Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-07-11 Thread Sebastian Dröge
Am Dienstag, den 07.04.2009, 20:27 +0200 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > + Sebastian Dröge (Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:26:20 +0100): > > Hello, > > > > > I'll take a look at some packages in the next days and send an status > > > > update to those bugs, maybe raising the severity to important now... > > > Sure

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-04-07 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ Yavor Doganov (Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:40:53 +0300): > Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > cynthiune.app Bug #476381 > > I’m Bcc'ing all of the involved bugs so that maintainers can send an > > update on the status of their bug > To be honest, I haven't worked on a patch yet because it was my

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-04-07 Thread Yavor Doganov
Adeodato Simó wrote: > > cynthiune.app Bug #476381 > I’m Bcc'ing all of the involved bugs so that maintainers can send an > update on the status of their bug To be honest, I haven't worked on a patch yet because it was my understanding that this transition will wait for the (alread

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-04-07 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ Sebastian Dröge (Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:26:20 +0100): Hello, > > > I'll take a look at some packages in the next days and send an status > > > update to those bugs, maybe raising the severity to important now... > > Sure, important sounds fine to me, thanks. > Ok, done... the affected packages ar

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-04-07 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Adeodato Simó wrote: > Well, none of those bugs has been fixed in experimental by now (nor have > a patch), and the one marked as pending (the one that is not quodlibet), > has a comment by the maintainer stating that he intends to disable > musepack support while upstream gets around to fixing the

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-21 Thread Sebastian Dröge
Am Samstag, den 14.03.2009, 18:46 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > * Sebastian Dröge [Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:20:11 +0100]: > > > I'll take a look at some packages in the next days and send an status > > update to those bugs, maybe raising the severity to important now... > > Sure, important sounds fin

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-14 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Sebastian Dröge [Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:20:11 +0100]: > I'll take a look at some packages in the next days and send an status > update to those bugs, maybe raising the severity to important now... Sure, important sounds fine to me, thanks. > On another topic, shall I upload another sourcefull upl

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-14 Thread Sebastian Dröge
Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2009, 23:15 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > * Sebastian Dröge [Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:39:47 +0100]: > > Hello again, > > > Ok, sounds sensible and I'm sorry that this has caused some problems. > > I've filed bugs on all packages that b-d on libmpc-dev about one year > > ago at

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Sebastian Dröge [Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:39:47 +0100]: Hello again, > Ok, sounds sensible and I'm sorry that this has caused some problems. > I've filed bugs on all packages that b-d on libmpc-dev about one year > ago at the time when it was uploaded to unstable and the maintainers > that talked to

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-10 Thread Sebastian Dröge
Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2009, 17:34 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > Hello, Sebastian. > > I'm writing you to inform you that I've just made an epoched upload of > the old libmpcdec pacakge to unstable, which means that libmpcdec-dev > will be provided again by libmpcdec, taking over libmpc's. > > T

Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

2009-03-10 Thread Adeodato Simó
Hello, Sebastian. I'm writing you to inform you that I've just made an epoched upload of the old libmpcdec pacakge to unstable, which means that libmpcdec-dev will be provided again by libmpcdec, taking over libmpc's. The recent upload of libmpc to unstable implied a SONAME bump, but it was not c