>> At this point, I *think* I need to perform 3 tasks, with an optional 4th
>> task:
>>
>> (1) add the "port-x32" tag or category to the report because the
>> fellow writing the X32 wiki page appears to monitor it (see Bug
>> Reports at the end of https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port).
>
>> (2) add the
+++ Jeffrey Walton [2015-09-21 00:26 -0400]:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We took a bug report from a Debain maintainer under Debian's X32
> environment (https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port). Our bugs triggered some
> Debian bugs as we worked through some of the issues.
>
> One of the issues we encountered was
Hi Everyone,
We took a bug report from a Debain maintainer under Debian's X32
environment (https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port). Our bugs triggered some
Debian bugs as we worked through some of the issues.
One of the issues we encountered was GDB's inability to debug a C++
program. It was reported at
On 09/21/2015 03:25 AM, Jens Reyer wrote:
> I don't think Conflicts is necessary if you use transitional packages.
Sorry, I revoke that part. (Although not absolutely sure.)
On 09/21/2015 02:07 AM, Frank de Lange wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Frank de Lange writes:
>>
>>> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
>>> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
>>> disparate components were delivered in their own pack
On 09/21/2015 01:36 AM, Frank de Lange wrote:
> Conflicts: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud-
> app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ... (etcetera - the list is long)
> Breaks: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud-
> app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ... (etcet
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank de Lange writes:
>
>> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
>> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
>> disparate components were delivered in their own package
>> (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichen
Frank de Lange wrote:
> LS,
>
> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
> disparate components were delivered in their own package
> (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink, owncloud-app-...
Frank de Lange writes:
> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
> disparate components were delivered in their own package
> (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink, owncloud-app-.,
>
LS,
In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
disparate components were delivered in their own package
(owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink, owncloud-app-.,
etc). These functions have now
lumin writes:
> I don't think it's appropriate to bump Architecture from "amd64"
> to a wildcard without sort of notice to user.
That's fair; I just hadn't noticed that part of the README. Thanks for
the prompt explanation!
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
ht
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "netmask"
* Package name: netmask
Version : 2.4.0
Upstream Author : Robert Stone
* URL : https://github.com/talby-/netmask
* License : GPL-2+
Section
Your message dated Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:55:11 +0100
with message-id <55ff0f1f.2040...@gmail.com>
and subject line uploaded to unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #799595,
regarding RFS: clblas/2.6-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "clblas"
* Package name: clblas
Version : 2.6-3
Upstream Author : Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
* URL : https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clBLAS
* License :
+++ lumin [2015-09-20 12:19 +]:
> Hi Aaron M. Ucko,
>
> On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 13:11 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
>
> > linuxbrew-wrapper's control file declares amd64 to be the only
> > supported architure. Is that restriction really necessary? From what
> > I gather, Linuxbrew is perfectly
Control: retitle 799565 RFS: linuxbrew-wrapper/20150804-2 -- missing package
manager for linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi Helmut & Gianfranco,
By the way if you don't have time or are no longer interested in
sponsoring this upload (which is no longer an NMU by the way) please
just say it out loud so I can poke debian-mentors@l.d.o again :-)
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatu
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "linuxbrew-wrapper"
* Package name: linuxbrew-wrapper
Version : 20150804-2
Upstream Author : Linuxbrew contributors
* URL : https://github.com/Homebrew/linuxb
Hi Aaron M. Ucko,
On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 13:11 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> linuxbrew-wrapper's control file declares amd64 to be the only
> supported architure. Is that restriction really necessary? From what
> I gather, Linuxbrew is perfectly capable of building software from
> source, so it
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "progress"
* Package name: progress
Version : 0.9-1
Upstream Author : Xfennec
* URL : https://github.com/Xfennec/pr
20 matches
Mail list logo
