Hi,
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
> (The long description could make more scary noises about bumping,
> however.)
And include an explanation of when it's appropriate or not, and of
ways to avoid it altogether...
Please someone do it and add that to the auto-reject list.
And also add a
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a
> > > Debian-format archive is IMO alw
Hi Raphael,
> [..]
Could you please file bugs for these issues? Many thanks.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Hello,
I am trying to upgrade apt-cacher to Standards version 4.1.3. In particular
using DISABLED=yes|no in /etc/defaults is now prohibited.
apt-cacher can be run as a daemon or from /etc/inetd.conf and this configuration
is set in response to a debconf question.
I have a working version of the
Hi,
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Could you please file bugs for these issues? Many thanks.
Done:
- https://bugs.debian.org/889814
Improve long description of epoch-change-without-comment
=> Additional suggestions to put in the long description are welcome.
- https://bugs.debia
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I disagree - reusing file names wit
Moin,
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Could you please file bugs for these issues? Many thanks.
>
> Done:
>
> - https://bugs.debian.org/889814
> Improve long description of epoch-change-without-comment
>
Hi,
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:14:15 +, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to upgrade apt-cacher to Standards version 4.1.3. In
> particular using DISABLED=yes|no in /etc/defaults is now prohibited.
Thanks for fixing this.
>
> apt-cacher can be run as a daemon or from /etc/inetd.con
Christian T. Steigies writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch
is bumped"):
> This should be documented somewhere where a regular DD can easily learn
> about these restrictions. Looking at the debian-policy, I still do not see
> what I did wrong with my recent upload:
>
> https://w
On 15/11/17 at 16:43 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my QA page or our blend's task page (like
> https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about
> updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more
> likely) with the help of my blend. The updat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lars Wirzenius
* Package name: vmdb2
Version : 0.9
Upstream Author : Lars Wirzenius
* URL : https://github.com/larswirzenius/vmdb2
* License : GPL3+
Programming Lang: Python
Description : create disk images with
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> I did not know that I can upload an orig.tar.* with a debian-version
> >1, nor did I know that I was supposed to workaround bugs in Ubuntu or
> filesystems that can not handle epochs.
Once again, I dispute that this is a bug
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem.
Interestingly enough, you *can* put a : in a filename on an NTFS
filesystem, if you do it with ntfs-3g. Windows won't like it, though.
Yes, I found that out the hard way ;-)
(
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time
> > decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames?
>
> My understanding is that it would have caused some kind of problems for
> common operations at the time
14 matches
Mail list logo
