Looks like your KMail is doing strange things with the In-Reply-To
header (using a wrong Message-ID).
Your last mail contains:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In reply to:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ie you break all threads you are replying to.
Christophe
--
Christophe Barbé <[EMAI
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 07:52:57PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Version 3.39-1 of the file utility changed the format of the output line
> for MIPS shared libraries again.
>
> Older versions of libtool.m4 use the file utility and a regular
> expression to determine if something is a shared
old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that does... any package which depends on libexif8
> now becomes... you guessed it... UNINSTALLABLE! Why does this annoy me
> in particular, because I ju
heney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:31:37PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> > You are kidding right?
> >
> > I have not removed an old library, I have uploaded a newer upstream with
> > a different soname. That's the way it works, a new library is uploaded,
>
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:18:37AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Usually, you can use apt-cache showpkg libexif8 and send a message to
> every maintainer whose package depends on it, asking to rebuild against
> the new libexif9. When everyone has rebuilt against the new lib,
> then you can ask for
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> this case.
The source package is libexif independently of the soname.
Are you su
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:07:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> > this ca
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:32:10PM -0400, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Source: gdesklets-data
> Binary: gdesklets-data
> Architecture: source all
> Version: 0.13.1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
> Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:23:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Yes, gdesklets-data is a debian native package (ie: there is no upstream
> tarball corresponding to this archive).
Thanks for the explaination.
> -n version are revision on a same upstream tarball, but in this case we
> don't ha
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > Is there something preventing the use of a .orig.tar.gz tarball. It
> > would be nice to see a .orig.tar.gz containing only upstream bits and
> > the debian stuff in the diff, for review purpose and for bandwith
> >
o get).
Christophe
-Message suivi-
From: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: christophe barbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug#208857: Acknowledgement (gimp1.3: Segfault on Layer Mask in Layer
Dialog on PowerPC)
Date: 05 Sep 2003 12:33:06 -0500
Thank you for the proble
Sorry for this. Let's say it was Monday.
Christophe
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christophe Barbe wrote:
> I don't understand why but I am unable to find a bug report I filled 3
> days ago. Can someone explain me what happen?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:53:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > - Architecture: all packages would not get built
> >
> > Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
> > autobuilders building the arch: all stuff.
>
> Feel free to set up one.
I feel like I am
amiga-fdisk (0.04-7) unstable; urgency=low
* First version
-- My Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:06:59 -0500
Shame on me.
I did it two days ago with equivs and kept it on my HD but for some
reason not in my brain.
My only consolation is that I did it because of its FTBFS state.
Christophe
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:49:49PM -0500, christophe barbe wrote:
>
> amiga-fdisk (0.04-7) unstable; urgen
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:43:17PM +0100, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> Unfortunately many Maintainers do not use "dh_md5sums" to ship
> an .md5sums File in their Package(s). This makes it harder to
> check the already installed Files on a Debian installation.
>
> I think, at least Packages like "d
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:11:52PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Before mass bug-filling, it would be necessary to make it mandatory
> > which unfortunately is not the case right now afaik.
>
> Severity: wishlist
> Where is the problem?
Waste of time ?
If it's not mandatory, a full coverage wi
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:24:09PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> > IMHO Lintian should also check if "dh_md5sums" is called and
> > print at least a warning if this is not the case.
> In principle, I argree, but maybe it's better to check for the presence
> of an md5s
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:05:43AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> There is already a bug filed about this: #170292. The maintainer replies:
>
> "gphoto2 2.1.0 is not compatible with the new libexif in debian/sid.
> gphoto2 2.1.1 will be out soon, the package is ready.
> I will upload gphoto2 2.1.1
I am thinking about orphaning xmlto.
It's a very useful package but I am not very uptodate with sgml/xsl and
I know nearly nothing about TeX (and doesn't want to).
So if someone is interested and feels he can do a better job, I would be
happy.
Most current bugs are fixed in the new upstream but u
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-26
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libgphoto2
Version : 2.1.1
Upstream Author : The gphoto2 team
* URL : http://www.gphoto.org/
* License : LGPL
Description : The gphoto2 digital camera library
I am
I wonder why only the .changes files are readable in the NEW queue.
Is there a reason for this?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E
There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 02:30:35PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Yes, it is normal. The reason is crypto-in-main: they have to be
> checked by ftp-masters first.
I don't see why they should not be readable by everyone before being
checked by ftp-master. I don't said I disapprove that (for what it
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:00:49PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> When I read http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain correct, all
> Software that contains cryptographic functionality must be registered
> before it can legally be distributed. So the ftp-master must check if
> a new package cont
24 matches
Mail list logo
