On 13 May 2010 at 12:00, Don Armstrong wrote:
| On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 13 May 2010 at 10:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
| > | If I was paying more attention when R packages started coming into
| > | the archive, I would have lobbied harder for them to follow the
| > | lib*-
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 at 10:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
> | If I was paying more attention when R packages started coming into
> | the archive, I would have lobbied harder for them to follow the
> | lib*-perl
>
> If memory serves, I started with RODBC and tser
On 13 May 2010 at 10:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
| On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > On 12 May 2010 at 22:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
| > | However, the whole idea of having source package which do not
| > | produce at least a binary of the same name is fundamentally
| > | broken, and I
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On 12 May 2010 at 22:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> | However, the whole idea of having source package which do not
> | produce at least a binary of the same name is fundamentally
> | broken, and I have spoken repeatedly against doing it.
>
> Well narrow
On 12 May 2010 at 22:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
| On Thu, 13 May 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
| > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 21:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > > 'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
| > > giving you the sm binary.
| >
| > I filed the bug against the s
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 21:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > 'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
> > giving you the sm binary.
>
> I filed the bug against the sm binary package, not the sm source
> package. I was under
On 13 May 2010 at 10:25, Paul Wise wrote:
| On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 21:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > 'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
| > giving you the sm binary.
|
| I filed the bug against the sm binary package, not the sm source
| package. I wa
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 21:18 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> 'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
> giving you the sm binary.
I filed the bug against the sm binary package, not the sm source
package. I was under the impression that the BTS could now handle this
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 581337 screen-message
Bug #581337 [sm] sm: SIGSEGV on armel
Bug reassigned from package 'sm' to 'screen-message'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions screen-message/0.18-1.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if yo
reassign 581337 screen-message
thanks
'sm' is the source for r-cran-sm which is not the screen-message source
giving you the sm binary.
Dirk
On 12 May 2010 at 17:13, Paul Wise wrote:
| Package: sm
| Version: 0.18-1
| Severity: serious
|
| While testing if Khmer rendering is now working (it is)
Package: sm
Version: 0.18-1
Severity: serious
While testing if Khmer rendering is now working (it is), I found that sm
now segfaults on armel. The workaround is to comment out sm.c line 285:
g_object_set(draw,"can-focus",1);
Alternatively if this is actually needed, this seems to work to
11 matches
Mail list logo
