On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Marco d'Itri wrote:
reassign 621036 base-files
retitle 621036 base-files creates an unuseable /run, breaking udev and the
whole system
affects 621036 udev
block 620995 with 621036 620191
thanks
On Apr 06, Gianluigi Tiesi sher...@netfarm.it wrote:
Indeed this
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 06, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
Does the maintainer of soemthing like *base-files* at least *once*
reboot into his own machine before he uploads? It seems not so, that
is a bug that does effect everyone as far as I see.
In his
reassign 621036 udev
retitle 621036 udev should not assume that /run works just because it exists
thanks
I have just dropped /run in base-files 6.3.
But this is still a bug in udev. I still believe it makes no sense to
treat /run as if it was functional just because it exists.
I will be more
El 07/04/11 01:14, Debian Bug Tracking System escribió:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
found 620157 6.3
Bug #620157 {Done: Santiago Vilasanv...@debian.org} [base-files] base-files:
Please add top-level /run
Bug Marked as found in versions base-files/6.3 and reopened.
Hmm,
reassign 621462 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, onlyjob wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.0squeeze1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
AGPL-3 missing from /usr/share/common-licenses
The debian policy group decides about this, not me (please read
base-files FAQ). Reassigning.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Wang Xiaolin wrote:
Package: hello
Version: 2.7-1
Severity: normal
The file named 'README-dev' mentioned in README is missing.
You are right. There is not even a README-dev in the original tarball,
so this is definitely an upstream bug.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
El 08/04/11 16:31, Scott Anderson escribió:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.0squeeze1
Severity: minor
After performing a dist-upgrade on my Debian 6.0 install, I noticed that
/etc/issue still
shows 6.0 where /etc/debian_version shows 6.0.1. I know it's minor, but I was
confused.
The release
El 08/04/11 14:10, Anthony Campbell escribió:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.3
Followup-For: Bug #620157
I installed base-files 6.3 today and /run disappeared. Kernel 2.6.38
then failed to boot, stopping at the nouveau driver. 2.6.37 booted normally.
Imade/run myself and kernel 2.6.38 booted
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.18.1.1-3
Severity: important
File: /usr/bin/xgettext
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
While trying to extract translatable strings (from WordPress), I get
a Segmentation fault.
I use
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.4
Severity: wishlist
Up to know libc6 is providing a /lib64 - /lib symlink on amd64,
kfreebsd-amd64, ppc64 and sparc64. With multiarch it's not possible for
libc6 to provide such a symlink anymore as the package
Package: libsane-common
Version: 1.0.22-4
This package contains just architecture independent data, so it would
make sense to make it Architecture: all.
Reading multiarch docs I see there is a paragraph about libfoo-data
packages like this one: The Multi-Arch: foreign field must be set on
such
El 31/08/11 13:38, Steffen Möller escribió:
I have not found the FAQ but google gave the answer that the AGPL is not
found in packages frequently enough. Great to hear that it is requested
frequently enough to make it in the frequently AQ.
Sorry for not explaining everything before.
I refer
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, jari wrote:
In the year of 2011, the regexps people understand/expect to use are
those of class of egrep as found in many of the programming
languages.
No. In the year 2011 there are *still* basic regular expressions and
extended regular expressions.
Time does not make
| If you ask the authors they will tell you that the info manual now
| reads like this:
|
| To ignore insertions and deletions of lines that match a `grep'-style
| regular expression, use the `--ignore-matching-lines=REGEXP' (`-I
| REGEXP') option.
|
| so I will consider this
Package: bugs.debian.org
Hello.
I have just realized, by reading the web pages for Bug #608181,
that there are a few emails between submitter and author which
I missed completely, maybe because they were sent to the
nn-forwar...@bugs.debian.org address and not to the proper
B1;2801;0cOn Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
I is a consequence the way I've got an unstripped version of xgettext:
1st, I grabbed the debian source (apt-get source gettext)
2dn I applied your patch to the tree
3rd I build it (debuid) and installed it (debi)
As the
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:
I have reported #608181 which is now closed.
On the same test case, I get also segmentation fault (SIGSEGV) with the patch
applied.
I have also tested with the latest version of the package in incoming.
Attached the gdb backtrace and the
reassign 643659 cdebootstrap
thanks
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.0squeeze2
Severity: normal
Hi,
I'm not sure what changed but today when I tried to create a chroot
cdebootstrap gave the following error:
O: Setting up
El 28/09/11 17:13, Goswin von Brederlow escribió:
I disagree. The configure order of packages is something the package
should declare and that should not have to be duplicated in every
bootstrap tool out there even if the order is only relevant for the
initial install.
There is no such thing
Hello.
I received this report from the Debian BTS.
Please keep the Cc: lines when replying (you can omit the -forwarded address).
Thanks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Pirotte da...@altosw.be
To: Debian Bug Tracking System sub...@bugs.debian.org
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Riku Voipio wrote:
Package: m4
Version: 1.4.16-2
Severity: normal
User: debian-d...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
Tags: patch
Hi,
The attached patch adds Multi-Arch: foreign field to m4, to annotate
the fact that a m4 of foreign architecture can satisfy
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think it is safe to say that essential packages have to be configured
before the rest by any bootstraping tool.
The job of any bootstrapping tools is precisely to configure the
essential packages.
By creating the essential flag, we have all
[ Note: Thanks a lot for the patch and sorry for not answering before ].
El 26/05/11 16:37, Roger Leigh escribió:
@@ -32,8 +33,6 @@
var/lib/dpkg
var/lib/misc
var/local
-var/lock
var/log
-var/run
var/spool
var/tmp
So, you propose that base-files des not contain var/lock or
Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
initial install.
Assuming that I manage to do the same in a different way, it would be
ok for you, right?
(In particular, I'm thinking about creating /var/run and /var/lock
symlinks even if they are provided as directories
El 27/05/11 10:59, Roger Leigh escribió:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Ok, I'm starting to understand the idea of making symlinks only in the
initial install.
Assuming that I manage to do the same in a different way, it would be
ok for you, right?
Absolutely
El 29/05/11 08:25, Jonathan Nieder escribió:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.4
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Eddy Petrișor wrote[1]:
I've just found this bug and I must say is a real pain for vendors
which package stuff which installs in /opt.
I also found an easy way to reproduce the bug. See the
The essential status of awk was decided more than 13 years ago.
Sorry, my packaging knowledge is limited, but I don't get it :(
Do you mean base-files is used to ensure that awk is essential?
Yes, exactly. base-files depends on awk, base-files is essential.
Therefore, you will always have
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
4. Encourage sysadmins to use bind mounts instead of symlinks for
this purpose.
All are incomplete or have downsides. (1) prevents the sysadmin from
removing /opt, as you mentioned. (2) complicates the package creation
procedure, so much
On Mon, 30 May 2011, Tomas 'ebik' Ebenlendr wrote:
Package: zip
Version: 3.0-3
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Zipnote fails to update archive. The fail is caused by fclose(x), where 'x'
is either undefined or already closed. Simple patch follows.
--- zipnote.c 2008-05-08
El 15/07/11 17:48, Christian Pernegger escribió:
Package: diffutils
Version: 1:3.0-1
Severity: normal
I've just migrated our media server to new disks using cp -ar and just
to make sure everything went over alright I compared the old and the
new set with diff -rq, with the attached result.
reassign 632682 libc6
retitle 632682 we should probably remove /lib64 - lib symlink (with care)
thanks
Hi. After discussing about this today, it seems what we really need
for multiarch to work is to remove those symlinks, hence this reassign.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
reassign 634607 debian-policy
thanks
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: sid
Hi,
please add AGPL-n license files to /usr/share/common-licenses, so that people
can refer to that from within their packages.
More and more
B1;2403;0cOn Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
For the record, this is what git bisect says:
65cfc6722361570bfe255698d9cd4dccaf47570d is the first bad commit
commit 65cfc6722361570bfe255698d9cd4dccaf47570d
Author: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun Mar 13 15:56:26 2011
As I don't have the contents of fichiersphp.lst, this is imposible for me.
Could you please provide a minimal test case which is complete, so
that I can forward this upstream?
Thanks.
Please find it attached.
It is the list of *.php files from a wordpress tree.
Sorry. I'm still
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Georgios M. Zarkadas wrote:
I don't know if letting /etc/bash.bashrc to be sourced even on the
sh case has been done deliberately, but IMHO is not good, since code
in /etc/bash.bashrc typically assumes that the full bash featureset
is available, which is this case is a
Package: liblapack3gf
Version: 3.4.1-3
Please put this package in section oldlibs, as it's proper for
transitional packages. This should help tools like deborphan
to signal this package as candidate for removal.
Thanks.
diff -ru lapack-3.4.1.original/debian/control lapack-3.4.1/debian/control
Package: libblas3gf
Version: 3.4.1-3
Please put this package in section oldlibs, as it's proper for
transitional packages. This should help tools like deborphan
to signal this package as candidate for removal.
In addition, the package should be probably Architecture: all, as
it is just a
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
Section changes are handled by ftpmaster, not the package itself.
I know, but you can change it in the package and reassign to ftp.debian.org
afterwards, as a way to tell ftpmaster I agree with this change.
BTW: Being a dummy package, it should be
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.11
Severity: normal
base-files 6.8 had /etc/profile as a conffile. Thus, users who had
6.8 installed and subsequently upgraded to a later version will have
/etc/profile marked as an obsolete conffile in the dpkg
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Edwin Top wrote:
Package: postfix-gld
Version: 1.7-3
Severity: important
Tags: ipv6
The program fails to match sender MTA's correctly in most cases when an
IPv6 address is used.
This is because the field ip of the table greylist in the MySQL
Database is only a
severity 664989 serious
thanks
This bug makes googlecl useless for me, as I only use to retrieve
documents from Google Drive in this way:
google --format ods docs get ${document} .
In fact, I have python-gdata 2.0.14-2 on hold because of this bug.
IMHO, when you start putting packages on hold
Package: octave
Version: 3.6.2-2
Severity: serious
I had a wheezy system which was updated to wheezy last week.
After apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; apt-get dist-upgrade today I decided
to install octave and octave-info, then purge octave3.2 and octave3.2-info.
Now octave does not configure:
Package: octave
Version: 3.6.2-2
Severity: minor
When octave is installed I see this:
Configurando octave (3.6.2-2) ...
warning: X11 DISPLAY environment variable not set
As apt-get upgrade is supposed to work on a terminal, this warning
about DISPLAY variable not set is a little bit misleading
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.8
Severity: wishlist
As requested in http://bugs.debian.org/659853 Debian now includes
/etc/os-release. Therefore, I'd like to drop the lsb-release
dependency from epiphany-browser. We use three pieces of info for the
Package: base-files
Version: 6.11
Severity: serious
If this release reaches testing before initscripts 2.88dsf-27, the
following will happen to anybody installing a new system from scratch:
base-files creates /etc/motd as a real file.
initscripts in testing removes the first line of /etc/motd
Package: libc-bin
Version: 2.13-32
We should probably move /etc/nsswitch.conf from base-files to libc-bin,
as it is really a configuration file for libc6.
The file was in base-files for historical reasons, but now that there
is a libc-bin package and it's essential, that would be its real place.
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.8
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts
upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I'd probably
* collect md5sums of all previous versions of the defaults (going back
to lenny, eventually even earlier as this is an essential package and we
don't want to annoy people with long grown systems ... don't forget
point releases (or
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
I suspect that your system has some file left over from another package
that may be causing the problem. If this is true, then what you are
reporting is a real bug that must be fixed, but it is perhaps not caused
by the octave package.
I can
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, jmg wrote:
Package: diff
Version: 1:3.0-1
Please note that when reporting bugs, you should try the latest
version if possible. In this case, wheezy has version 3.2.
Severity: normal
When diff is used to compare two files which are identical line by
line and a unique
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012, jeanmichel@free.fr wrote:
*see* when I make the diff:
1c1
Hello.
---
Hello.
Yes, this is the issue I consider in this bugreport.
First, the example here-above shows the difference in not visible with a
regular terminal.
So what? The same happens with spaces.
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, ubuntu6226 wrote:
Package: dialog
Version: 1.1-20100428-1
Severity: normal
Hello,
I am so happy that dialog still exists. thanks
dialog --backtitle hello --fselect /home/user/dir 15 86
this does not list the mounted sshfs
mount:
...sshfs type
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, peter green wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.18.1.1-5
Severity: important
While working on an unofficial hardfloat port of debian for the Pi I
discovered a missing dependency on libcroco3 in the newly built gettext
package. I tracked this down to libraries directly
Hello Steve.
I have just uploaded gettext_0.18.1.1-6 for unstable using (most) of
your patch. Thanks a lot!
While looking at the patch I noticed a few missing things that you
might want to fix in Ubuntu:
- There were no Section and Priority for libgettextpo0. As a result, this
library seems to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Ben Finney wrote:
On 01-Apr-2012, Santiago Vila wrote:
In this particular case, there is a manpage which is generated via
texinfo2man, so the indent-doc package does not add any info which is not
already in the manpage.
I agree that a mere HTML rendering of what
Package: ftp.debian.org
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
algorithm but I think it is a bad change.
In this case, the reason to modify
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Philipp Kern wrote:
However, if urgencies accumulate, how are we supposed to really mean
10 days after an upload not of low priority? It's impossible!
No. The idea is that if you specify urgency=medium that *this* *change* (not
upload!) should go into testing in an
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (01/05/2012):
It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
longer but don't have the evidence immediately available. The start
of the release team's britney1 repository, when we took
El 02/05/12 00:01, Adam D. Barratt escribió:
After a little bit of research, the mighty archive.org has old copies of
the code, albeit not in a revision-controlled format. The earliest
version recorded there is from April 2004 and assuming I'm reading its
read_urgencies method correctly already
Package: netgen
Version: 4.9.13.dfsg-4
Policy says:
9.9 Environment variables
A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults.
[...]
If a program usually depends on environment variables for its
configuration, the program should be changed to fall back
severity 671257 wishlist
thanks
El 02/05/12 20:56, Paul Martin escribió:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.18.1.1-6
Severity: important
Tags: l10n
msgfmt produces binary files which vary dependent on the endianness of
the system you build on.
As localization files are supposed to be placed in
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
Package: libpopt0
Version: 1.16-3
Severity: important
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
Hi,
libpopt0 is marked as Multi-Arch: same, but contains files in
arch-independent paths with arch-specific contents:
[ Adding Steve Langasek, multiarch architect in Debian, to Cc list ].
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hi Santiago,
A long time ago, people working on embedded systems in Debian had the
idea that it would be a good thing to have .mo files in the same
endianness as the
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Ralf Jung wrote:
Package: mailman
Version: 1:2.1.13-5
Severity: wishlist
Tags: l10n
The mailman translations should use uncide as character set instead of the
language-specific local character sets. I see no reason not to use unicode
nowadays, and after some manual
tags 671353 + help
thanks
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Package: gettext-el
Version: 0.18.1.1-6
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
'squeeze'.
It installed
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Agustin Martin wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:52:47PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
seems that install/gettext is run twice, one by emacs flavour and other by
gettext-el. Links are already created in first run, so second run complains
and fails. Indeed I think that my
On Sat, 5 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
On 2012-05-04 19:07, Santiago Vila wrote:
IMHO, if there is anything to improve here, it would be emacs policy,
not whatever individual packages do to follow it.
Will you follow up on this emacs policy problem? I assume it could show
up in more
Hi.
I see that using triggers has already been suggested:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618720
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Package: emacsen-common
Version: 1.4.23
Severity: important
While implementing the new emacs policy in gettext-el I noticed there
are at least two bugs in this line
ln -s ../../emacs/site-lisp/foo/$el .
from sample-package-install-foo.gz.
One: If we are in ${elc_dir}, then we need
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:23:41PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I think including .mo files in a library package is wrong by itself,
with or without multiarch, because the next sonme bump will force
the new library package to conflict the old one
Package: ftp.debian.org
I'm not sure if this would be done automatically or not. In either
case, here is an explanation in case manual intervention is needed.
The source package diffutils-doc is obsolete and may/should be
removed from unstable, as the binary package diffutils-doc is now
Hello.
A long time ago, I received this from the Debian bug system.
[ I realize that this is unlikely to be implemented, but I am supposed
to forward upstream bugs upstream in either case ].
Thanks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Stransky
Hello.
I received this from the Debian bug system.
I've checked and the current version (1.0.1) still shows the bug.
[ Please keep the Cc: lines when replying, thanks ].
[ Apologies to the submitter for taking so long to process this ]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Josh Triplett
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, A. Costa wrote:
Package: dialog
Version: 1.1-20111018-1
Severity: important
Today after upgrading 'dialog' I find an often used several year old
script (that uses 'dialog') has broken.
Run the following line, then
El 03/11/11 16:24, Jakub Wilk escribió:
* Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es, 2008-02-28, 12:10:
msgfmt does support --endianness {big|little} from the source in
gettext-tools/src/msgfmt.c
neil@dwarf:po$ file messages.mo
messages.mo: GNU message catalog (little endian), revision 0, 14
messages
neil
El 02/11/12 22:15, Luca Capello escribió:
If I read the os-release manpage correctly, Jeremy is right and VERSION
is the place where 'wheezy' should be:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
The same manpage says this:
Note that operating system vendors may
El 02/11/12 22:15, Luca Capello escribió:
* squeeze
NAME=Debian GNU/Linux
VERSION=6.0.6 (squeeze)
VERSION_ID=6.0.6
PRETTY_NAME=$NAME $VERSION
Well, since it's about time, I would be happy to upload now the
base-files version saying 7.0. Then people who write scripts that
assume
I can't reproduce this anymore on wheezy as of today (at least on my
computer at work), but I don't know why, as the system still has
libcairo2_1.12.2-2.
Workaround in another package?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
Package: gettext
Version: 0.18.1.1-5
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu precise ubuntu-patch
Hi Santiago!
Because wine in Ubuntu has gettext support via libgettextpo0, and wine is a
El 10/11/11 12:34, Jakub Wilk escribió:
* Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es, 2011-11-03, 18:38:
With the advent of multi-arch, such behavior has become a problem. If
a package is marked as Multi-Arch: same all the files (including
*.mo) have to be identical across all architectures.
Hmm, why do
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package base-files
This release should ideally reach testing at the same time as
initscripts 2.88dsf-29 (source: sysvinit) which is now 9 days old
(because of differences in
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Wookey wrote:
Santiago, have you reached an opinion on whether you'd prefer to
1) split the gettext package into an MA:same libgettext-dev part and
an MA:foreign gettext part (and change corresponding dependencies), or
2) mark it MA:allowed and change all the dependencies
Hi.
[ Cc: debian-release for advice ].
I have received this report which is really two different bugs:
A) The initial one reported by Igor: Building m4 creates a package
linked with libsigsegv or not depending on the environment. This
should never happen in a Debian package and that's why we
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.12
Severity: normal
Hi Santiago,
I forked base-files for a derivative and I added a file to origins/
because that's what I'm supposed to do... the resulting package
has a lintian errors:
E: base-files:
The submitter will probably have to read the reply from the BTS web page.
The mail system
hramr...@centrum.cz: host xmx2.centrum.cz[46.255.224.55] said: 550 #5.1.0
Address rejected. (in reply to RCPT TO command)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
El 20/11/12 19:16, Wookey escribió:
Multi-Arch: foreign
Ok. Will be done in the next upload.
I'm curious: How many packages have indent in their build-depends?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
El 21/11/12 18:31, Colin Watson escribió:
I would say that only things tightly associated with libasprintf and
libgettextpo - so autosprintf.h / gettext-po.h respectively plus the
corresponding .a/.so - should go in the -dev package.
Everything else (and in particular everything under
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Colin Watson wrote:
It also occurred to me that gettext should depend on libasprintf-dev and
libgettextpo-dev, otherwise anything that Build-Depends on gettext
expecting to be able to use one of those libraries will immediately
FTBFS. Perhaps it will be possible to get rid
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, P. J. McDermott wrote:
I wonder if the gettext binary package should instead be split. Perhaps
gettext-runtime (M-A: same) should provide the libraries, gettext-tools
(M-A: foreign) should provide the tools, and gettext should be a
metapackage that depends on both of the
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, P. J. McDermott wrote:
So there appear to be three ways to make gettext capable of satisfying
cross build dependencies of packages such as those Johannes listed:
1. Mark gettext Multi-Arch: allowed. All depending packages that are
to be cross built will need to depend
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
against the libs, are shipped in the 'gettext' binary package; when
cross-building a package that build-depends on gettext, we have to
know whether they're using the tools or the libraries.
Please note that if they are using the libraries, they
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.3
Severity: important
If I untar the orig.tar.gz by hand, then copy the debian/* files and
then invoke dpkg-buildpackage, dpkg-buildpackage realizes that the
patches need to be applied first, so it applies them and then the
package is built. This is ok so far.
The
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Santiago,
Santiago Vila wrote:
The problem is that at the same time, dpkg-buildpackage seems to
unapply the patches *after* building the package, when the source tree
is full of executables, objects, Makefiles and so on. This is when
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
You are right, I had not tried that. The second dpkg-buildpackage
would indeed realize that the patches are not applied and it would
apply them.
However, what I was trying over and over again was this:
dpkg
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Can you give an example?
I uploaded recode 3.6-19 yesterday, the package I was working on.
If you want to have some fun, ensure you have unstable in a deb-src
source line and try this:
apt-get -d source recode
tar xzvf recode_3.6.orig.tar.gz
cd
El 16/03/12 20:14, Wookey escribió:
Package: diffutils
Version: 1:3.2-2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
As part of a general goal of making Debian bootstrappable we are
ensuring that the base system cross-builds properly.
When cross-built using sbuild --host=arch
or plain
dpkg-buildpackage -aarch
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Package: unzip
Version: 6.0-5
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Please enabled hardened build flags through dpkg-buildflags.
Patch attached. (dpkg-buildflags abides noopt from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)
I had to disable format string checking
Hello.
Received this from the Debian BTS.
[ Please drop only the -forwarded address when replying ].
Thanks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org
To: Debian Bug Tracking System sub...@bugs.debian.org
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:46:33 +0200
Subject:
:47:33 -0500
Subject: Bug#650792: excess spaces in wdiff of column-based files
Resent-Sender: Santiago Vila sanv...@master.debian.org
Package: wdiff
Version: 0.6.3-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
wdiff produces some strange-looking output when comparing text aligned in
columns.
$ cat file1
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, having to split this data out into separate packages is a significant
cost for maintainers and on the archive and simply the wrong way to do it.
Automatic package splits for the likes of tdebs are fine, but we should not
be forced to split binary
901 - 1000 of 5938 matches
Mail list logo
