on both binary-arch and binary-indep.
If you are
Package: libccaudio2
Version: 0.9.2-1
The binary package libccaudio2-doc is Architecture: all, so it should
be created by the binary-indep target, and it should not be created by
the binary-arch target.
If you are using debhelper, options -i and -a might help here.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Package: playground
Version: 0.3-1
The binary package playground-dev is Architecture: all, so it should
be created by the binary-indep target, and it should not be created by
the binary-arch target.
If you are using debhelper, options -i and -a might help here.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Package: python-pyxattr
Version: 0.2.1-1
The binary package python-pyxattr is Architecture: all, so it should
be created by the binary-indep target, and it should not be created by
the binary-arch target.
If you are using debhelper, options -i and -a might help here.
Thanks.
--
To
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Martin Pitt wrote:
I took a stab at this bug; granted, it's not the worst one in the
world, but it should be fixed eventually.
This is the patch I used for the Ubuntu security update:
http://patches.ubuntu.com/patches/unzip.CVE-2005-4667.diff
It works for version
Well, after a bit of testing, I'm going to use this patch instead:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2006-01/0117.html
which seems to work very well. The right fix will be in 5.53, I suppose,
but for now this is more than enough to close the hole.
[ Additionally, for 5.50,
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote:
reopen 356152
retitle Messages being falsely identified as spam
thanks
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:04:22AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
My messages to d-legal aren't being delivered, and I havn't seen
any bounces. they have been
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote:
Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
As before, I think it is also time that Debian reconsider the idea of
filtering everything after it has been received which is currently
working at lists.debian.org. We could use a DNSBL which lists
Package: firebird2
Version: 1.5.3.4870-2
Severity: wishlist
I wish targets build-start and build-end in debian/rules not to exist.
The rationale is that they show in the build log, which usually
has already a date in another format (made by sbuild, for example).
So, in some sense, those dates
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
reassign 421438 base-files
Bug#421438: bash: root bashrc comment about ls colors
Bug reassigned from package `bash' to `base-files'.
Hello Matthias and jo han.
Please clarigy this bug, because I don't understand it.
Has bash really
I was misled by the fact that someone sent a found control message
to the BTS, but it seems it was just a way to fix the wrong syntax
used by the submitter in his initial report.
The bug should be closed now.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I am working on a system to update the boot sequence based on these
dependencies, and would like see this as the default in Lenny.
Because of this, it is nice if the dependencies was updated quickly.
Simple question: Would this help to fix
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
.mo files *are* architecture dependent and should be handled as such.
Just because 'it happens to work' right now does not mean it is the
correct way to handle .mo files.
I'm curious: Do you plan to do the same with PCM .wav files?
(They are always
One more question:
Is the proposed change of the type that upstream would accept?
(In other words, is this debian specific or the implementation is shared
across distributions?)
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.17-2
Severity: serious
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20080407 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on i386
I can't reproduce this using gcc-4.3 and a recent sid system.
Please double-check.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 08/04/08 at 11:30 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.17-2
Severity: serious
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20080407 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on i386
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Christian Perrier wrote:
This bug has still not seen any activity since ages.
Santiago, you mentioned two options:
a) It is likely that pine will eventually be replaced by alpine
(once alpine is mature enough).
b) There should be a mta-base package on which packages
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
By normal sid chroot, I meant with gcc 4.2.
Ok, please try in a sid system (not in the distributed computing system),
just modify debian/rules so that it says CC=gcc-4.3 as I did.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to
resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other.
Could others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on
Same problem here:
mac:~# apt-get install linux-image-2.6-powerpc
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
linux-image-2.6-powerpc is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
[ snipped paragraph about Manoj ]
Quoting Julian Gilbey in the logs for this bug:
According to Manoj in the logs to bug#394661, which was blocking this
bug and has since been closed, the bug was fixed in kernel-package
10.063. So I guess that all
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
We really need a better way to handle bug reports which affect more than one
package, since cloning and merging is not the best way to go for those.
In the past, the BTS allowed things like this:
Package: foo, bar
I'm not sure if this is still
Package: installation-guide
Version: 20081208
Severity: wishlist
Is there a way to put debian-501-amd64-i386-powerpc-netinst.iso or later
inside an USB stick so that the USB stick may be used to install either
Debian/i386 or Debian/amd64?
If so, it would be great if the install guide explains
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 01:53:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It's not required for lenny. The code making use of this is only in dpkg
1.15 which
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
With my Ubuntu hat on (as a frequent uploader of both base-files and
dpkg there):
[...]
* I very definitely prefer the default vendor change to be an explicit
change in base-files' source, rather than being implicit based on
the system on
I said:
I'd like to use Replaces with = and the last release which had the
origins file, can you confirm that it is 1.15.0 in experimental?
I see 1.15.0 in experimental, so I'll use that.
Uploading now.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Eugen Dedu wrote:
Hi,
Hoping to finally solve this bug...
Ohphone seems to be stopped upstream. Does someone know if ohphone is still
developed?
How can this bug be checked with ptlib 2.6.1 from experimental (to see if it
is still valid)?
Has someone informed
Package: source-highlight
Version: 3.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
$ dpkg -c source-highlight_3.1-1_i386.deb | grep dir.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 420 2009-09-21 21:36 ./usr/share/info/dir.gz
The dir.gz file should not be there. This is very bad because (among
other things) as soon as
reassign 608324 debian-policy
thanks
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Ana Guerrero wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I have seen you did recently an update of the licenses from
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/Licenses/ but you did not include the Affero
license
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Nirgal Vourgère wrote:
Last version of base-files introducted a change in /etc/debian_version format.
Code name used to be available in that file. It no longer is.
This breaks many unattended-upgrades configurations, where $(distro_codename)
is no longer available.
reassign 612426 multistrap
thanks
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5.3
Severity: important
base-files uses chmod in the postinst script which needs /etc/passwd
and /etc/group to be present. those file are created by the
base-passwd package and
reassign 610600 sudo-ldap
thanks
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Bdale Garbee wrote:
reassign 610600 base-files
thanks
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:37:44 +0100, Ulrich Zehl ulr...@topfen.net wrote:
Unconditionally adding a line to nsswitch.conf via the base-files package
will work, because the non-LDAP
reassign 613937 alpine
thanks
Hello Asheesh. I received this report against pine, but pine no longer
exists so this would be better handled (if at all) in alpine.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Patrik Schindler wrote:
Package: pine
Version: 4.64
Severity: wishlist
Pine is long dead and perhaps
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
Package: hello
Version: 2.6-1
Severity: normal
Hello,
Your package fails to cross build without binutils-multiarch, as
strip command needs a triplet prefix. Please consider a proposed
patch:
Hello Héctor.
Last time I tried, this package
reassign 616571 initscripts
thanks
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Harald Dunkel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: base-files
Version: 6.1
Severity: wishlist
Would it be possible to put /var/run and /var/lock (and maybe
others) into /dev/shm? This could help to avoid a
reassign 562920 debian-policy
thanks
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
In my opinion, DFSG-free Create Commons v3.0 licenses are already common
enough
to be included in /usr/share/common-licenses:
CC-BY-3.0 -
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, wrote:
Hello,
I prepared a package, and uploaded it to debian mentors:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tre/tre_0.8.0-1~1.dsc
No need.
I'll take care about this next weekend.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Package: autotools-dev
Version: 20090611.1
Severity: minor
It seems the URL provided in upstream.mail.template, namely
http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=config
does no longer work.
It would be nice if this template had a reference URL that is up-to-date.
(The copyright file seems to have the
[ Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I wanted to give this report
the reply that it deserves, and such reply was not a short one ].
Of course, I fully agree that hello should cross-compile, as it's made
with autoconf and it will be a good example for other autoconfiscated
packages to
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Philipp Weis wrote:
Package: libtre5
Version: 0.8.0-1
Severity: normal
Here's what I get trying to install the latest version. I have elinks
on my system, which depends on libtre4.
Unpacking libtre5 (from .../libtre5_0.8.0-1_amd64.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
I said:
What libraries usually do to avoid this?
I've added a Replaces field so that upgrades are smooth.
In this case, there was no need to add a Conflicts, really.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Package: libmailtools-perl
Version: 2.04-1
Tags: patch
Hello Aníbal!
I discovered this while playing with caff.
This is what policy says:
11.6. Mail transport, delivery and user agents
--
[...]
The mail spool is `/var/mail' and the interface to
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Package: diff
Version: 2.8.1-13
Severity: wishlist
Hi
Can you please rename the diff binary package to diffutils. This is
a precondition to making the package non-essential IMHO.
Note that at least (I only had a very quick first look) the
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.25
I created a new GPG key and put it on a default-key line in gpg.conf, but
dpkg-buildpackage still uses the old one (which has the same email address).
I think this is because it seems to add the maintainer name if no -k
argument is given:
if ($signinterface
forwarded 528280 http://www.info-zip.org/board/board.pl?m-1249408491/
thanks
Thanks for the report.
Forwarded upstream.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
reassign 406668 alpine, ajaxterm
thanks
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
Sorry to be so late in replying to this.
This bug is very unlikely to be fixed upstream in pine, as development
has stopped in favour of alpine, so I would like to reassing it to
alpine
reassign 412590 alpine
merge 405762 412590
thanks
I've just closed three maildir-related bugs in pine. As alpine does
not have maildir, it does not have those bugs either.
This one is different in that it merely asks for maildir support,
hence the reassign and merge.
Thanks.
--
To
reassign 202908 alpine
thanks
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:00:25AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:31:52AM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
I thought the interpretation of mail headers other than the basic few
was more a matter of
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
tags 570064 + patch
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for diffutils (versioned as 1:2.9-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/01. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Please delay the NMU several days.
I'm alive,
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I've prepared an NMU for diffutils (versioned as 1:2.9-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/01. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Santiago, can you revert this commit in the debian package of diffutils
at least for now? Just revert the patch linked above.
Done for now.
If upstream doesn't want to revert the change, we'll adapt dpkg-source
but you will have to keep the patch
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
BTW: I have not closed the bug in the upload, as I'm not convinced
that it's a bug in diffutils: If you write a program (dpkg-dev) which
relies on the console output of another progam (diff), being that a
dangerous thing, then you should be
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Santiago Vila wrote:
That dpkg and diffutils 2.9-1 can't work together is obvious.
That such fact is due to a bug in diffutils is what I'm unsure about.
My idea was to reassign the bug back to dpkg-dev so that you can
Raphael, this is the NEWS entry for the change:
* Diff now simply prints Files A and B differ instead of Binary
files A and B differ. The message is output if either A or B
appears to be a binary file, and the old wording was misleading
because it implied that both files are binary, which
severity 570064 normal
thanks
Raphael Hertzog escribió:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Santiago Vila wrote:
BTW: The BTS allows a bug to be assigned to multiple packages. I think
a reassign to dpkg-dev,diffutils would have worked.
It does, but it's not recommended any more because once you reassign
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Jim Meyering wrote:
I don't have a strong preference.
Do any of you?
I agree with Raphael that keeping the old string would probably be the
best solution, but that's just a preference, not necessarily strong :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
I'm very disappointed with this fix.
Shipping an example file instead of the real file which is being used
by autobuilders makes the package less useful by default.
Could you please reconsider?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Package: ftp.debian.org
Alpine is now at version 2.0. AFAIK, the only reason to keep pine in the
archive is that it has Maildir support built-in, while alpine has not.
However, I don't think that is a reason good enough to keep an obsolete,
non-free and unmaintained upstream software in the
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: doc-debian-es
Version: 2.5
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20091213 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Hello Steve.
Any progress on this bug, now that we have a new upstream?
If there is any way I could help here, I would be willing to help.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Also, please note that if you have unstable in sources.list and, as
you say, do a dist-upgrade, then for all purposes you are no longer
running lenny.
I'm running pure lenny + latest cacti from unstable (a _noarch package).
However, I realized that this package is not a part of
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Teodor MICU wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es wrote:
So: What exactly are you complaining about?
I'm not complaining about anything. I've fixed my local problem simply
by reinstalling 'diff' to have the missing binaries back
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
This bug was filed 5 months ago already. Could someone please merge
the patch or, otherwise, explain why it won't be merged?
Please read base-files FAQ.
I consider the entire profile.d thing harmful.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Nicolaj Kamensek wrote:
Package: dialog
Version: 1.1-20080316-1
Severity: important
dialog itself works perfectly fine until libgpm2 is installed (in my case as
a dependency of mc). The dialog menu itself shows up but all menu items are
dead, selecting one has no
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Holger Levsen wrote:
Package: smartlist
Version: 3.15-20
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package prompts the user badly.
Prompting in maintainer scripts must be done
reassign 565884 debian-policy
thanks
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL
license in the archive. The CeCILL licenses are wordy and the project
Package: msort
Version: 8.52-1.1
Severity: serious
This package no longer builds with current libtre-dev:
./configure --prefix=/usr --disable-utf8proc
[...]
checking for regwcomp in -ltre... no
configure: error: libtre not found. see http://laurikari.net/tre/
make: *** [configure-stamp] Error 1
Could we please move the default to 755, not 2775, like every other
normal directory in Debian? There is little point in keeping those
directories world-writable if they stop being owned by group staff.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Santiago Vila wrote:
Could we please move the default to 755, not 2775, like every other
normal directory in Debian? There is little point in keeping those
directories world-writable if they stop being owned by group staff
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
Rolf Leggewie wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0ubuntu6
I reported this from Ubuntu, but of course, I had verified the problem
is the same in Debian.
Please read the base-files FAQ in the Debian base-files package and
reassign
Package: doc-base
Version: 0.9.3
Lintian warns that calling install-docs is no longer necessary, as
dpkg triggers handle that, but manual still says that packages should
register documents via install-docs. Seems the manual should be updated.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hello Guillem.
Unfortunately, the patch does not apply cleanly to the current version.
If there is enough interest I can ask Bruno if it's possible for him
to provide a patch against autopoint in gettext 0.17. If not, well,
we'll just wait for gettext 0.18.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Package: procmail
Version: 3.22-16
Severity: normal
File: procmailrc
$ cat buggy.procmailrc
:0
* ...
{
:0:
dummy: xxx
/tmp/a
}
$ echo foobar | procmail $PWD/buggy.procmailrc
*** glibc detected *** procmail: malloc():
reassign 442855 php5-recode
thanks
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
reassign 442855 librecode0
found 442855 3.6-12
thanks
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:07:14PM +0200, Rafael Jesus Alcantara Perez wrote:
Package: php5-recode
Version: 5.2.0-8+etch7
Severity: normal
In Debian
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:11:37PM -0700, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
Is that Maildir patch Free Software? I don't see a license statement
aywhere. If it is, then I could do the appropriate fiddling to make it
work in Alpine.
This is the license blurb in the patch itself:
@@ -0,0 +1,1229 @@
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Barry deFreese wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.17-6
Severity: important
Hi,
jikes is orphaned, unmaintained, and buggy and therefore we are trying
to remove it from the archive. gettext currently
build-depends on jikes-classpath. Could you please try to build
Package: gettext
Severity: important
Version: 0.17-6
User: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: goal-dash
Hello maintainer,
While performing an archive wide checkbashisms (from the 'devscripts' package)
check I've found your package containing a /bin/sh script making use
of a
On Wed, 27 May 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
The patch still applies to the current package and it is still the
correct fix for cross-build support in diffutils.
The complete NMU debdiff is attached.
I intend to upload this NMU to the delayed/7 queue in a couple of days.
Please let me know
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Kees Cook wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu jaunty ubuntu-patch
Hello!
One question that both the Ubuntu Security Team and the Server Team
have fielded many times is why
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
What's the status of this bugreport?
Are we waiting for a better patch or is it held back by something?
AFAIK, the patch is neither approved or blessed by upstream, and I
personally do not like it because it introduces new features not
guaranteed to be
Hello.
I've just uploaded diffutils_2.8.1-13 fixing this bug.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Hmm, it looks like gettext currently depends on libgomp1 -- but if gettext is
rebuilt in a chroot without libgomp1 installed, the resulting packages don't
depend on libgomp1.
This is really a bug in gettext. If we have libgomp1 in the archive,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, sriva...@acm.org wrote:
Hi,
I don't think that /usr/share/doc/gettext/README.Debian is
good enough, no. Espescially since the user is not normally aware
that theya re using gettext, which they are not, directly. They just
called autoreconf, which is a pretty
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Nicolaj Kamensek wrote:
Package: dialog
Version: 1.1-20080316-1
Severity: important
dialog itself works perfectly fine until libgpm2 is installed (in my case as
a dependency of mc). The dialog menu itself shows up but all menu items are
dead, selecting one has no
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
found 248140 5.3
thanks
Dear Santiago,
You probably have seen the discussion about user private groups on
debian-devel this week:
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/4be830c8.5050...@gmail.com The
core argument is that since user private
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Pompee William wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 5lenny5
Severity: minor
Distribution: stable
Section: main
Architecture: amd64
Hello,
I noticed that several licenses files (Artistic, GFDL-1.2, GPL-2, GPL-3,
LGPL-2, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3) may differ from the
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
Vincent Danjean wrote:
I'm happy with this move. However, there is still an interaction with ssh
to deal with:
vdanj...@eyak:~$ chmod -Rv g+w .ssh/authorized_keys
vdanj...@eyak:~$ ssh localhost
vdanj...@localhost's password:
And, in
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Andreas Hemel wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 01:21:41PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Vincent Danjean wrote:
I'm happy with this move. However, there is still an interaction with ssh
to deal with:
vdanj...@eyak:~$ chmod -Rv g+w .ssh/authorized_keys
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 01:10 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I have just changed the default umask in /etc/profile to 002.
This is just a default. In no way such setting is an imposition on the
user, as /etc/profile is a configuration file
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Aaron Toponce wrote:
I think some additional configuration might need to be in place with
this change. UPG assumes that the group is indeed private. However, this
isn't necessarily the case for system accounts, where the UID 100 (per
the Debian docs). There might be many
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
If you add /etc/lsb_release to base-files, please give us in the
Debian Edu a early warning, as our debian-edu-config package already
include the file.
I'm thinking about adding lsb_release to base-files, but that will be
in either case after the
601 - 700 of 5938 matches
Mail list logo
