Why did you update libtool-dont-rearange-as-needed patch without any
functional change?
While inspecting / testing if it was still needed, I may have inadvertently
updated the date on the file. No changes in the file, I have restored the
original file in preparation for my next attempt.
You
On 10-11-12 09:46, David Smith wrote:
Why did you update libtool-dont-rearange-as-needed patch without
any functional change?
While inspecting / testing if it was still needed, I may have
inadvertently updated the date on the file. No changes in the file,
I have restored the original file
Your message dated Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:16:06 +0100
with message-id
CADk7b0Oi_SWUFzuKmPdTp=8p6qeHfx=b5ed4Onm+eWd=th8...@mail.gmail.com
and subject line Re: Bug#692125: RFS: raphael/2.1.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #692125,
regarding RFS: raphael/2.1.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package chrony (NMU).
* Package name: chrony
Version : 1.24-3.2
Upstream Author : Richard Curnow r...@rc0.org.uk
* URL : http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/
* License
Le 10/11/2012 17:10, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit :
chrony (1.24-3.2) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=medium
Please use 1.24-3.1+deb7u1 as a version number (and eventually directly
“wheezy” instead of “testing-proposed-updates”). Since packages meant to
testing-proposed-updates should be
* Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com, 2012-11-09, 00:56:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466550
There is a very long discussion about Debian policy §4.9. All what I
asked in my previous emails seems to have already been asked and
discussed there. From what I read there, seems
Il 11/11/2012 00:02, Jakub Wilk ha scritto:
* Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com, 2012-11-09, 00:56:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466550
There is a very long discussion about Debian policy §4.9. All what I asked
in my previous emails seems to have already been asked and
* Vasudev Kamath kamathvasu...@gmail.com, 2012-11-10, 11:28:
debian/watch contains only a single line version=3? Is that
intentional? As far as I can see, this change is not documented in the
changelog.
Yes file is introduced to suppress the lintian warning. Do you think I
need to remove that
Your message dated Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:20:30 +
with message-id e1txp26-0004o3...@quantz.debian.org
and subject line closing RFS: cppreference-doc/20120620-1 [ITP] -- C and C++
standard library reference manual for English language.
has caused the Debian Bug report #678500,
regarding RFS:
On 01:38 Sun 11 Nov , Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Vasudev Kamath kamathvasu...@gmail.com, 2012-11-10, 11:28:
debian/watch contains only a single line version=3? Is that
intentional? As far as I can see, this change is not documented
in the changelog.
Yes file is introduced to suppress the lintian
10 matches
Mail list logo
