On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:29:06PM +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hello Manuel,
> There is another "problem", which is that openldap2 build-deps
> to libsasl2-dev, provided by cyrus-sasl2, which in turn build-deps
> to libldap2-dev. That's no problem really, you just need to build
> cyrus-
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Christopher Bodenstein wrote:
> > It's a bit awkward to review the patch as is, as it generates new files
> > in debian/patches, which itself contain the real patch. I am not too
> > sure how to proceed here, perhaps it is best to decouple the process.
> >
Christopher Bodenstein a écrit :
Hello folks,
Hello,
When trying to rebuild the openldap2 package I was rather surprised that
all it took was to add a LIBS = -lpthread into the debian/rules
So, it would be nice if someone else could try to rebuild it as well
just to make sure :)
I did a few d
Howdy!
Compare our pricees with others ..
Win XP -49,5
Antivirus Software - 29,9
Adobe products from 30 to 100
It;s only one place to buy quality products for reasonable prices
here .. used
I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man's being unable to
sit still and quiet
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've actually tried to send the patch not gzipped but it didn't get
>through, so I thought I was hitting a size limit and gzipped it.
>
> gzipping a file over email is silly since it gets encoded using
> base64. Take the following example:
>
I've actually tried to send the patch not gzipped but it didn't get
through, so I thought I was hitting a size limit and gzipped it.
gzipping a file over email is silly since it gets encoded using
base64. Take the following example:
foobarbazquux
==> { base64 }
Zm9vYmFyYmF6cXV1eA==
7 by
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hello Michael,
> First, off, thanks a lot for your patch and the decision to contribute!
>
Thanks for your long comment :)
> There are some minor issues pertaining to the formalities, which I'd
> like to point out:
>
> *
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:19:03AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> I've sent an alternative implementation to solve this problem, that I
> think is cleaner, clearer and less intrusive.
As I said on debian-dpkg [1], you haven't explained why using DEB_*_GNU_CPU
and DEB_*_GNU_SYSTEM variables (like
Hello folks,
When trying to rebuild the openldap2 package I was rather surprised that
all it took was to add a LIBS = -lpthread into the debian/rules
So, it would be nice if someone else could try to rebuild it as well
just to make sure :)
Anyway, I include the diff to the debian/rules at the end
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:50:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please have a look at this patch I just sent to dpkg maintainers:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~rmh/patches/dpkg.diff
>
> This should address all the concerns porters have had with limitations in dpkg
> architecture handling
10 matches
Mail list logo
