On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:48:59PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:27:38AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I got package made for 2.5.5 here with new dh syntax and 3.0 (quilt)
> > format. I will be adding myself as uploader.
>
> You already have inline quilt support, so moving
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:27:38AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I got package made for 2.5.5 here with new dh syntax and 3.0 (quilt)
> format. I will be adding myself as uploader.
You already have inline quilt support, so moving to 3.0 should be reasonably
trivial. (ACK.)
--
2. That which ca
FYI:
url = git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/maildrop.git
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
I got package made for 2.5.5 here with new dh syntax and 3.0 (quilt)
format. I will be adding myself as uploader.
Let me test a bit more before upload.
Osamu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
Hi,
I was just downloading existing package and rebuilding it as a start, I
realized FTBFS:
aclocal.m4:124: AM_PROG_LIBTOOL is expanded from...
configure.in:18: the top level
configure.in:11: version mismatch. This is Automake 1.11.3,
configure.in:11: but the definition used by this AM_INIT_AUT
Hi,
I was going over my bug report :-) I found this.
I reported this when package was 2.2.0-3.1 and upstream was 2.4.3.
Now that I checked,
04-Dec-20112.5.5 maildrop-2.5.5.tar.bz2
I checked upstream changelog (attached below) and see a lot of good work
is done since then. I do not
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 13:45 +0100, Marc-Jano Knopp wrote:
> Upload it with a different name, like "maildrop-ng" or similar. This
> way, maildrop-2.2.0 users won't get automatically get annoyed, while
> everybody can choose a newer version if they want or need it.
Don't think this a good idea... sof
Package: maildrop
Followup-For: Bug #580682
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:18:24PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > mbautista writes:
[...]
> > None of the functionality in those options has been actually
> > removed. Their functionality was moved from reformail into mai
Hi.
Josip Rodin wrote:
> That will merely delay the annoyance to the users of those options until
> the next release... But yeah, I'll upload a new version.
That's some good news. Gives a big +1.
Don't think that it's a real problem for users to adapt to the switched
behaviour. That's how softw
; >Like Mr Rodin noticed here :
> >http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580682#25
> >
> >some options were removed (replaced) since version 2.3, that's why he
> >prefered not to upgrade anymore, to avoid regression for some users (which
> >I totally u
mbautista writes:
Hi Mr Sam Varshavchik,
Our company (a small web) uses maildrop on Linux Debian, and I noticed the
version is now a little outdated (2.2.0-3.1).
Like Mr Rodin noticed here :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580682#25
some options were removed (replaced) since
Hi Mr Sam Varshavchik,
Our company (a small web) uses maildrop on Linux Debian, and I noticed the
version is now a little outdated (2.2.0-3.1).
Like Mr Rodin noticed here :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580682#25
some options were removed (replaced) since version 2.3, that&#
Long time ago ;)
Well removing options is not uncommon for many programs and as far as
I can see, there are some replacements, aren't they?
Just add an entry in the NEWS file and things should be fine.
Cheers,
Chris.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
w
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:01:33PM +, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> What's the status on this? maildrop in Debian is painfully outdated,...
>
> Or has this been orphaned?
It hasn't, but I've gotten sidetracked, and nobody has cared to offer to
NMU...
--
2. That which causes joy or
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:13:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:01:33PM +, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > What's the status on this? maildrop in Debian is painfully outdated,...
> >
> > Or has this been orphaned?
>
> It hasn't, but I've gotten sidetracked, and n
Hi.
What's the status on this? maildrop in Debian is painfully outdated,...
Or has this been orphaned?
Cheers,
Chris.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Package: maildrop
Version: 2.2.0-3.1
Severity: normal
I tried to package new 2.4.0 source. patches needed some updates as
attached diff. this was OK. But test suites failed. So attached patch
also had disabling of testing script. This issues needs to be resolved
and this ugly work around need
Package: maildrop
Version: 2.2.0-3.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
First, there is new upstream versuin of maildrop available:
Version:2.4.3 (15-Mar-2010)
Filename: maildrop-2.4.3.tar.bz2 (2.3M)
You are not aware of this as much since this package is missing watch
file. Using sf.net
18 matches
Mail list logo
