From: Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Debian Bug#338046: whizzytex: einitex unavailable from tetex and no
longer functions.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:00:26 +0900
> According to the maintainers, this is an upstream change,
> and other distributions will possibly follow.
>
> The chang
Package: iproute
Severity: serious
Version: 20041019-4
Tags: sid
Justification: fails to build from source
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Automatic build of iproute_20041019-4 on auric by sbuild/sparc 69
Build started at 20051110-2318
[...]
** Using build dependencies
* Hilko Bengen:
> db_query uses sprintf to replace placeholder expressions if passed
> more than one argument and it seems to me that using %s does the same
> thing as PHP's string expansion as in 4.5.3.
What about SQL injection? Doesn't db_query protect against it, while
PHP's string expansion
clone 334613 -1
found -1 3.0-10.1
retitle -1 Should make sure the TEXFONTPATH setting is correct
severity -1 normal
submitter -1 Kenward Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
stop
>>
> I guess you forgot to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] into Bcc. At least I don't
> see a cloned bug.
>
> H.
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 334613 -1
Bug#334613: tetex-bin: fmtutil-sys fails during package package setup
Bug 334613 cloned as bug 338585.
> found -1 3.0-10.1
Bug#338585: tetex-bin: fmtutil-sys fails during package package setup
Bug marked as found in version 3.0-10.1.
>
unfound 337881 0.074-2
thanks
On Nov 10, Pierguido Lambri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to deinstall and install it again with dpkg -i.
> There is no udev process running:
Then it's not the same bug.
Feel free to open a new one if you can reproduce it again and explain
it.
--
ciao,
Marco
Package: tex-common
Version: 0.10
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog. Failed because: Can't locate
Debconf/Element/Dialog.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl
/usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.7 /usr/loc
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Then it's not the same bug.
> Feel free to open a new one if you can reproduce it again and explain
> it.
Sorry, i didn't explain myself very well...
I got the same bug (that one after post-inst) and i can't deinstall it.
I gave a look in the configuration files and i found th
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.8
> notfound 337881 0.074-2
Bug#337881: udev post-inst fails
Bug marked as not found in version 0.074-2.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assista
Package: grep
Version: 2.5.1.ds2-3
Severity: critical
This version of grep links with /usr/lib/libpcre.so.3, however,
grep is required to run before local filesystems have been loaded.
If /usr is not on the /-partition, the system will not boot
correctly.
See e.g. /etc/rcS/S02mountvirtfs (fails
Package: grep
Version: 2.5.1.ds2-3
Severity: critical
The new grep package linked to libpcre renders the whole system
unbootable if /usr does not reside on the root partition. Boot scripts
which are executed before /usr is mounted already use grep and fail
badly wiothout an libpcre being available
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:36:29 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in upload of glade 2.12.1-2 to experimental
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:58:28 +1100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338589: grep linking with /usr/lib/libpcre.so.3 renders
system unbootable
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:00:05 +1100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338590: grep linked to libpcre renders system unbootable
if /usr does not reside on the root partition
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim tha
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 337203 + pending
Bug#337203: gnome-python: Builds broken package: fails to detect pyorbit
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system adminis
Package: moodle
Severity: grave
Tags: security
Justification: user security hole
An SQL injection vulnerability has been found in Moodle. Please
see http://rgod.altervista.org/moodle16dev.html for more information
and a proof-of-concept exploit.
Cheers,
Moritz
-- System Information:
Debi
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:32:06 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337203: fixed in gnome-python 2.10.0-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Please fix the problem and discuss the correction with us.
I would like to see the sources for evolution 1.0.5-1 and/or
1.0.5-1woody1. The only sources I could find in the archive, on
security.d.o, and in snapshot.d.n were for 1.0.5-1w
On 11.11.05 Eric Valette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
> Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
> debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
>
Isn't that a message from debconf?
Further the File Debconf/Element/Dialog.pm does not exist in the
unstable distribution, especially not in the packag
On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> > Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
> > debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
> >
> Isn't that a message from debconf?
Strange. Which version of debconf do you have?
My version contains:
debconf: /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/Element/Dialog
deb
A version of Abuse that is 64-bit compliant was uploaded to unstable,
this bug can therefore be closed. This package is not exactly deprecated
by the abuse-frabs package (despite it beings abuse-frabs' goal). They
could be merged, but it is quite a hard task.
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:40:11 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Useless without 'abuse' or 'abuse-sdl' packages
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:47:07 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#306150: fixed in gnome-swallow 1.2-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is no
Hi, i have attached a libnjb.rules to this report to have udev set
the rights permissions for the /proc/bus/usb/x/x device for the
creative jukeboxes.
The nomad.usermap is no longer needed since these informations are
in the rules file.
I dont know if i should report this to upstream or not, for n
notfound 334613 3.0-10.1
stop
On 11.11.05 Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> clone 334613 -1
> found -1 3.0-10.1
> retitle -1 Should make sure the TEXFONTPATH setting is correct
> severity -1 normal
> submitter -1 Kenward Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> stop
>
--
sigmentation fault
--
On 11.11.05 Norbert Preining ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> > > Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
> > > debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
> > >
>
> > Isn't that a message from debconf?
>
> Strange. Which version of debconf do you ha
On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> > debconf: /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/Element/Dialog
>
> I don't understand so much about perl, but if I write
>
> use Debconf::Element::Dialog;
>
> don't I refer to $PERLPATH/Debconf/Element/Dialog.pm, which does not
> exist?
Maybe yes, but I don't c
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> notfound 334613 3.0-10.1
Bug#334613: tetex-bin: fmtutil-sys fails during package package setup
Bug marked as not found in version 3.0-10.1.
(By the way, this Bug is currently marked as done.)
> stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you n
reassign 338587 debconf
thanks
Hi Debconf people, here's a grave bug filed against tex-common which
must in fact be debconf's fault:
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>> > Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
>> > debconf: Unable to load Debconf
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 338587 debconf
Bug#338587: tex-common fails to install
Bug reassigned from package `tex-common' to `debconf'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrato
Hi,
> About manual, initex feature is there forever so manual doesn't
> stop to mention initex feature. So this doesn't mean removal
> of initex is premature. (even right now, if you call tex with
> the name initex, it behaves as such.)
I'd think documenting that in texk/web2c/man/tex.man et al
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> db_query uses sprintf to replace placeholder expressions if passed
>> more than one argument and it seems to me that using %s does the
>> same thing as PHP's string expansion as in 4.5.3.
>
> What about SQL injection? Doesn't db_query protect against i
* Hilko Bengen:
> Do you have any idea how the $key parameter to sess_destroy
> (includes/session.inc) is generated?
It seems as if drupal uses the value generated by PHP, which would
mean that it's not exploitable for SQL injection, but I'm not sure.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On 11.11.05 Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
> > About manual, initex feature is there forever so manual doesn't
> > stop to mention initex feature. So this doesn't mean removal of
> > initex is premature. (even right now, if you call tex with the
> > name initex, it behaves as suc
Hi,
> > For example, releasing etch with a 'initex' that gives out
> > a warning that 'initex is deprecated, use tex -ini instead'
> > won't hurt.
> But your postinst scripts will fail anyway
It's not only postinst scripts that will use initex.
initex is a well-known interface for generating
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:17:18 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332282: fixed in vlc 0.8.4-test2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:17:18 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332773: fixed in vlc 0.8.4-test2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:17:18 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332773: fixed in vlc 0.8.4-test2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:17:18 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332282: fixed in vlc 0.8.4-test2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
merge 338222 334239
thanks
> Package: koffice
> Severity: serious
> Version: 1:1.4.2-2
> Tags: sid
> Justification: fails to build from source
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: dato (at) the-barrel.org | PK: DA6AE621
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.
Package: libpcre-ocaml
Version: 5.10.0-3
Severity: grave
Tags: sid
When ocaml in Sid was upgraded to 3.09, the libpcre-ocaml and
libpcre-ocaml-dev packages were not updated.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 338222 334239
Bug#334239: koffice_1:1.3.5-5(m68k/unstable):
Bug#338222: koffice_1:1.4.2-2_m68k: FTBFS: internal compiler error
Merged 334239 338222.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trackin
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:32:08 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337978: fixed in bse-alsa 0.6.6-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now y
Kenward Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:30:44AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Now in the future, *never* edit texmf.cnf again, but instead just edit
>> the files in texmf.d. You will (of course) still be asked by dpkg if
> ...
>
>
> I don't believe I ever have--I h
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.8
> close 337881 0.074-1
Bug#337881: udev post-inst fails
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug marked as fixed in version 0.074-1, send any further
Package: amarok
Version: 1.3.5-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
According to what I read in bug report #337754, debian testing
users are supposed to install the version from unstable (since
there is no testing version of amarok). Fine.
Here is what I get when I try t
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Kenward Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:30:44AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Now in the future, *never* edit texmf.cnf again, but instead just edit
> >> the files in texmf.d. You will (of course
Hi all,
>>>Attached is a patch that removes the install-data-hook target from the
>>>install target.
>>
>>
>> This really seems like the wrong fix, IMHO; I can understand that updmap
>> in Debian may not have the same behavior as upstream's, but I don't
>> understand why it should be gratuitous
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 338401
Bug#338401: boot sequence depends on grep(libpcre3)
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs da
Frank Küster wrote:
> reassign 338587 debconf
> thanks
>
> Hi Debconf people, here's a grave bug filed against tex-common which
> must in fact be debconf's fault:
>
> Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>>
Setting up tex-common (0.10)
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > For example, releasing etch with a 'initex' that gives out
>> > a warning that 'initex is deprecated, use tex -ini instead'
>> > won't hurt.
>
>> But your postinst scripts will fail anyway
>
> It's not only postinst scripts that will use i
* Olivier Ricordeau [Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:24:13 +0100]:
> Package: amarok
> Version: 1.3.5-1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
> Hi,
Hi,
> According to what I read in bug report #337754, debian testing
> users are supposed to install the version from unstable (since
> t
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:08:08 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338618: amarok: can't install on testing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
> > On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> >> > Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
> >> > debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
I imagine that a strace -f of a run of dpkg-reconfigure or any other
debconf command that reproduces the problem would show clearly what it
is.
Most like
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 338616 grave
Bug#338616: k3b: fails to install on debian testing using apt-get
Severity set to `grave'.
> close 338616
Bug#338616: k3b: fails to install on debian testing using apt-get
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Deve
Package: tetex-base
Version: 2.0.2c-8
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 9.1.2
Trying to upgrade from 20.2c-8 to 3.0.10:
dpkg: tetex-base: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
tetex-bin depends on tetex-base.
(Reading database ... 98267 files and directories currently in
reassign 332829 gnustep-make
retitle 332829 should not use user-domain Headers when building Debian packages
severity 332829 important
thanks
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:30:57 -0600, Stephen R Marenka said:
> It looks to me like all those errors are trying to read and write to
> the user's home direct
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 332829 gnustep-make
Bug#332829: gnustep-gui, pdfkit.framework: FTBFS on m68k
Bug reassigned from package `pdfkit.framework, gnustep-gui' to `gnustep-make'.
> retitle 332829 should not use user-domain Headers when building Debian
> packages
Bu
Joey Hess wrote:
>>>On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>>>
>Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
>debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
>
>
> I imagine that a strace -f of a run of dpkg-reconfigure or any other
> debconf command that reproduces the problem would show clear
Eric Valette wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>
On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>>Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
>>debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
>>
>>
>>I imagine that a strace -f of a run of dpkg-reconfigure or any other
>>debconf command that repro
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:32:09 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338482: fixed in hunspell 1.1.2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now y
Eric Valette wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
>
On Fre, 11 Nov 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>>Setting up tex-common (0.10) ...
>>debconf: Unable to load Debconf::Element::Dialog.
>>
>>
>>I imagine that a strace -f of a run of dpkg-reconfigure or any other
>>debconf command that repro
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:54:41 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in hunspell 1.1.2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsi
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:51:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed inn 1.1.2-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility t
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:22 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#294099: fixed in lesstif1-1 1:0.93.94-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:22 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#298183: fixed in lesstif1-1 1:0.93.94-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:22 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#298183: fixed in lesstif1-1 1:0.93.94-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:22 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#299236: fixed in lesstif1-1 1:0.93.94-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:22 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#299236: fixed in lesstif1-1 1:0.93.94-12
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 273871 silc-toolkit
Bug#273871: libslc violates library policies
Warning: Unknown package 'libsilc'
Bug reassigned from package `libsilc' to `silc-toolkit'.
> --
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 312901 linux-2.6
Bug#312901: CD/DVD burning doesn't work with kernel-image-2.6.11-1-k7 and
ide-scsi
Warning: Unknown package 'kernel-image-2.6.11-1-k7'
Bug reassigned from package `kernel-image-2.6.11-1-k7' to `linux-2.6'.
> reassign 304617 l
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-01 02:01]:
> > Version: version from scribus.net
>
> So why do you submit this bug to Debian? We cannot do anything about
> a package that is not even in Debian. Please report it to
> scribus.net.
Have you reported it to them and have they done an
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:31:31 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337481: mythvideo: uninstallable -- depens on unavailable
package libqt3c102-mt
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 336358 icc-profiles
Bug#336358: conflicts with files in "icc-profiles"
Warning: Unknown package 'scribus-icc'
Bug reassigned from package `scribus-icc' to `icc-profiles'.
> severity 336358 minor
Bug#336358: conflicts with files in "icc-profile
Package: pngcrush
Version: 1.5.10-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
pngcrush fails to run, with the following error:
$ pngcrush testu.png testu-crushed.png
Warning: versions are different between png.h and png.c
png.h version: 1.2.7
png.c version: 1.2.8
| pngcrush
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:02:31 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337323: fixed in ttf-junicode 0.6.5-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is n
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:32:09 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#337972: fixed in libungif4 4.1.3-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Package: gnumeric
Version: 1.6.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: no longer builds from source
Even after the libgsf-1{,-common} problem is cleared up by using more
recent versions of the package, gnumeric still has a problem building from
source.
Log attached.
-- System Information:
Debian Re
required to build this package
> make: *** [config.status] Error 1
> ******
> Build finished at 2005-1538
> FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]
This is the second problem in two revisions. Stop uploading unbuildab
Package: glabels
Version: 2.1.1-3
Severity: serious
glabels is not bin-nmu save. glabels is an arch-any package which
depends against glabels-data, an arch-all package, with the same
version.
Bastian
--
The heart is not a logical organ.
-- Dr. Janet Wallace, "The Deadly Years",
. present
> > checking for snd_asoundlib_version in -lasound... no
> > configure: error: ALSA version 1.0.5 is required to build this package
> > make: *** [config.status] Error 1
> > ******
> > Build
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>The version of libasound2-dev in unstable is 1.0.9, which is >= 1.0.5
> and is supposed to have the snd_asoundlib_version symbol. The m68k and
> Alpha autobuilders managed to build the package. It is therefore not
> "not buildable in
Hi,
> >> But your postinst scripts will fail anyway
> >
> > It's not only postinst scripts that will use initex.
> > initex is a well-known interface for generating
> > dumps with tex.
>
> Many obsolete things are well-known. It's a good idea to provide an
> initex script that will echo "pl
ersion in -lasound... no
> configure: error: ALSA version 1.0.5 is required to build this package
> make: *** [config.status] Error 1
> **
> Build finished at 2005-1538
> FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 338401 2.5.1.ds2-4
Bug#338401: boot sequence depends on grep(libpcre3)
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug marked as fixed in version 2.5.1.ds2-4, send any further explanations to
Nobuhiro KUSUNO <[EMAIL P
Hi,
anyway, the following changes will be applied to Debian whizzytex default
configuration to work around the problem.
--- whizzytexrc 24 Mar 2005 23:19:26 - 1.4
+++ whizzytexrc 12 Nov 2005 03:42:20 -
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
# This pair specifies advi. Specify a lower level value for any o
Your message dated Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:17:07 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#338046: fixed in whizzytex 1.2.3-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
This bug was because of a sync issue in the package distribution of
mffm-libsndfilew. The latest version of this package was needed to
build, but wasn't present for some reason on all architectures. Those
architectures which had it present built successfully.
If built now, then there will be no
Package: libcpre3
Version: libpcre3
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system
My /usr treeis on a different disc partition than the boot partition /
So when grep is trying to run to start and set up the system it cannot
find libpcre.so.3 so most of the system fails. I was able to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 336985 patch
Bug#336985: graphviz: DSA 857: insecure temp file creation
Tags were: security
Tags added: patch
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, D
90 matches
Mail list logo
