tags 919397 pending
thanks
Thanks for your report. I already noticed the problem and a fix is in the
pipeline.
Martin
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:31:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Source: apcalc
> Version: 2.12.7.2-1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: ftbfs
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/pack
tags 544252 +pending
thanks
Hi Nobuhiro/Peter,
thanks for your bug report/patch. I'm currently preparing a new upload that
fixes this bug. It should be ready in a few hours.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:13:20AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
> i386.
[...]
> > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lXext
Seems libx11-dev has dropped its dependency on libxext-dev, so I'll add it
to XView's Build-Depends.
Thanks
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:55:37PM -0600, Dean Provins wrote:
> When attempting to start any of the Xview client programs (textedit,
> cmdtool etc,), and the Xview example programs, the process fails
> immediately with the following message:
>
> --start message-
tags 430866 - security
tags 430866 forwarded patch
severity important
thanks
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:10:08PM -0400, Patricio Rojo wrote:
> I reported this bug as a security hole just because I found what it
> seems to be a dangling pointer... I have no idea if it could be
> maliciously expl
tags 415046 pending
thanks
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:22:28PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> col is part of bsdmailutils, so you'll need to add a build dependency on
> that.
Thanks, I already noticed and fixed it locally. I'm just waiting for a fix
from upstream for another bug before the next uploa
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:39:02AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not
> be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will
> read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay
> their upload.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Martin Buck wrote:
> but it seems like this is caused by gcc 4.0.
This seems to be fixed in gcc 4.0.1-4. At least the regression tests are
working again.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe&q
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:58:47PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> apcalc fails to build because its regression tests fail:
A bit more information about your build environment would have been useful,
but it seems like this is caused by gcc 4.0. I'll try to find out what
excatly is going wrong and eithe
9 matches
Mail list logo
