block 604231 by 606274
tags 604231 + patch
thanks
Hi there!
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:04:38 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 18:47, Luca Capello wrote:
>> Hi there!
>>
>
> (I should have CC'ed you too... I'm sorry for that).
Np.
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:56:14 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Package: chef
Version: 0.8.16-4.2
Hi there!
Adding debian-release@ to the cc: given that this is (no more) an RC
bug, please read the background in the BTS.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:47:41 +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> Cc:ing all the people that have interacted with this bug.
Done again, please for
Package: redmine
Version: 1.0.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
I have been using this debian package since 0.9.1 in production. Since we are
in a LDAP environment, we started using the LDAP configuration. However, the
default configuration requires you to set a superuser password to bind
Package: redmine
Version: 1.0.1-1
Severity: normal
I have configured redmine to use a specific instance, separate of the "default"
one. It is named "koumbit" and has configuration in /etc/redmine/koumbit
During the upgrade, it seems that the session configuration is not updated
properly. I was
Package: redmine
Version: 1.0.1-1
Severity: wishlist
We're running redmine in a multi-user environment, where multiple web
applications are deployed, so running it as "www-data" is not acceptable.
The way we're doing this is by fixing the permission on the config.rb file:
chown redmine /usr/sha
It could, and shouldn't.
From which version where you upgrading ?
0.9 -> 1.0.1 ?
Regards,
Jérémy.
___
Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-rub
Comparing with backups, it seems the data we had in session.yml was like
this:
production:
session_key: _redmine_koumbit
value: [...]
While the new generated value is:
production:
key: _redmine_koumbit
value: [...]
Could this be the issue?
A.
--
Antoine Beaupré
Réseau Koumbit Network
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:50:27PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> It could, and shouldn't.
> From which version where you upgrading ?
> 0.9 -> 1.0.1 ?
0.9.1 -> 1.0.1
--
Antoine Beaupré
Réseau Koumbit Networks
+1.514.387.6262
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:28:41 -0800
Source: libnokogiri-ruby
Binary: libnokogiri-ruby libnokogiri-ruby1.8 libnokogiri-ruby1.9.1
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 1.4.0-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ryan Niebur
Ch
Your message dated Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:47:08 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#606296: fixed in libnokogiri-ruby 1.4.0-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #606296,
regarding libnokogiri-ruby: FTBFS: test fails
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Hello,
The Debian External Health Status system (a.k.a. DEHS) has found a new
upstream version of the package libdbus-ruby in the unstable distribution.
The current package version is 0.3.0-1 and latest by upstream is 0.6.0.
If you are the maintainer or a co-maintainer of the package
please con
Hello,
The Debian External Health Status system (a.k.a. DEHS) has found a new
upstream version of the package libfssm-ruby in the unstable distribution.
The current package version is 0.1.4-2 and latest by upstream is 0.2.2.
If you are the maintainer or a co-maintainer of the package
please con
12 matches
Mail list logo
