Source: monitoring-plugins
Version: 2.2-6
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source
Dear Maintainer,
When trying to locally rebuild monitoring-plugins on a Buster system with the
build-depends installed, the build actually fails during dh_compress.
This was tried
Package: t1-cyrillic
Version: 4.12+nmu2
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/t1-cyrillic.hints tells the rest of Debian to look for
the installed fonts in /usr/share/fonts/type1/cyrillic/, but they are
actually installed in
Package: t1-oldslavic
Version: 4.12+nmu2
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/t1-oldslavic.hints tells the rest of Debian to
look for the installed font in /usr/share/fonts/type1/oldslavic/,
but it is actually installed in
Package: t1-teams
Version: 4.12+nmu2
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/t1-teams.hints tells the rest of Debian to look
for the installed fonts in /usr/share/fonts/type1/teams/, but they
are actually installed in /usr/share/fonts/X11/Type1/ like
Package: ttf-beteckna
Version: 0.2-2
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/t1-betecna.hints tells the rest of Debian to
look for the installed fonts in
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-beteckna/, but they are actually
installed in
Package: ttf-dzongkha
Version: 0.3-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/ttf-dzongka.hints tells the rest of Debian to
look for the installed font in the file Jomolhari.ttf, but it is
actually installed in a file named
Package: ttf-inconsolata
Version: 001.009-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/ttf-inconsolata.hints tells the rest of Debian
to look for the installed font in Inconsolata.ttf, but it is
actually installed in Inconsolata.otf.
Because Debian
Package: ttf-okolaks
Version: 0.5-2.1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/ttf-okolaks.hints tells the rest of Debian to
look for the installed fonts in
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-okolaks/, but they are actually
installed in
Package: ttf-thai-arundina
Version: 0.1.1-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
/etc/defoma/hints/ttf-thai-arundina.hints tells the rest of Debian
to look for the installed fonts in
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-thai-arundina/arundina/, but they are
actually
Package: flashplugin-nonfree
Version: 9.0.31.0.1
Severity: grave
Tags: security, etch, upstream, fixed-upstream
Justification: user security hole (and won't install)
Upstream for this package (Adobe) has released version 9.0.48 as a
security update for version 9.0.31.
There is also an upstream
Package: flashplugin-nonfree
Version: 7.0.25-5
Severity: grave
Tags: security, sarge, upstream, fixed-upstream
Justification: user security hole (and won't install)
Upstream for this package (Adobe) has released versions 7.0.70 and
9.0.48 as security updates for version 7.0.25. Like Debian,
Package: bzr
Version: 0.9~rc1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 5.6.12
Policy section 5.6.12 lists the permitted characters in package
version numbers, '~' is NOT on the list, and until less than 14
days ago all packages in the archive were compliant with that
rule. I know for certain
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:26:12PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To work around the breaks whole system issue, the following
transition plan is proposed:
1. Before uploading the fixed apt, temporarily reconfigure
darcs etc. to NOT include
Package: apt
Version: 0.6.44.2
Severity: critical
Tags: security patch
Justification: breaks the whole system
The SHA256 checksums recently added to Packages files are wrong
due to a porting error when the sha256 implementation code was
imported from the Linux kernel sources to the apt source
Package: libbsf-java
Version: 2.3.0+cvs20050308-6
Severity: serious
Justification: no source, breaks debmirror etc.
Due to the issue described in Bug #341858 (an existing bug
against ftp.debian.org), when libbsf-java was moved from contrib
to main, the .orig.gz file was not included in pool/main
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 11, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not the information published by Marco in his packaging changelog
and in his blog. The bug is reported against the Debian package, I believed
Marco on his word
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:32:16AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
...
udev supports devfs naming schemes if you want
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:53:42AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 11, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having udev disable itself on reboot and leaving the system
non-functional is not an acceptable solution. Most systems have
I disagree, this is what udev has done
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 01:02:11AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seams that if getting udev 0.6x quickly rewritten to support all
udev-based kernels in one version is too much work or too controversial, you
should do what modutils, cdrecord
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12
(a point release in the stable branch)
There is no more stable or development kernel branches
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a = 2.6.12 kernel
thanks
On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
Not really.
According
Package: roxen4-doc
Version: 4.0.325-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable (fails to install)
roxen4-doc failed to install, complaining that it did not know what database
to contact. That sounded like obvious nonsense (I was installing the
*documentation*, not a database
tags 302854 patch
thanks
Note, I have not tested this patch!
--- debian/libcgicc-doc.doc-base.org2005-05-08 22:03:11.804375000 +0200
+++ debian/libcgicc-doc.doc-base2005-05-09 06:50:11.680330112 +0200
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Section: Apps/Programming
Format: HTML
-Index:
23 matches
Mail list logo
