* Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [100527 16:52]:
> On Thursday 27 May 2010 03:08:58 Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [100527 06:47]:
> > > Those bugs are policy violations and make those packages FTBFS when using
> > > dash from testing or experimental, or p
On Thursday 27 May 2010 03:08:58 Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [100527 06:47]:
> > Those bugs are policy violations and make those packages FTBFS when using
> > dash from testing or experimental, or posh.
> >
> > Tag them squeeze-ignore if you want, but their seve
* Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [100527 06:47]:
> On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:36:22 Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [100525 18:16]:
> > > I have downgraded to "important" the bugs I filed about those packages.
> >
> > Great. That's the severity I wanted
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:36:22 Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [100525 18:16]:
> > I have downgraded to "important" the bugs I filed about those packages.
>
> Great. That's the severity I wanted to ask you.
I disagree.
Those bugs are policy violations and make
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 582952 + pending
Bug #582952 [dash] dash / LINENO-support lets many package FTBFS
Added tag(s) pending.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
582952: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [100525 18:16]:
> Indeed. Attached is the list of the 124 packages that FTBFS with dash
> 0.5.5.1-5 but do not fail with dash 0.5.5.1-3.
>
> I have downgraded to "important" the bugs I filed about those packages.
Great. That's the severity I wanted to a
On 25/05/10 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum , 2010-05-25, 08:28:
> >I've just done an archive rebuild. 459 packages failed. 340 are new
> >failures (they didn't fail two weeks ago). I've attached the full list
> >of new failures.
> >
> >Filtering out failures that don't seem c
On 25 May 2010 01:28, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I've just done an archive rebuild. 459 packages failed. 340 are new
> failures (they didn't fail two weeks ago). I've attached the full list
> of new failures.
I've started an archive-wide checkbashisms check on the source packages.
As of the time of
* Lucas Nussbaum , 2010-05-25, 08:28:
I've just done an archive rebuild. 459 packages failed. 340 are new
failures (they didn't fail two weeks ago). I've attached the full list
of new failures.
Filtering out failures that don't seem caused by this change (with grep
-v -e GCC_ERROR -e BUILDDEPS
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:28:58AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/05/10 at 22:27 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Re the long term perspectives, Jakub Wilk has contacted Lucas Nussbaum
> > about testing all our packages in unstable and see which are affected
> > by this bug, and then filling b
On 25/05/10 at 08:28 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I've attached the full list of new failures.
Now with the attachment :-)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
a7xpg 0.11.dfsg1-5 Failed [U
On 24/05/10 at 22:27 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Re the long term perspectives, Jakub Wilk has contacted Lucas Nussbaum
> about testing all our packages in unstable and see which are affected
> by this bug, and then filling bugs as appropriate. Once we know how
> many packages are affected, we th
* Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [100524 23:13]:
> I probably won't have time to process the results myself in the next
> two-three weeks.
Sorry, but we need something working within one week. I have lots of
cool ideas how the world should be, but this is not about "how should
it look like
On 24 May 2010 15:27, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, as sort of work around, I would like to ask you to remove
> this feature from dash in unstable again.
I can't speak for the maintainer, but I'd prefer if this change is not reverted.
LINENO is required by POSIX and was the last, major, missing
Package: dash
Version: 0.5.5.1-5
Severity: serious
Hi,
recently dash gained support for LINENO (see #540685). This made many
other package FTBFS, see e.g. #582037, #582876, #581884 and #582565.
A change that makes so many packages FTBFS makes release management
hard (or rather impossible), so we
15 matches
Mail list logo
