Package: sddm
Version: 0.18.0-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I have an HP EliteBook 820 Laptop with a separate button to switch
on/off Wi-Fi (xev reports: keycode 255 (keysym 0x0, NoSymbol)
When trying to switch on/off wifi from the sddm login screen, the
trackpad gets disabled (the on-scree
Dear Maintainer,
Package: colord-kde
Version: 0.5.0-2
> I was able to load the profile, however on restart the color correction was
> not applied. Going back into colord-kde, the selector was on the correct
> profile, but only moving the selector to default, then back to the profile,
> loads
binary:qdoc-qt5 is NEW.
binary:qdoc-qt5 is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.
Packages are routinely processe
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3.dsc
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3.debian.tar.xz
libqt5designer5-dbgsym_5.11.3-3_amd64.deb
libqt5designer5_5.11.3-3_amd64.deb
libqt5designercomponents5-d
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:36:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > What do you think of splitting qdoc into a separate package?
> >
> > This way the packages that need it might explicitly build-depend on that
> > package and dep-wait instead of getting build failures on some
> > archit
Exactly that
Hi Ola!
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:35:00PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I started to look at excluding the uploaders and just include the
> maintainer but it turned out to be problematic. At least to make it a
> general thing. I can make a dirty hack but I do not think that would be
> very
¡Hola Simon!
El 2019-01-02 a las 21:25 -0600, Simon Quigley escribió:
Package: breeze-gtk
Severity: normal
Version: 5.14.3-1
It was raised to my attention from LXQt users that the Breeze GTK theme
cannot be used under LXQt as packaged. This is because the theme exists
in /usr/share/themes/Bre
Hi
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:28:34AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> > Please don't re-use versions.
> I understand that by: "if you uploaded 1.2.3-1 don't reupload 1.2.3-1, bu
> better 1.2.3-2" Is that ri
Hi Bastian!
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 08:52:14 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:28:34AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
Meyer wrote:
> > El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> > > Please don't re-use versions.
> >
> > I und
Hi Thorsten!
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 08:44:04 -03 Thorsten Alteholz escribió:
> Hi Lisandro,
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> >> po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
> >> so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
> >
> >
Hi Lisandro,
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
Fair, but does it *really* deserves a reject? The license is still dfsg
compliant and there is only one tin
Hi Bastien! This observations did create me some doubts, so:
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> Please don't re-use versions.
I understand that by: "if you uploaded 1.2.3-1 don't reupload 1.2.3-1, bu
better 1.2.3-2" Is that right? If it is: what's the problem?
For me this behavior starts after upgrading to 4:18.08.1
Thanks for any help
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Please don't re-use versions.
Also you still did not provide the correct license of several files:
po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your f
15 matches
Mail list logo