Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reassign 676061 dpkg
Bug #676061 [src:doc-base] doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E:
reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be
generated
Bug reassigned from package 'src:doc-base' to 'dpkg'.
No longer
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reassign 675748 apt
Bug #675748 [dselect] dselect no longer shows package descriptions,
/var/lib/dpkg/available no longer contains them
Bug reassigned from package 'dselect' to 'apt'.
No longer marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.3.
Ignoring
Hi!
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 09:36:47 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Package: dpkg
start-stop-daemon should not follow symlinks:
# ls -l /etc/shadow /var/run/foo.pid
-rw-r- 1 root shadow 662 Apr 10 12:20 /etc/shadow
lrwxrwxrwx 1 nobody nogroup 11 Jun 4 06:00 /var/run/foo.pid -
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
You are right, I had not tried that. The second dpkg-buildpackage
would indeed realize that the patches are not applied and it would
apply them.
However, what I was trying over and over again was this:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Can you give an example?
I uploaded recode 3.6-19 yesterday, the package I was working on.
If you want to have some fun, ensure you have unstable in a deb-src
source line and try this:
apt-get -d source recode
tar xzvf recode_3.6.orig.tar.gz
cd
retitle 675979 dpkg-buildpackage: --no-unapply-patches should be the default
severity 675979 wishlist
block 675979 by 643043
tags 675979 + wontfix
quit
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Thanks again for explaining, and sorry for the ramble. I think this
is a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 675979 dpkg-buildpackage: --no-unapply-patches should be the default
Bug #675979 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-dev: dpkg-buildpackage does not always support
building twice in a row
Changed Bug title to 'dpkg-buildpackage: --no-unapply-patches should
Santiago Vila wrote:
Hmm, why do you say that the usual case does not involve modifying
any source files?
Sorry, I was probably unclear. I meant that running debian/rules
binary usually does not cause source files to be modified.
There is one exception I know of: some build systems run
# processing 676062
reassign 676062 dpkg
forcemerge 675613 676062
affects 675613 + src:debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br
# processing 676061
affects 675613 + src:doc-base
# processing 676107
affects 675613 + src:debian-faq
# processing 676122
affects 675613 + src:debian-history
# processing 676118
reassign
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# processing 676062
reassign 676062 dpkg
Bug #676062 [src:debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br] debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to entity DEBIANDOC for
which no system identifier could be generated
Bug
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.3+nmu1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
I'm currently working on multiarch-friendly cross-toolchains.
Such packages would greatly benefit from specific arch qualifiers in both
binary package field “Depends” and source package field “Build-
Depends”.
The latter is
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 19:56:49 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
Package: libdpkg-perl
Version: 1.16.3
Severity: minor
User: debian-p...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: perl-5.16-transition
When testing rebuilds with perl 5.16 in experimental, I get:
Dpkg::Control::Fields::field_capitalize()
Hi,
I saw this old bug report yesterday whilst looking for the convention
for bug subjects used in dpkg.
* Changwoo Ryu [2004-07-04 06:57 +0900]:
In my ko_KR.UTF-8 locale and with the new Korean translation added
(#254590),
dpkg-query --list prints each fields in wrong columns (see attached
Hi,
thanks for applying and extending the patch that fast!
* Guillem Jover [2012-06-05 11:12 +0200]:
(a configure script would ease testing patches)
I'm not sure what you mean with this?
I did not write what I meant ;)
What I meant is that it is not obvious without looking into the
14 matches
Mail list logo
