On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 00:34:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
-include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/upstream-tarball.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
+include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk
include
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:03:45AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It seems to me that upstream use SVN, not Git. Is that correct?
And how could the packaging version be 1.9.5+svn3977 when apparently the
newest SVN commit in upstream trunk is r3968?!?
3977 was the revision shown by svn info
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:39:55AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 00:34:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
-include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/upstream-tarball.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:54:16PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:03:45AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It seems to me that upstream use SVN, not Git. Is that correct?
And how could the packaging version be 1.9.5+svn3977 when apparently
the newest SVN commit in
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It seems to me that upstream use SVN, not Git. Is that correct?
And how could the packaging version be 1.9.5+svn3977 when apparently
the newest SVN commit in upstream trunk is r3968?!?
3977 was the revision shown by svn
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:49:33PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It seems to me that upstream use SVN, not Git. Is that correct?
And how could the packaging version be 1.9.5+svn3977 when
apparently the newest SVN commit in
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:57:44PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Above means that you did in fact track the standard public accessible
trunk branch, and the most recent commit to that branch was not 3978 but
3968 - that other number is simply the global counter of the SVN
repository.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 02:37:28PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:57:44PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Above means that you did in fact track the standard public accessible
trunk branch, and the most recent commit to that branch was not 3978
but 3968 - that other
I will like to discuss a very important issue with you. I wrote to know if
this is your valid email. Please, let me know if this email is valid.
E-mail me on: yan...@9.cn
Kim.
Attorney at Law
BYUNG KYU KIM BARRISTER SOLICITOR
___
Hi,
I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
tracking of ABI changes.
The switch from 0.118 to 1.9.5 causes breakage in that automated
tracking, however.
It might be that there are some ABI breakaage after all, but possibly it
is just private symbols not
FYI: The status of the liblo source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0.26~repack-4
Current version: 0.26~repack-5
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
FYI: The status of the amsynth source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.2.2-1
Current version: 1.2.2-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
FYI: The status of the snd source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 11.3-1
Current version: 11.4-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive
FYI: The status of the sooperlooper source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.6.14-1
Current version: 1.6.14+dfsg-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
Hi,
I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
tracking of ABI changes.
The switch from 0.118 to 1.9.5 causes breakage in that automated tracking,
however.
snip
Can someone fluent in C/C++ please
Package: mplayer
Version: 1.0~rc3+svn20090405-1+b1
Severity: normal
Please remove unusable video outputs from the shipped mplayer binaries:
| xmgaMatrox G200/G4x0/G550 overlay in X11 window (using /dev/mga_vid)
| mga Matrox G200/G4x0/G550 overlay (/dev/mga_vid)
| tdfxfb 3Dfx
Package: mplayer
Version: 1.0~rc3+svn20090405-1+b1
Severity: grave
mplayer tries to use OSS first. With gmplayer this even produces an
warning dialog box. Using OSS is bad because the default implementation
(the kernel OSS emulation for ALSA) does not support multiplexing and
therefor disallows
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
forwarded 576591 http://bugzilla.mplayerhq.hu/show_bug.cgi?id=1044
Bug #576591 [mplayer] mplayer - gmplayer fails by default
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'http://bugzilla.mplayerhq.hu/show_bug.cgi?id=1044'.
stop
Stopping processing here.
forwarded 576591 http://bugzilla.mplayerhq.hu/show_bug.cgi?id=1044
stop
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 23:17:21 (CEST), Bastian Blank wrote:
Package: mplayer
Version: 1.0~rc3+svn20090405-1+b1
Severity: grave
gmplayer fails by default with the following error:
| Error: opening/initializing the
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 23:15:33 (CEST), Bastian Blank wrote:
Package: mplayer
Version: 1.0~rc3+svn20090405-1+b1
Severity: normal
Please remove unusable video outputs from the shipped mplayer binaries:
| xmgaMatrox G200/G4x0/G550 overlay in X11 window (using /dev/mga_vid)
| mga
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 14:33, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:37:27PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
I have now switched JACK packaging to use symbols files, to automate
tracking of ABI
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:08:46AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
why do you consider this grave? It only affects gmplayer, which is
deprecated upstream.
The package still depends on mplayer-skin, which is only used in
gmplayer. So it is considered a central part in the Debian package.
Bastian
fyi, i've just tested upstream mplayer svn 20100405. it does not crash
with lol-mplayer.mpg. on the other hand, the currently packaged
version, svn 20090405, still crashes. does it make sense to upgrade to
a newer upstream version? thanks.
mike
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 576590 minor
Bug #576590 [mplayer] mplayer - Please remove unusable video outputs
Severity set to 'minor' from 'normal'
tags 576590 wontfix
Bug #576590 [mplayer] mplayer - Please remove unusable video outputs
Added tag(s) wontfix.
stop
severity 576590 minor
tags 576590 wontfix
stop
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 00:44:26 (CEST), Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:06:22AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
what problem does removing these (addmitely obscure) video output
modules solve?
Less error messages.
this is
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 00:50:17 (CEST), Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:08:46AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
why do you consider this grave? It only affects gmplayer, which is
deprecated upstream.
The package still depends on mplayer-skin, which is only used in
gmplayer.
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:32:36 +0200 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:33:12 (CEST), Michael Gilbert wrote:
fyi, i've just tested upstream mplayer svn 20100405. it does not crash
with lol-mplayer.mpg. on the other hand, the currently packaged
version, svn 20090405, still
27 matches
Mail list logo
