Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggested 1.2-3+s.lenny.1 in the past. More specifically:
>
> 1.2-3+a0... for local/vendor recompiles without source changes.
> 1.2-3+bXfor binary NMU
> 1.2-3+c0... for local/vendor changes with source changes
> 1.2-3+s... for security upda
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:54:09PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:05:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, the ~ character is stated to be evaluated to be less than the
> >> > empty string. If
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:05:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>>
>> > Well, the ~ character is stated to be evaluated to be less than the
>> > empty string. If a package is the target of a security upload in
>> > stable, you can be certa
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:05:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Well, the ~ character is stated to be evaluated to be less than the
> > empty string. If a package is the target of a security upload in
> > stable, you can be certain that the testing/unstable versi
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Well, the ~ character is stated to be evaluated to be less than the
> empty string. If a package is the target of a security upload in
> stable, you can be certain that the testing/unstable version will also
> increase when the new package is introduced to fix the prob
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:01PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:20:22PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> > Yes, but in reality what is the likelihood that either a security update
> > or NMU would introduce an incompatible change? I would say that such a
> > possib
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:20:22PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> Yes, but in reality what is the likelihood that either a security update
> or NMU would introduce an incompatible change? I would say that such a
> possibility is extremely low.
Why couldn't a security change require making inc
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> > 1.0.1-2) be more correct? T
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> > 1.0.1-2
Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> 1.0.1-2) be more correct? That way the package is still binNMU safe and
> also safe from breaking if incomp
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > Your case is probably better handled with a simple higher-or-equal
> > > dependency.
> >
> > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> > 1.0.1-2)
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Your case is probably better handled with a simple higher-or-equal
> > dependency.
>
> Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
> 1.0.1-2) be more correct? That way the package is still binNMU safe and
> also safe f
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > > Should be ${source:Version}. pure-ftpd-common is
> > > > arch:all.
> > >
> > > I changed that and uploaded new packages. Thanks for
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > Should be ${source:Version}. pure-ftpd-common is
> > > arch:all.
> >
> > I changed that and uploaded new packages. Thanks for you quick help!
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=4227
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >* Neil Williams [Sat, 12 May 2007 13:14:13 +0100]:
> >
> >>Depends: pure-ftpd-common (=${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
> >
> >>Should be :
> >>Depends: pure-ftpd-common (= ${binary:Version}), ${shlibs:D
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Neil Williams [Sat, 12 May 2007 13:14:13 +0100]:
Depends: pure-ftpd-common (=${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
Should be :
Depends: pure-ftpd-common (= ${binary:Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
^^
Should be ${s
* Neil Williams [Sat, 12 May 2007 13:14:13 +0100]:
> Depends: pure-ftpd-common (=${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
> Should be :
> Depends: pure-ftpd-common (= ${binary:Version}), ${shlibs:Depends}
^^
Should be ${source:Version}. pure-
On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:59:19 +0200
Stefan Hornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just got a bug on pure-ftpd (#423455). Someone else uploaded a broken NMU,
> now pure-ftpd is
> unstallable. My problem now is who did the upload and with what purpose,
> because it is not
> listed in pa
* Stefan Hornburg [Sat, 12 May 2007 13:59:19 +0200]:
> Hello,
Hi Stefan,
> I just got a bug on pure-ftpd (#423455). Someone else uploaded a broken NMU,
> now pure-ftpd is unstallable. My problem now is who did the upload and with
> what purpose, because it is not listed in package tracking sys
Hello,
I just got a bug on pure-ftpd (#423455). Someone else uploaded a broken NMU, now pure-ftpd is
unstallable. My problem now is who did the upload and with what purpose, because it is not
listed in package tracking system, and apt-get source only downloads 1.0.21-8.
Any idea what happened
21 matches
Mail list logo
