From Paul's comments, it seems to me that there is no need for the
current Aleph it's been replaced, and it's three years old. I have no
opinion about whether it ought to be dropped from Debian.
Paul also explains that AFNIX replaced Aleph, and should not be thought
of as just a new version with
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 21:20 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> We've got a problem here, since all three packages are in testing,
> provide /usr/bin/aleph, and conflict with each other (or rather, the
> *tex* packages conflict with aleph).
Eek.
>
> The right solution to this would be to package the "n
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the status of this bug?
It looks like nobody has checked out your patch. Since it's a QA
package, you are probably at the moment the person who is best
qualified to check out the patch.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to NMU a fix for this bug sponsored by some member of the QA
> group; patch attached. My pbuild result of this patch was clean, and
> produced a binary package with expected debdiff output from the most
> recent version in sid. Build logs and
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> package wmtz
> tag 346975 patch
> thanks
>
> I intend to NMU a fix for this bug sponsored by some member of the QA
> group; patch attached. My pbuild result of this patch was clean, and
> produced a binary package with expected debdiff output from the m
dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As these bugs have been open for 30 days without a response from the
> maintainer, I intend to NMU them in 1 week (or earlier, at the
> maintainer's request).
gkdial is currently orphaned. So you don't need to NMU; you can
simply do an upload yourself.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Tomas,
You contacted me a while back about the roleplaying package, which I
have set to ITA. Your last comment on bug 246486 was that fixing it
and bringing it up to date would be the be difficult, and perhaps the
package should just be removed.
I think that's a good a
"Roedel, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it seems the package webmin-samba is not available anymore in the testing
> branch. Will it be available again?
The webmin-optional packages have two release-critical bugs and it was
probably dropped from testing for the time being until those bug
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> that bug was supposed to be closed by katie, but my sponsor forgot to
> pass the appropriate -v option to debuild (or whatever).
Whoops! Ah well, such mistakes happen.
> actually, bugs closed via the changelog get closed when they enter
> inco
> this bug is fixed in gbuffy 0.2.6-8, currently in incoming.
Do not close bugs this way. It is incorrect to close a bug until the
fixed package is actually installed in the archive.
Instead, you can tag the bug "pending", and then put "Closes: #"
in debian/changelog, which will make su
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My reopens of this bug are based on pbuilder builds on sparc. You can
> probably duplicate it with pbuilder on other architectures.
Nope. I tried pbuilder on ppc, and it works fine. The problem,
again, is the handling of dependencies (as mentioned on
reopen 251768
thanks
So this is a tricky problem; some buildd's are apparently not
installing package dependencies properly. I'm tracking the bug; if
you wish to work on it too, please coordinate with me.
Thomas
Wouter van Heyst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regenerating the autotools stuff with a modified autogen.sh from the
> autotools-dev package resulted in a package that builds with pbuilder.
This is much preferable.
Package: ppxp
Version: ppxp_0.2001080415-10
Severity: serious
ppxp does not build on i386. See attached log.
Title: File `log' in ppxp_0.2001080415-10_i386 (Aug 17 14:33)
File `log' in ppxp_0.2001080415-10_i386 (Aug 17 14:33)ppxp >> 0.2001080415-10 >> Aug 17 14:33 >> logAutomatic build of pp
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: important
Please remove the ia64 lush and lush-library binary packages. The
latest upload omits (intentionally) ia64 from the Architecture line.
Lush does not work on ia64, and it is only accidental that past builds
worked.
The old binary packages for ia64 are
severity 240992 normal
thanks
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I might be mistaken, but isn't it so that currently, if you accidently
> have libktoblzcheck1-dev installed, the resulted binary is linked
> against it, and otherwise, it isn't?
>
> Then, isn't it true that this p
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/tmp/mmake-2.2.1$ cat LICENSE
> COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Redistribution and use with or without modification, are permitted
> provided that the above copyright notice can be rep
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well well. I assume of non-serious priority right?
> I did a random check of tree packages. 2 of them was correct and 1 did
> not include such source comments (hsftp).
It depends on the particular case.
> That he removed GNUGPL.TXT and LICENSE and adde
It turns out that fixing this bug is not trivial; it is merely one of
a whole host of problems that are caused because apparently swig has
changed its interface in a variety of ways. Adapting to the changes
seems easy on the assumption that you understand swig, but I don't.
Perhaps version 2.0.1
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My original bug was that debian/copyright didn't actually include the
> following (I was auditing packages for something wolse when I ran
> across this.)
>
>COPYRIGHT GNUGPL (c) 1998-2001 Jan-Henrik Haukeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Redistributi
reopen 255955
thanks
This bug still exists; merely creating a copyright file doesn't do
it. The package is not properly licensed under the GPL, and until we
get clarification from upstream, we can't budge on release of it; and
we must drop it from Debian if we don't hear at all.
I'm tracking th
Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The latest change from 'any' to an explicit list of supported architectures
> broke the amd64 port. Please add 'amd64' to the supported architectures.
Sorry about that; I'll do an upload right away.
What we *really* need is a way to do:
Architecture
Leon Bottou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 August 2004 10:54 am, Leon Bottou wrote:
> > I can see two possible causes:
> >
> > 1- A floating exception (problems we encountered on mipses)
> > The fix would then be easy.
> >
> > 2- A bfd issue in the dynamic loading/unloading co
Leon Bottou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kevin told me about a failure to build on certain mips machines.
> I was not able to fix it for lack of such a machine.
> I was not aware of an IA64 failure.
It builds fine on mips and mipsel; it fails on ia64.
The mips build log is at
http://buildd.debi
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've adopted the package (#242096). I'm waiting for a DD to do the
> upload for me:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/07/msg00407.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/08/msg00109.html
>
> I also asked the QA te
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> apt-get remove --purge xlibs
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages h
I am working on the Debian package for mmail, and I noticed that its
copying permissions are very unclear. You distribute a copy of the
GPL with the program, but you never actually say that the program may
be distributed under its terms. All I can find is this:
#
# (c) 1998-2004 Jan-Henrik Hauk
I'm investigating bug 171082 / 171222 which you reported; in which
speedbar-beta didn't install on with xemacs. Using the current
versions in Debian unstable, I am unable to reproduce the problem.
Can you confirm whether or not you are still seeing the bug?
Thomas
> If you have 3 people logged in, and you click on the 3rd person, xitalk
> quits. The 4th person, 1st 2nd all work fine - it's always the 3rd
> person that causes it to crash.
I can't reproduce this bug on my system; can you tell me if the bug
still happens for you, and if it does, what version
Does this problem still happen for you? I cannot reproduce it on my
system, and before I try to investigate further, can you confirm that
it is still a problem?
> Package: gnucash
> Version: 1.8.9-2
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have checked othe
> As an ipaq user, I know that xkbd isn't really intended for normal
> window managers, but I actually have a real need for it on a real WM on
> x86 architecture so I'm reporting this as a bug.
>
> xkbd under sawfish-gnome 1.0.1.20020116-4 doesn't do a darn thing. It
> puts up its keyboard wind
> Package: libguppi15
> Version: 0.40.2-7
> Severity: important
>
> On debian ppc sid, I find that guppi-gnumeric crashes when
> I try to do the following.
>
> 1) run gnumeric
> 2) enter two columns of three rows of numbers (1,2,3 and 2,4,6)
> 3) select these six cells
> 4) click on the graph ic
Are you still planning to take over maintenance of the Debian
"roleplaying" package? On May 25 you said you were planning to start
working on it.
If you no longer intend to adopt the package, please change its status
back to orphaned (I would be happy to do that for you if you like).
If you d
I have just done the following with no problems:
# apt-get remove gnus-bonus-el gnus
# apt-get install semi wl t-gnus
# apt-get install gnus-bonus-el
with no errors at all.
Perhaps this was fixed in a release after the one you have installed
(which appears to be 1.14.6+0.20040).
Can you try wi
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Current practice is to simply close bugs in packages maintained by the
> QA group once they've been dealt with, rather than regarding them as
> NMUs. A new maintainer taking over the package will have to start from
> the most recent version in the archive
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> severity 128444 serious
> thanks
>
> In practice this is serious. I'll put together a fix.
"in practice". No. It doesn't violate policy. Maybe it should, but
it doesn't. Of course, it's fine to fix it. But there is no rule
that packages must not de
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't build-depend on zope, it's postinst is interactive which
> means it can't be installed by build daemons. Gregor suggested a
> better solution in #86722 (namely that the needed header files be
> copied to zope-zpatterns source), please use tha
Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree. My previous patch was mostly intended to show what needed to
> be turned off for powerpc. I'd somehow got it in my head that it was
> the maintianer that had asked for help on -powerpc, and so completely
> missed that the package was orphaned.
Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But vgaplan4.c also includes that file (via vgaplan4.h) and appears to
> need it. I got around this by modifying debian/config.fb so that it
> won't build that part:
>
> --- config.fb.distSat Jan 5 15:40:15 2002
> +++ config.fb Sat Jan 5 14:18:30
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It was easily reproduced - there's no libmwdrivers.a for powerpc and the
> microwindows build tries to use that before it's built.
No, no, a thousand times no. microwindows does try to build
libmwdrivers.before it's used, and without someone giving m
Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tags 121459 patch
> thanks
>
> Fixing the source was actually pretty easy, but it took me quite a while
> due to needing to fight the horrible build system from upstream.
Thank you, you rock! I'll take care of uploading this.
Package: microwindows
Version: N/A
Severity: normal
The microwindows source is organized wrongly. The .orig.tar.gz file
contains itself another .tar.gz, and a set of patches. This is so wrong,
it doesn't even begin to deserve mention. But whoever adopts this package
really *must* reorganize the
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's why (only the last of four identical errors). According to the
> package listing page at http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages there's no
> libmwdrivers.a in any of the PowerPC packages, any distribution. On ix86
> the file is in libmicrowindow
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that's a drastically unfair judgement. I would rather ask
> every maintainer to do a few extra steps for the quality of their
> packages (or better yet, to improve automated systems to notify
> (opt-in) maintainers about such problems).
R
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's why (only the last of four identical errors). According to the
> package listing page at http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages there's no
> libmwdrivers.a in any of the PowerPC packages, any distribution. On ix86
> the file is in libmicrowindow
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Technically these are binary NMUs, but I'd rather think of them as
> happening on behalf of the maintainer by some obscure magic, and that
> ultimately leaves the maintainer in charge of checking the result (at
> least sporadically).
That's a reasonab
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I rarely do these
> days, rather rely on the maintainer to check build status and
> logs).
This is not such a good idea. Maintainers are generally not
responsible for checking build status and logs; the port maintainer
(whoever is responsible for m
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've rescheduled the 0.88pre11-4 build hoping the build dependencies
> install now. But that doesn't relate to #121459 at all.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't work:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=microwindows&ver=0.88pre11-4&arch=powerpc&st
microwindows is not building on powerpc, but I don't know why. The
bug report filed seems wrong to me, and the buildd report at
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/?arch=powerpc&state=Dep-Wait
reports:
libs/microwindows_0.88pre11-4: Dep-Wait by schmitz-pb [optional:uncompiled]
Dependencies: freet
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 03:33:09PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > tags 110331 + fixed
> > Bug#110331: libmicrowindows0-fb-dbg is not installable in unstable
> > Tags added: fixed
>
> Don'
Here's the patch for the bug mentioned. NMU in progress.
libmicrowindows0-fb-dbg should depend on libmicrowindows0-fb, not
libmicrowindows0.
libmicrowindows0-x11-dbg should depend on libmicrowindows0-x11, not
libmicrowindows0.
Thomas
The previous message is in error; I typoed the bug number.
Here's the patch for the bug mentioned. NMU in progress.
libmicrowindows0-fb-dbg should depend on libmicrowindows0-fb, not
libmicrowindows0.
libmicrowindows0-x11-dbg should depend on libmicrowindows0-x11, not
libmicrowindows0.
Thomas
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the Need Help page, gtml is O. Looking at it's bug
> report I noticed that QA is the maintainer and not the maintainer
> that originally maintained the package --- I assume that it is still
> for adoption since O bug is not closed. Correct?
C
54 matches
Mail list logo
