Bug#162384: marked as done (gnue-forms: please update the source to version 0.4 from 0.1)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:59:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#162384: fixed in gnue-forms 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#152949: marked as done (FTBFS: wxPython....make: *** [build-stamp] Error 1)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:59:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152949: fixed in gnue-forms 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#152456: marked as done (gnue-forms depends on non-existant package "python2-base")

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:59:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152456: fixed in gnue-forms 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#155243: marked as done (gnue-forms: Dependencies are unmet, python2-base is required but do not exist in debian.)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:59:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152456: fixed in gnue-forms 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#158218: marked as done (gnue-forms: Some packages could not be installed)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:59:09 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152456: fixed in gnue-forms 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#167972: gnue-common_0.4.1a-20021105-1(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: missing build-depends

Package: gnue-common Version: 0.4.1a-20021105-1 Severity: serious There was an error while trying to autobuild your package: looks like dbs is missing... lamont > Automatic build of gnue-common_0.4.1a-20021105-1 on sarti by sbuild/hppa 1.169 > Build started at 20021106-0137 [...] >

Bug#167973: gnue-designer_0.1.1-2(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: missing build-depends?

Package: gnue-designer Version: 0.1.1-2 Severity: serious There was an error while trying to autobuild your package: Looks like a missing build-depends.. lamont > Automatic build of gnue-designer_0.1.1-2 on sarti by sbuild/hppa 1.169 > Build started at 20021025-1637 [...] > ** Using build dep

Bug#165001: marked as done (FTBFS: Build failure of gnue-designer on i386)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:32:26 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165001: fixed in gnue-designer 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#165000: marked as done (FTBFS: Build failure of gnue-common on i386)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:32:17 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165000: fixed in gnue-common 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#154306: marked as done (gnue-common: Please upgrade to gnue 0.3.0)

Your message dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:32:17 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#154306: fixed in gnue-common 0.4.1a-20021105-1 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

dstooltk

I would like to know who are the people that develops the dstooltk. If it was possible I would like to have their contacts Thanks Gonçalo

Bug#167934: Please include /usr/lib/jni in default JNI search path

Package: ibm-jdk1.1-installer Severity: wishlist Hi. There is currently a discussion on debian-java@lists.debian.org to tighten debian java policy regarding JNI libraries. Specifically, the proposal is that all JNI libraries should be installed in /usr/lib/jni, and that /usr/lib/jni should be in

Bug#167897: Patch

Here is a quick patch that I whipped together to solve this bug. Please consider applying. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/wavtools$ diff -u wavtools-1.3.2.orig/wav_play.c /tmp/wav_play.c --- wavtools-1.3.2.orig/wav_play.c 2002-11-05 12:32:25.0 -0500 +++ /tmp/wav_play.c 2002-11-05 12:33:15.

Bug#163217: info about drive

Hi My drive is cd-burner asus 1610A (16x10x40x), revision 1.20. It has 2mb of memory. Additional Info about it is on following page: http://www.asus.com.tw/optical/crw-1610a/specification.htm Asus claims about its models with A (such as 1610A) that they are created by ASUS, on inet i found

Bug#167897: wavtools: Poor error messages when unable to open DSP

Package: wavtools Version: 1.3.2-8 Severity: normal When wavp is unable to open the DSP, it gives somewhat-less-than-ideal errors. IE, if someone is already using the DSP, it should say its busy, and not just that it cannot initialize the DSP. pen("/dev/dsp", O_WRONLY) = -1 EBUSY (D

Bug#167886: tux-aqfh-data: should replace older versions of tux-aqfh

Package: tux-aqfh-data Version: 1.0.14-1 Severity: normal Hi. tux-aqfh-data's control stanza should contain Replaces: tux-aqfh (<< 1.0.14) to allow proper upgrading; as it is, I get > Unpacking tux-aqfh-data (from .../tux-aqfh-data_1.0.14-1_all.deb) ... > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/