On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 05:38:11 + luzip...@posteo.de wrote:
Thank you for your support!
I filed an ITP on https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012202
Okay. Now reference this in your changelog entry with "Closes: #1012202".
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:20:33 +0800 Bo YU wrote:
Changes since the last upload:
rush (2.2+dfsg-1.0) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Non-maintainer upload.
* New upstream release (Closes: #1001091)
* fix rush FTCBFS (Closes: #929160)
* Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1
* drop
Hi,
When using "Build Type: any" for a source package the package build runs
fine, it fails for "Build Type: all". Before upload I tested the build
using "sbuild --no-run-lintian texlive-bin_2022.20220321.62855-3.dsc -d
unstable-amd64-sbuild" and it worked fine.
How do I specify "Build Type:
Hi Hilmar,
You can use the "--arch-all --no-arch-any" combination of options
(--no-arch-any being the important part). Generally speaking, sbuild
provides a lot of useful options, I encourage you to read its man page
so you get an idea of what's available.
Regards,
Arnaud
Le 01/06/2022 à 13
Am 01.06.2022 um 13:16 teilte Arnaud Ferraris mit:
Hi,
You can use the "--arch-all --no-arch-any" combination of options
(--no-arch-any being the important part). Generally speaking, sbuild
provides a lot of useful options, I encourage you to read its man page
so you get an idea of what's ava
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> > You can use the "--arch-all --no-arch-any" combination of options
> > (--no-arch-any being the important part). Generally speaking, sbuild
> > provides a lot of useful options, I encourage you to read its man page
> > so you get an
Am 01.06.2022 um 13:38 teilte Andrey Rahmatullin mit:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:20:34PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hi,
I had a look at the manual page. The build log (see both links)
makes a difference between "Arch type" and "Build type".
Does it?
Do you mean "Build Architecture" instead
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> > > I had a look at the manual page. The build log (see both links)
> > > makes a difference between "Arch type" and "Build type".
> > Does it?
> > Do you mean "Build Architecture" instead?
> >
>
> No. Have a look at the links I pos
Am 01.06.2022 um 13:45 teilte Andrey Rahmatullin mit:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Moin,
Do you mean "Build Architecture" instead?
No. Have a look at the links I posted:
I did that before asking.
I'm pretty sure you did! Therefore I'm wondering.
Pack
On 2022-06-01 at 09:54, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> Am 01.06.2022 um 13:45 teilte Andrey Rahmatullin mit:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
>>> Package: texlive-bin
>>> Version: 2022.20220321.62855-3
>>> Source Version: 2022.20220321.62855-3
>>> Distribution: sid
>>>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> I'm very sorry! Looking at the build log I don't see a line containing the
> string "Arch type".
Exactly.
> Please Could you go into detail?
I think you should re-read your previous emails.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Descriptio
Also, please keep the - to ~ conversion in the version string as with your
previous updates.
The problem with 4.1.2-beta1-1 is that it is later than 4.1.2-1.
Please remove the Vcs-Git field when you do not maintain your package in git. This is not for the
upstream Vcs.
The point is that we published the package with - on GitHub. So the
watch test says there is a newer version available (as in upload #9).
But finally I think we could publish a final 4.1.2 without beta.
Am 01.06.22 um 18:49 schrieb Bastian Germann:
Also, please keep the - to ~ conversion in th
On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:52:53 +0100
Peter wrote:
> Updated copyright and reverted to Qt5
Thanks, qt5 seems to be the way to go for now.
Looks like there's an error in the dbus copyright entry though, given
that the file linked in the comment is under LGPL rather than GPL?
And more importantly:
14 matches
Mail list logo
