Package: librnd
Severity: serious
Version: 4.2.0-1
There appears to be a bug in this version of librnd that prevents successful
rendering with the default gtk 4 hid. In the short term, users can work
around the problem by installing librnd4-hid-lesstif and invoking the various
ringdove tools
Gianfranco Costamagna writes:
> yes, but the library was renamed in librnd4t64, so either you need to
> depend on the new one, or drop it, to let the auto decrufter finish
> the time64_t transition and decruft it.
Ah, thank you, that's a useful observation. Since the relevant version
hasn't
Gianfranco Costamagna writes:
> Hello, I found that librnd4 is correctly evaluated from shlibs:Depends
> in the core library and then it can be dropped also on core
> reverse-dependencies.
The point of the dependency is to require version 4.1.0 or later, since
that's the librnd version that
This appears to be another manifestation of the incompatibility with
python3.12 reported in #1059647. I'm not going to mark it as a
duplicate in the BTS since the process of getting there is so different,
but I believe the fix will be the same. Upstream has reworked the build
process to allow
tags 1059647 +upstream
thanks
Upstream reports in https://github.com/scikit-fmm/scikit-fmm/issues/78
that this issue is fixed on a development branch, and will be merged and
released as soon as a test suite issue gets resolved.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
tags 1066248 +pending
tags 1049315 +pending
thanks
Last night I successfully completed a test build of librnd from upstream
svn trunk that resolves all open Debian bugs. The next upstream release
is still expected on 10 April, and I plan to update the Debian librnd
package immediately after that
Peter Michael Green writes:
> The functions in question are defined in
> src/librnd/plugins/hid_lesstif/dialogs.c
> and used in src/librnd/plugins/hid_lesstif/main.c
Correct. Upstream has fixed this and will have a new release on 10
April that I'm waiting for rather than patching the current
tags 1059647 +help
thanks
Graham Inggs writes:
> Source: scikit-fmm
> Version: 2022.08.15-4
> Severity: serious
> User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: python3.12
>
> Hi Maintainer
>
> scikit-fmm's autopkgtests fail with Python 3.12 [1]. I've copied what
> I hope is the relevant
You have my permission.
Bdale
On December 14, 2023 11:54:24 AM MST, Alexandre Detiste
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I ll try to fix this one if you permit.
>
>
>Greetings
tony mancill writes:
> So this is very possibly a bug in libreoffice-writer-nogui.
Sure seems like it. My guess would be that what files go in what
libreoffice binary packages got refactored somehow? Not sure what the
point of the nogui package is if it can't be used here any more.
[shrug]
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
I am unable to reproduce this problem building in a fresh, minimal sid
chroot environment. Is this a repeatable failure? If so, any thoughts
on what might cause it to fail in your build
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Source: camv-rnd
> Version: 1.1.1-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS
> Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
> User: lu...@debian.org
> Usertags: ftbfs-20230216 ftbfs-bookworm
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
Package: sch-rnd
Version: 0.9.3-1
Severity: serious
Upstream was happy for me to package sch-rnd for Debian unstable, but
would prefer we not include it in a stable release until he makes a
stable upstream 1.0 release.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Source: pcb-rnd
> Version: 3.0.5-3
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS
> Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs
> User: lu...@debian.org
> Usertags: ftbfs-20221023 ftbfs-bookworm
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
Thanks for
Moritz Mühlenhoff writes:
> If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf
> users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm
> release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been
> removed.
Yes, we could certainly do that.
Moritz Muehlenhoff writes:
> Source: geda-gaf
> Version: 1:1.8.2-11
> Severity: serious
>
> Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian:
For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a
complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian. It was forked some years
Paul Gevers writes:
> Your package fails to build on s390x where it build successfully in
> the past. I've X-Debbugs-CC-ed the s390x porters to help you
> understand why only this architecture is affected.
It's hard to imagine anyone actually trying to use lepton-eda on s390x.
If the porting
severity 1002252 important
thanks
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
It looks like noise from the latest librnd version is causing a pcb-rnd
test failure. There is no operational bug in either the library or the
Andreas Beckmann writes:
> I'm not sure whether it would be helpful, but a (versioned?)
> Provides: librnd-dev (= ${binary:Version})
> could ease upgrading from librnd-dev to librnd3-dev.
Yes, that makes sense.
> BTW, why has the -dev package been renamed from librnd-dev to librnd3-dev?
>
Andreas Beckmann writes:
> Package: openrocket
> Version: 15.03.6
> Severity: serious
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: piuparts
>
> Hi,
>
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package is no longer
> installable in sid:
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>
severity 977595 serious
thanks
Vanessa Dannenberg writes:
Hi Vanessa!
> Package: lepton-eda
> Version: 1.9.13-1
> Severity: grave
>
> [ This is a fresh install of Bullseye/testing, from a net-install
> image fetched just today]
I couldn't duplicate your problem on my "unstable" development
Paul Gevers writes:
> Your package Depends on openjdk-8, which isn't supposed to be used in
> testing since beginning 2019.
FYI, this dependency will remain until/unless upstream makes a new
release, and is still present in the version in unstable.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Sudip Mukherjee writes:
> Control: tags 957019 + patch
> Control: tags 957019 + pending
>
> Dear maintainer,
>
> I've prepared an NMU for atlc (versioned as 4.6.1-2.1) and
> uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I
> should cancel it.
Thank you!
Bdale
signature.asc
block 966736 by 965098
tags +wontfix
thanks
Matthias Klose writes:
> Package: src:geda-gaf
> Version: 1:1.8.2-11
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid bullseye
> User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: py2unversioned
I've already requested removal of the geda-gaf package, so do not plan
to
tags 949519 + help
thanks
I do not currently have the facilities or the motivation to try and
debug LDAP issues in sudo. Happy to merge a patch if someone else
figures out what's going wrong here.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Rob Browning writes:
> Bdale Garbee writes:
>
>> However, I see little chance of geda-gaf upstream working on the things
>> needed to keep it viable in Debian any time soon, and with lepton-eda in
>> my mind a complete replacement that still works with the same fil
Rob Browning writes:
> Bdale Garbee writes:
>
>> I'm not interested in maintaining pcb any more.
>
> Does that mean geda-gaf etc? If so might it make sense for you (or
> who?) to file a removal request, i.e. ROM or similar?
Sorry, you make a good point, geda-gaf and pcb
tags 964922 +pending
thanks
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
>> However, since your but report caused *me* to go read that and realize @
>> is now preferred to # for that directive, I'm updating the default
>> sudoers file for D
I'm not interested in maintaining pcb any more.
Bdale
On July 13, 2020 7:04:01 PM MDT, Rob Browning wrote:
>Bdale Garbee writes:
>
>> So... while I'm sure gEDA could be "saved" in Debian with enough
>effort,
>> I just don't see the point, and won't put any ti
أحمد المحمودي writes:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:48:59PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove geda-gaf from Debian.
>>
>> I'm personally quite happily living on the fork that I've packaged of
>> lepton-eda. Lepton-eda
Rob Browning writes:
> Please try to migrate soon, and at this point, to guile-3.0 if possible.
> Otherwise we might need to consider removing the package from Debian.
As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove geda-gaf from Debian.
I'm personally quite happily living on the fork
tags 949519 +needhelp
thanks
I don't have any easy way to debug LDAP issues. If someone else does
and wants to chase this down and let me know where the problem is,
that'd be great.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Jörg Mechnich writes:
>> DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -DUNALIGNED_OK
That was originally meant to only be enabled on amd64 .. I think that
got lost in one of the packaging style updates I accepted a while back.
Just uploaded 1.10-2 hopefully making the architecture-specificity true
again.
Hans-Christoph Steiner writes:
> this also goes the other way, where tarballs created in tar 1.30 fail to
> work in pristine-tar when tar 1.29 is installed:
Unfortunately, the nature of pristine-tar is such that it's somewhat
brittle in the face of upstream changes to tar.
I don't think it's
tags 901952 +help
thanks
I question whether this bug is really release-critical, since the only cases
of it I've heard about so far are the two instances pointed to in this bug log
where pristine-tar is being used across distributions and versions... I've not
seen the behavior in any of my own
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Package: openrocket
> Version: 13.05.1
> Severity: serious
>
> openrocket was turned into an installer that downloads
> the actual softare during package installation.
>
> In this state it mustn't be in main.
Oops, you're right. Working on it now.
Bdale
signature.asc
tags 908553 +unreproducible
severity 908553 normal
thanks
I've been unable to reproduce this problem, and am in fact a nearly-daily
user of pcb-rnd.
If the problem is persistent for you, I'm going to need to know more about
your system config, how you're invoking pcb-rnd, etc, to be able to
We need to isolate which upstream commit caused the behavior change.
I've got other things to work on that are higher priority to me right
now, so help from someone more motivate to chase this down would be
appreciated.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 05/14/2018 07:56 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> I still need to study the > code a bit further to try to come up with a
>> better suggestion.
> Sorry, the only suggestion I can make is that you should just use the
> new GNU tar. The old one was
Andreas Beckmann writes:
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install due
> to insserv rejecting the script header.
Thanks for letting me know.
> We had a similar problem in the past ... #719755
> Looks like the fix for #870456 "enabled" this bug
Laurent Bigonville writes:
> It seems that the postinst script is exiting in the middle of the script
> if the sudo group exists bypassing all the bits added by debhelper.
Not intentional, but it looks like the only thing there is the
dh_installinit fragment setting up the
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Now one test is taking over 6 hours (is that completely hanging?).
I have no idea. Never seen that happen. Makes me wonder what's changed
in your kernel or toolchain since the last build?
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Dima Kogan writes:
> I'm attaching two patches to fix this. Please review soon if
> possible. If I don't hear back by Dec 26, I'll NMU this. That's the
> latest possible day to meet the cutoff for stretch.
Thank you for your work on this. I see that an upload has happened.
I've packaged and uploaded mdocml/mandoc, as soon as it's accepted into the
archive I'll be able to update the build process for sudo to fix this.
Bdale
Niko Tyni <nt...@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:24:09AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> > # still depends on perl5
>> > found 808233 1.0-15
>> Bug #808233 {Done: Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com>} [p10cfgd] p10cfgd: Depen
Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes:
All of the RC fixes have been in unstable for a while now, so an upload
to t-p-u could be negotiated now with the RT. If you'd like me to take
care of that, please let me know.
Go for it. I'm likely to remain too busy to work on it much for the next
Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes:
Bdale, once such a confirmation (or another fix) is in, how would you
like to proceed? I could help with the RT communication again
Sure. I'm willing to merge a patch and do uploads, but need to know
which path they want me to use since the sudo in
Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes:
Hi,
with a patch now available for the versions in testing and in unstable,
I believe what still needs to be done is:
1. Negotiate with RT which version they'd be willing to accept
2. Prepare a package including the application patch version
C. Scott Ananian csc...@cscott.net writes:
FWIW, manually running update-openrocket after install seemed to work
fine:
Thanks for your bug report, and I'm glad you were able to get it
working.
It sounds like there may have been a transient problem with the upstream
website that hosts the .jar
Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:09:24PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Package: slic3r
version: 1.1.7+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
On an up-to-date system running sid:
bdale@rover:~$ slic3r
Running Slic3r under Perl = 5.16 is not supported nor recommended
Package: slic3r
version: 1.1.7+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
On an up-to-date system running sid:
bdale@rover:~$ slic3r
Running Slic3r under Perl = 5.16 is not supported nor recommended
Can't locate object method new via package Slic3r::Model at
/usr/share/perl5/Slic3r/GUI/Plater.pm line 53.
Package: pithos
Version: 0.3.17-2
Severity: grave
Installing pithos on my notebook running xfce4 resulted in odd errors about
gstreamer not finding resources. A quick web search led me to this bug
report in launchpad:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pithos/+bug/1007065
Manually installing
Apparently python3.4 showed up since python-bcrypt was last uploaded. The
result is that trying to build fails on the python3.4 pass due to the
associated dev package not being pulled in by python3-dev.
Adding python3-all-dev to the build-deps seems to fix the problem.
I care because this
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
It seems that the last upload (1:1.8.2-2) killed at least 4
buildds. This includes amd64 (brahms), armhf (hoiby),
armel (alwyn, ancina). I understand that some of them are
still down because of it.
That's unfortunate. What does killed mean here? I'd
severity 724922 important
thanks
أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes:
In that case, maybe the bug severity should be reduced ?
Sure, makes sense to me.
Bdale
pgp1n0W37J5qv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Daniel Schepler dschep...@gmail.com writes:
At this point, the load average shoots through the roof, and top shows
a large number of make and sh processes being created. I therefore
have to interrupt the build.
Which architecture and release are you trying this on?
Bdale
pgp6BbDSHszUd.pgp
أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:19:04PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Daniel Schepler dschep...@gmail.com writes:
At this point, the load average shoots through the roof, and top shows
a large number of make and sh processes being created. I therefore
Ralf Treinen trei...@free.fr writes:
Package: openafs-client,tar-scripts
Version: openafs-client/1.6.5-1
Version: tar-scripts/1.26+dfsg-10
Severity: serious
User: trei...@debian.org
Usertags: edos-file-overwrite
I'll fix this by having tar-scripts conflict with openafs-client.
Bdale
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
A conflict with openafs-client isn't really desireable, since that's a
pretty widely installed package at sites that use AFS. Failing renaming,
I'm inclined to split all the backup software off into a separate package
that you can conflict with, since
St��phane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes:
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/gzip_1.6-2_armel.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite '/usr/share/info/dir.gz', which is also in
package ed 1.9-2
Must be a toolchain issue? It doesn't happen on any architecture I have
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
It doesn't look like guile-2.0 has managed to build on ia64 in the
couple of years it's been in the archive; maintainers (CCed) - is there
any likelihood that it will?
I'm pretty much out of the loop on ia64 development at this point, but I
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
Source: geda-gaf
Version: 1:1.8.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: jessie sid
Hi,
geda-gaf added guile-2.0 as a build-dependency, but that package does
not exist on ia64; geda-gaf is therefore no longer buildable on that
architecture.
Hrm.
Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org writes:
Hi Bdale,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:27:12AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Thanks for the report. The problem is that sdcc 3.X introduces new
compiler features that are big problems for 8051, and sdcc is a build
dep for altos.
Are you aware
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
I uploaded an nmu fixing the recent security issues. Please see
attached patch.
Thanks.
Bdale
pgpE51sJkyUcl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes:
I see; this also sounds a bit like it's not worth releasing wheezy
with 1.6?
[shrug]
At least gschem is used to produce data for many things other than pcb,
so no, I don't really agree that it would be better to have no geda-gaf
than to have 1.6 in
أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes:
Bdale, I've added gregoa's patch pushed to git. Please upload.
Done. debian/1.8.1-2 uploaded, tagged, and pushed.
Bdale
pgpfZ7yxc2dKO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
reassign 658896 libgcrypt11
thanks
I don't use LDAP, and so don't have an easy way to test this, but since
Martijn van Brummelen reports that patching libgcrypt11 the way Ubuntu
has fixes this problem, I'm reassigning the bug to libgcrypt11 for
resolution in Debian.
Regards,
Bdale
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes:
I've prepared an NMU for geda-gaf (versioned as 1:1.6.2-4.3) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Be aware that 1.8.1-1 has been uploaded to unstable and is awaiting NEW
processing.
Bdale
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes:
Thanks, I've noted the version in NEW but for some reason I assumed
it was targetting experimental.
Having it in unstable now would be unfortunate (with or without this
fix) since a new upstream version would most probably not migrate to
testing,
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
However, the doc/ directory does include the non-free GFDL
documentation
It appears that the package was built against the full upstream tarball
and not the elided one. My bad.
FWIW, the binary package for tar does not include the GFDL documents,
this
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
'iocharset=iso8859-1' is actually the default; you would need to
override the default by specifying 'iocharset=utf8'.
Ah, right. Yes, in that case I agree we can just lose the explicit
iocharset setting in elilo.sh.
I can reassign this to elilo and
Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes:
After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I
thought that it did not qualify as free software.
Why do you say this? The intent of the author was clearly to be fully
permissive as long as attribution is retained.
For a fairly
Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes:
A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different
things.
Of course I understand that. But what bothers me in this and other
cases is that you're asserting that it fails the DFSG without explaining
*how* you think it fails the DFSG.
Ivo De Decker ivo.dedec...@ugent.be writes:
Do you have time to upload a new version?
I've been hoping to get altos 1.1 uploaded fixing this and some other
bugs in the current code, but it just hasn't happened yet. If Keith and
I don't get that done by the first week of September, I'll upload
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I'm calling for votes on the following proposal. There are
three options - two positive versions, and FD. In summary
A. Do not overrule release team. It is too late for automation.
B. Do not overrule release team. Defer to them on
Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de writes:
Since this directory seems to be shared by several packages
* all of them should ship it (probably empty)
* none should create it manually
* none should run 'rm -rf' on it (but only on the contents specific to
the package)
Thanks for the
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name writes:
Also note that 1.5 was released two days ago which contains the
updated gnulib.
Thanks for mentioning this, as I hadn't noticed yet!
Bdale
pgpukqEdsVJxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Thanks for the report. The problem is that sdcc 3.X introduces new
compiler features that are big problems for 8051, and sdcc is a build
dep for altos.
To fix this FTBFS, I've upload 'cc', which is a forked sdcc 2.9 built
specifically for the flavor of 8051 targets needed in altos. An
#part sign=pgpmime
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:35:15 +0200, Mats Erik Andersson
mats.anders...@gisladisker.se wrote:
The package is assigned to the Debian QA group, so the glibc-bsd group or
Bdale Garbee are most likely to act on this.
I do not intend to work on the makedev package any more
#part sign=pgpmime
severity 661702 important
tags 661702 +pending
thanks
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:40:47 +0100, Emmanuel Kasper
emmanuel.kas...@openforce.com wrote:
Package: amanda-client
Version: 1:3.3.0-1~bpo60+1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
A failure to build
#part sign=pgpmime
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:04:55 -0800, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
I call for a vote on the kernel ABI numbering policy bug with the
following ballot:
A) The technical committee declines to override the kernel maintenance
team's ABI numbering policy.
B) Further
#part sign=pgpmime
severity 660594 wishlist
thanks
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:37:55 +0100, Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de
wrote:
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts
upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then
prompted the user
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com wrote:
I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.
With votes from 7 of 8 committee members, all ranking A as their first
preference, the outcome of this ballot is no longer in doubt, and we have
met the required
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
decisions?
Not really.
A note from the package maintainers calling for help testing would seem
most appropriate to me, actually.
Bdale
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:44:49 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
decisions?
Not really.
A note from
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:08:13 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote:
I hereby submit to your attention the dpkg multi-arch conflict.
I believe the issue is well-known, so I describe it only briefly
below;
I also believe we've had sufficient discussion about this issue, and I
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com wrote:
I also believe we've had sufficient discussion about this issue, and I
therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.
And my vote is ACB.
Bdale
pgpkaXSeffFJc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:27:17 +0200, Henri Salo he...@nerv.fi wrote:
A full-disclosure user reported issue in sudo. Please verify:
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Jan/590 I hope the version
information is correct in this bug-report. Please contact me if you
need testing and I can help!
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:27:40 +0100, Robert Millan r...@debian.org wrote:
Package: gcpegg
Severity: grave
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: kfreebsd
Hi,
This package is uninstallable on kfreebsd-amd64 because of its dependency on
open package, which nowadays is a virtual
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:14:59 +0100, Robert Millan r...@debian.org wrote:
2011/11/10 Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com:
Out of curiosity, how could this possibly lead you to believe that
'grave' is an appropriate severity for this bug report? I would have
thought 'minor' more appropriate
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:33:22 -0500, John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:
I don't have time to work on it but it should be an easy fix.
Thanks for letting me know!
I keep forgetting to update the runtime deps, guess I'm just spoiled by
how well that works with dh_shlibdeps for C apps, etc.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 22:21:17 +0200, Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be
wrote:
The file examples/paulmon1.asm has the following notice:
Please distribute freely -- may not be sold, period.
Restricting commercial distribution violates DFSG.
Since it's by the same author as the overall
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:24:46 +0200, Mònica Ramírez Arceda mon...@probeta.net
wrote:
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
FYI.
Work is now focused on trying to get gnuradio upstream 3.4 packaged. I
do not expect to do any further work on the 3.2.2
tag 642705 +pending
thanks
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:47:29 +0200, Mònica Ramírez Arceda mon...@probeta.net
wrote:
warning: failed to load external entity release-notes-1.0.xsl
Already found and fixed on 30 August in our git repo with commit
e44f1ffb7104d70f5c9b9a90529ddbe1b75da074
which will
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:03:04 +0200 (CEST), Petr Salinger
petr.salin...@seznam.cz wrote:
just to make it clear.
The tar works as expected, it just emits extra warning.
Maybe a patch to this test that would allow it to succeed in the
presence of the extra warning makes sense for now? I would
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:49:50 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko u...@debian.org wrote:
Package: altos
Version: 1.0.1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
Automated builds with altos have run into errors when attempting to
produce altusmetrum.pdf due to unresolved references to
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:53:01 +0200, Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org
wrote:
56: incremental dump when the parent directory is unreadable FAILED
(listed03.at:25)
Any idea why this test is now failing on kfreebsd but not on Linux?
The source for this test is in tests/listed03.at, and
Package: getmail4
Severity: serious
Version: 4.20.2-1
The /usr/bin/getmail wrapper hard-codes /usr/bin/python2.5, but the package
does not declare a dependency on a specific version of python.
Since the wrapper has explicit code to check for a sufficiently recent
version of python, I suggest
Can you tell me whether this bug seems to be resolved in 3.2.0-1, please?
Bdale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
tags 603371 +upstream +sid
thanks
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:59:30 -0600, Martin Gallant snowb...@goodbit.net wrote:
The bug still exists in the latest version 1.25-2.
It appears to be known by tar upstream that you can't use
--one-file-system and --listed-incremental together, which is what
amanda
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo