-=| Sebastian Podjasek, Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 03:11:41PM +0200 |=-
> I've applied modified patch from Lubomir and now it works
>
> Below you can find patch against whole debian/ directory to fix this
> problem.
Not here :(
I still get the same error message with I run
perl -MApache2::Requ
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:44:47 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> It looks like the real cause is that libbusiness-onlinepayment-perl is
> missing a dependency on liburi-perl (and libtieix-hash-perl), but
> maybe this is intentional because the HTTPS module is not used by everybody?
gregor herrmann wrote:
>
Your message dated Sat, 01 May 2010 03:47:15 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#560568: fixed in gsetroot 1.1-2.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #560568,
regarding gsetroot: FTBFS: libtool version mismatch
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Maintainer,
I have sponsored an NMU upload to the DELAYED/7 queue. The interdiff is
attached. Please contact me if you would like to prevent the NMU from entering
the archive.
Thank you,
tony mancill
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've just sponsored an upload of fl-cow to DELAYED/5. I didn't submit the
nmudiff b/c it includes a bunch of autoconf diff, but the changes are Hideki's
patch plus a couple other minimal things. The package is listed in NMULOW, so
hopefully this
Your message dated Sat, 01 May 2010 00:02:31 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#577907: fixed in refcard 5.0.5-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #577907,
regarding refcard: FTBFS: sh: gs: not found
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:18:14 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#579765: fixed in opal 3.6.6~dfsg-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #579765,
regarding simpleopal: Depends on unavailable libpt2.6.6-plugins
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 23:47:07 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Package: libgdal1-dev
> Version: 1.6.3-3+b2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: breaks other packages
>
> The gdal-config script in the mipsel libgdal1-dev package contains:
> CONFIG_DEP_LIBS=" -L/usr/lib -lgeos_c -I/usr/include -ls
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 579793 moreinfo unreproducible
Bug #579793 [evolution] Evolution 2.30: IMAP support heavily broken
Added tag(s) unreproducible and moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking sy
tag 5797933 moreinfo unreproducible
thanks
On ven., 2010-04-30 at 21:39 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Using Evolution 2.30 with IMAP does not work on sub-directories,
> after changing the directory; all you can get are messages of the
> type:
> Unexpected response from IMAP server.*
Package: libgdal1-dev
Version: 1.6.3-3+b2
Severity: serious
Justification: breaks other packages
The gdal-config script in the mipsel libgdal1-dev package contains:
CONFIG_DEP_LIBS=" -L/usr/lib -lgeos_c -I/usr/include -lsqlite3 -lodbc
-lodbcinst -L/usr/lib -lexpat -L/usr/lib -lxerces-c -lpthread -
On ven., 2010-04-30 at 21:39 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
> Using Evolution 2.30 with IMAP does not work on sub-directories,
> after changing the directory; all you can get are messages of the
> type:
> Unexpected response from IMAP server.*
>
> I consider this heavily broken.
Ju
Package: update-manager-gnome
Version: 0.200.3-1
Severity: grave
File: /usr/share/pyshared/UpdateManager/Frontend/Gtk/ui.py
Tags: squeeze
Justification: renders package unusable
*** Please type your report below this line *** *** /tmp/update-manager-
bug_PQndy The information below has been auto
Package: evolution
Version: 2.30.1.2-1
Severity: grave
Using Evolution 2.30 with IMAP does not work on sub-directories,
after changing the directory; all you can get are messages of the
type:
Unexpected response from IMAP server.*
I consider this heavily broken.
-- System Information:
De
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:14:06 +0200
with message-id <20100430191404.gd23...@murasaki>
and subject line Re: Bug#579222: jscoverage: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*:
ref-config/GNU_kFreeBSD8.0-1-amd64.mk: No such file or directory
has caused the Debian Bug report #579222,
regarding jscoverage: FT
Package: courier-authdaemon
Version: 0.63.0-2
Severity: grave
Trying to replace courier with exim4 leaves the system in a broken state:
flatty:/etc# aptitude install exim4-daemon-light courier-mta- courier-base-
courier-authdaemon- courier-authlib- courier-authlib-userdb-
Reading package lists.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 578998 wishlist
Bug #578998 [gtkparasite] gtkparasite: Missing executable
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'grave'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:16:38 +0200
with message-id <20100430181637.gc23...@murasaki>
and subject line Re: Bug#579339: FTBFS [hppa]: recompile with -fPIC
has caused the Debian Bug report #579339,
regarding FTBFS [hppa]: recompile with -fPIC
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 578071 important
Bug #578071 [live-magic] live-magic is not up to date to support live-helper 2.x
Severity set to 'important' from 'grave'
> tag 578071 unreproducible
Bug #578071 [live-magic] live-magic is not up to date to support live-
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:17:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#579734: fixed in jscoverage 0.5-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #579734,
regarding jscoverage: FTBFS: configure: error: python was not found in $PATH
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> notfound 497562 2.6.26-21lenny4
Bug #497562 [linux-image-2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-486] ext3_free_blocks: Freeing
blocks not in datazone" error on heavy disk activity
There is no source info for the package 'linux-image-2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-486' at
versi
Hi Jari,
NMU is ok.
Thanks!
Stefan
Am 30.04.2010 um 15:17 schrieb Jari Aalto:
>
> I've been fixing release tagged bugs lately and noticed this one.
> Please let me know if this bug is already under way or if it's okay to
> NMU the package.
>
> Jari
>
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
Package: opal
Version: 3.6.6~dfsg-5
Severity: serious
Hi,
opal_3.6.6~dfsg-5 appears to have added a dependency to simpleopal, on
libpt2.6.6-plugins. However, the latter package is not present in any
Debian distribution, nor in the NEW queue.
simpleopal is therefore uninstallable in unstable.
R
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:32:16 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574201: fixed in b2evolution 2.4.2-4.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574201,
regarding b2evolution: installation fails
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:46:00 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#578389: fixed in libsdl1.2 1.2.14-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #578389,
regarding Upgrading SDL breaks OpenTTD
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
Package: libopenthreads13
Version: 2.8.3-1
Severity: grave
Unpacking libopenthreads13 (from .../libopenthreads13_2.8.3-1_i386.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/libopenthreads13_2.8.3-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite '/usr/lib/libOpenThreads.so.2.4.0', which is als
Mike Hommey a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:01:21AM +0200, BERTRAND Joel wrote:
Package: iceape
Version: 2.0.4-1
Severity: grave
Tags: squeeze
Justification: renders package unusable
Could you try this patch ?
https://bug550455.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=436533
I ha
I've been fixing release tagged bugs lately and noticed this one.
Please let me know if this bug is already under way or if it's okay to
NMU the package.
Jari
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists
I've applied modified patch from Lubomir and now it works
Below you can find patch against whole debian/ directory to fix this
problem.
--
Sebastian Podjasek @ morenet.pl
diff -urp --new-file libapreq2-2.12-broken/debian/changelog
libapreq2-2.12/debian/changelog
--- libapreq2-2.12-broke
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:04:29 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#567922: fixed in kompozer 1:0.8~b3.dfsg.1-0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #567922,
regarding iceweasel, iceape, icedove, iceowl: Contains non-free data in the
source tarball
to be marked as done.
This me
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 574187 579745 579747
Bug#574187: [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
Bug#579745: [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
Bug#579747: [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError i
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 01:29:23PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 23:38:41 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
BTW, we currently set other arch-specific flags based on
DEB_BUILD_ARCH - I wonder if that should instead be DEB_HOST_ARCH?
That would probably be more correct, yes.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 23:38:41 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> BTW, we currently set other arch-specific flags based on
> DEB_BUILD_ARCH - I wonder if that should instead be DEB_HOST_ARCH?
That would probably be more correct, yes.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:17:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#553319: fixed in squidguard 1.2.0-9
has caused the Debian Bug report #553319,
regarding CVE-2009-3826, CVE-2009-3700
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:17:17 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#549762: fixed in clisp 1:2.48-1.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #549762,
regarding clisp: FTBFS: bdb.c:1214: error: 'DB_XIDDATASIZE' undeclared (first
use in this function)
to be marked as done.
This means
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:34:21PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> it was just noticed that the FTBFS on s390 I reported sounded like an
> FTBFS previously dealt with in libmozjs, meaning you're embedding it
> instead of just using libmozjs-dev and dropping your embedded code copy.
> Given the secu
Source: jscoverage
Version: 0.5-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Hi,
time to use a chroot?
| checking for python... no
| configure: error: python was not found in $PATH
| configure: error: ./configure.gnu failed for js
| make: *** [debian/stamp-autotools] Error 1
| dpkg-buildpackage: erro
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding update-manager-gnome: update-manager always fails with "A fatal error
has been detected in update-manager."
to be m
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in
Frontend/Gtk/ChangelogViewer.py:230
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in
Frontend/Gtk/ChangelogViewer.py:230
to be marked as done.
This m
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:39:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#574187: fixed in update-manager 0.200.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #574187,
regarding [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 579726 - squeeze
Bug #579726 [iceape] Segfault in iceape 2.0.4 (with or with plugins or safe
mode)
Removed tag(s) squeeze.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrato
On 04/28/2010 04:23 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
Package: sympa
Version: 6.0.1-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Startup will fail because the following Perl libraries aren't automatically
pulled in:
libfile-copy-recursive
libnet-netmask-perl
libterm-progressbar-perl
Ca
Your message dated Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:31:13 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id
and subject line FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: cp: cannot stat
`./debian/tmp/usr/lib/libtextcat.so.0.0.0'
has caused the Debian Bug report #579686,
regarding FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: cp: cannot stat
`./debian/tmp/usr/lib/libtextcat.so.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:01:21AM +0200, BERTRAND Joel wrote:
> Package: iceape
> Version: 2.0.4-1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: squeeze
> Justification: renders package unusable
Could you try this patch ?
https://bug550455.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=436533
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Package: iceape
Version: 2.0.4-1
Severity: grave
Tags: squeeze
Justification: renders package unusable
Hello,
Since last upgrade, iceape receives SIGSEGV after one or two minutes.
gdb returns :
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
nsQueryInterface::operator() (this=, aIID=...,
a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> merge 574187 578332
Bug#574187: [CRASH] Uncaught exception AttributeError in Frontend/Gtk/ui.py:616
Bug#578332: update-manager-gnome: update-manager always fails with "A fatal
error has been detected in update-manager."
Bug#576701: [CRASH] Uncaug
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 574187 576701 577949 577956 577957 577963 577964 578022 578127
> 578137 578145 578200 578289 578354 578410 578510 578516 578656 578689 578788
> 578789 578790 578791 578832 578874 578951 578952 579042 579123 579340 579362
> 579380 579
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:18:58AM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:33:02PM +0200, Denis Briand wrote:
> > #578774 is done.
> > Maybe this issue is fixed now?
>
> Yes, I can confirm that collectd builds fine again. Closing.
Thanks a lot for double-checking and taking care
84 matches
Mail list logo
