Package: fp-compiler
Version: 2.0.0-2
Followup-For: Bug #311436
I get error:
update-alternatives: slave link name /usr/share/man/man1/pc.1.gz
duplicated
when attempting installation or upgrade of fp-compiler to 2.0.0-2 from
previous version available for Debian Unstable with other pascal
com
This is a followup for your report:
http://bugs.debian.org/262395
The report end up with :
> fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdfjadetex.efmt installed.
> fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.efmt installed.
> fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/metafun.mem installed.
> fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/mpos
tags 311436 + sid
thanks
311436 likes #310907 (#310907 is solved, but something is still there)
and this bug happens only in sid.
Guilherme, what's status of your /usr/share/man/man1/pc.1.gz?
Could you check by ls -l and dpkg -S? If it points symlink, please
check referred file also.
Conflicting
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 311436 + sid
Bug#311436: fp-compiler: Error installing package
There were no tags set.
Tags added: sid
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian B
> Unbearable != serious, at most it would be important unless you can quote a
> policy section
> here.
The relevent policy section is 10.7.3
(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.7.3) which
states "Configuration file handling must conform to the following
behavior: local chan
Package: crossfire
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
The file lib/adm/map_check has in it:
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# (C) Copyright Markus Weber, 1994. All rights reserved.
# Permission is granted to use, copy, and modify for non-commercial use.
#
This violates DFSG.
Removing this file
Package: fp-compiler
Version: 2.0.0-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
# LC_ALL=POSIX sudo aptitude dist-upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
No packages will be installed, upgr
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 21:02:11 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#311021: fixed in choose-mirror 1.11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> tags 230875 - sarge
Bug#230875: libpam-pgsql: Some notes about pam_pgsql security
Tags were: sarge security
Bug#307366: libpam-pgsql: new package misses features/fixes from NMUs
Bug#3
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> severity 308968 wishlist
Bug#308968: mozilla-enigmail: language packs
Severity set to `wishlist'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistanc
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 16:24:30 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Use Rivet from unstable
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30-05-2005 13:11, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Jonas Smedegaard]
>
>>So for the upgrade path from sarge to etch you want maybe 30+ quite
>>popular packages to weed out bugreports caused by chain-reactions of
>>installing this package?
>
>
> Inst
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 23:24:46 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line broxen dependency?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31-05-2005 22:42, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>>
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>>>I agree that debian-edu is a special
Markus E Leypold schrieb:
> I'd be really, really thankful to the maintainers, if the localization
> package found it's way into sarge. Thanks for your work, guys (and
> please make it available :-).
And I join in. It's worth it.
caspar
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
reopen 262395
tags 262395 + sid
thanks
Hi,
xmltex 1.9-9 does not fix the postinst failure:
Setting up xmltex (1.9-9) ...
texhash: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R...
texhash: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
texhash: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
texhash: Updating /var/cache/fo
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 262395
Bug#262395: *** ERROR: can't make xmltex fmt files, installation doesn't work
Bug#306595: tetex-bin: postinst failure with jadetex and xmltex
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> tags 262395 + sid
Bug#262395: *** ERROR: can't make xmlt
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in
>>that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-* packages a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 308968 grave
Bug#308968: mozilla-enigmail: language packs
Severity set to `grave'.
> If I understand the severities right, grave is 'makes the package in
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> question unusable or mostly so ..'.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 298054 + fixed
Bug#298054: ssmtp mangles messages in transit
Tags were: fixed woody security
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Deb
Hi,
First of all, while this bug is certainly a bug, it is not what I would
call 'grave' in the sense that the code doesn't work, it causes damage,
or anything like that. It's missing a dependency.
It would be nice to get it fixed, but I had thought it was something
minor enough to let it slide
Package: libcommoncpp2-1.3
Version: .../libcommoncpp2-1.3_1.3.10-2_i386.deb
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
When I try to install, I get the following error :
Dépaquetage de libcommoncpp2-1.3 (à partir de
/libcommoncpp2-1.3_1.3.10-2_i386.deb) ...
dpkg : erreur de tra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi James,
This is just to let you know what's been discovered on #debian-bugs
and elsewhere over the last few days (you might already have found
this out):
- - sgmltools-lite (a Build-Dep) is buggy and does not work when dak is
installed. The solu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Missing smilies and buddy graphics doesn't constitute "breaks the
> whole system"
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> package gaim
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: gaim
> severity 311386 normal
Bug#311386: gaim: Smilies and all graphi
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:20:12PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
>
>>Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>Package: rivet
>>>Version: 0.5.0-1
>>>Severity: grave
>>>Tags: sarge
>>
>>So use the one from unstable.
>
>
> ... that has only a chance of getting into sarge if this bug is open.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:20:12PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Package: rivet
> > Version: 0.5.0-1
> > Severity: grave
> > Tags: sarge
>
> So use the one from unstable.
... that has only a chance of getting into sarge if this bug is open.
> David N. Welton
cu
Adrian
Package: gaim
Version: 1:1.3.0-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system
When I upgraded to gaim 1.3.0-1, all of my graphics disappeared. No
smilies are accessible, no buddy graphics, etc. This makes it a REAL
PAIN to use. :(
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT pr
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:15:01 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line done
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: rivet
> Version: 0.5.0-1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: sarge
So use the one from unstable.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Apache, Linux, Tcl Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 18:57:45 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line CLosing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 299623 mdadm: Fails to upgrade while udev installed
Bug#299623: apt-get dist-upgrade fails on mdadm
Changed Bug title.
> severity 299623 serious
Bug#299623: mdadm: Fails to upgrade while udev installed
Severity set to `serious'.
> tags 299623
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> severity 311380 important
Bug#311380: xmms segfaults at startup
Severity set to `important'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
D
Package: xmms
Version: 1.2.10+cvs20050209-2
Tags: sarge, sid
Severity: serious
When I start xmms as an ordinary user, it crashes with a segfault:
---
Message: device: default
Segmentation fault
You've probably found a bug in XMMS, please visit
http://bugs.xmms.org and fill out a bug repo
severity 308575 important
thanks
Hello,
Because this is not a bug in babel but in the Java toolchain, and
because babel as a result has never built on s390, this bug is
downgraded to "important" to allow entry into sarge.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/05/msg01685.html for
detai
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 308575 important
Bug#308575: babel_0.10.2-1 (unstable): FTBFS, java interpreter segfaults
Severity set to `important'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(adm
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 279489 + fixed
Bug#279489: wmaker: restarts on window resize
Tags were: patch
Bug#309966: wmaker: resizing windows does not work
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syst
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:55:22PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> tags 279489 -fixed
> thanks
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:53:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I've prepared a 0-day NMU for this bug, based on Timo's patch. The full
> > diff is attached.
>
> This does not fix the prob
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> tags 242866 = sarge-ignore
Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs
Tags were: sid sarge
Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to
redistribute
Tags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>
I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in
that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-
severity 309966 grave
merge 309966 279489
thanks
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:55:22PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> This does not fix the problem for me; it should be noted that this happens
> _only_ on my remote NX setup (where fonts are somewhat broken -- xlsfonts
> displays only a tiny lis
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 309966 grave
Bug#309966: wmaker: resizing windows does not work
Severity set to `grave'.
> merge 309966 279489
Bug#279489: wmaker: restarts on window resize
Bug#309966: wmaker: resizing windows does not work
Merged 279489 309966.
> thanks
Sto
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 09:47:20 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#310782: fixed in pdns 2.9.17-13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now you
tags 279489 -fixed
thanks
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:53:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've prepared a 0-day NMU for this bug, based on Timo's patch. The full
> diff is attached.
This does not fix the problem for me; it should be noted that this happens
_only_ on my remote NX setup (where f
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 279489 -fixed
Bug#279489: wmaker: restarts on window resize
Tags were: fixed patch
Tags removed: fixed
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian B
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> tags 309247 - sid
Bug#309247: roxen4-doc fails to install on its own, extremely bad packaging
Tags were: sid
Tags removed: sid
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please con
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> >>I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in
> >>that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-* packages are
> >>expected only to be useful in the Skolelinux Debian-derived
> >>distribution
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:47:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I've tested all the xfree86 packages built from the current SVN trunk in my
> chroots.
> Upgrade/downgrade and install/purge tests pass.
> Fabio, build at will and upload unless the RM team says not to. Remember
> to ask the RMs
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 299745 serious
Bug#299745: Drivers for newer G5 PowerMacs missing
Severity set to `serious'.
> tags 299745 + sarge-ignore
Bug#299745: Drivers for newer G5 PowerMacs missing
There were no tags set.
Tags added: sarge-ignore
> reassign 299745 dd
Package: lpr-ppd
Severity: grave
Justification: causes non-serious data loss
Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But
after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to
that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade
path missin
severity 304735 normal
thanks
Hi folks,
Since slapd 2.2.23-8 has been accepted into the archive with the code to
convert ldbm directories to bdb on upgrade, I believe this bug is no longer
RC. The remaining issues here, which are variously requests for slapd to
support a working ldbm backend or
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 304735 normal
Bug#304735: slapd 2.2.23 database corruption
Severity set to `normal'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 05:32:07 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#310662: fixed in star 1.5a60-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 05:17:19 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#311294: fixed in cgiwrap 3.9-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> tags 310311 + pending
> thanks
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:16:04AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>
>>Package: libmad
>>Severity: serious
>>Tags: sid
>>
>>Since version 0.15.1b-2, libmad0 has an unversioned shlibs. I guess
>>this is an unintentional change during the conv
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags #311294 +sarge
Bug#311294: php-cgiwrap: Configure with /usr/bin/php4-cgi instead of
/usr/bin/php4
Tags were: pending patch
Tags added: sarge
> tags #311294 +sid
Bug#311294: php-cgiwrap: Configure with /usr/bin/php4-cgi instead of
/usr/bin/php4
T
Your message dated Tue, 31 May 2005 05:02:05 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#309247: fixed in roxen4 4.0.325-1.1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags #311294 +pending
Bug#311294: php-cgiwrap: Configure with /usr/bin/php4-cgi instead of
/usr/bin/php4
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system adm
I've tested all the xfree86 packages built from the current SVN trunk in my
chroots.
Upgrade/downgrade and install/purge tests pass.
Fabio, build at will and upload unless the RM team says not to. Remember
to ask the RMs to force -14 into sarge.
Now I've got to pack for Brazil. :)
--
G. Bran
68 matches
Mail list logo
