On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 01:33, peter green wrote:
>
> Package: zeroinstall-injector
> Version: 2.14.1-3
> Severity: serious
>
> zeroinstall-injector build-depends on libcurl-ocaml-dev which is not
> currently in testing, either libcurl-ocaml-dev needs to be fixed so it can
> return to testing, zer
Why have you (I assume) removed 0install and obus from the repository?
A camlp4 release for 4.08 came out on Aug 7th:
https://github.com/ocaml/camlp4/releases/tag/4.08%2B1
And even if not, surely waiting for the NEW queue to clear so that
obus can be upgraded is better than removing working packa
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 01:54, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>
> Source: zeroinstall-injector
> Version: 2.12.3-2
> Severity: serious
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> zeroinstall-injector build depends on obus, which is affected by
> [1]. According to [2], it is an optional dependency. Please provide a
> version
On 14 August 2017 at 18:35, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 6 August 2017 at 20:08, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> On 06/08/2017 20:17, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>>>> zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0. Relevant log:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Option -a can
On 5 December 2016 at 21:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Thomas--
>
> On Sat 2016-12-03 10:33:11 -0500, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>> I can reproduce this on sid. It appears that GnuPG has started
>> reporting incorrect error values. I have reported it here:
>>
>>
On 3 December 2016 at 07:44, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: zeroinstall-injector
> Version: 2.12-2
> Severity: serious
> Tags: stretch sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161202 qa-ftbfs
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid,
On 1 October 2016 at 15:17, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: zeroinstall-injector
> Version: 2.12-1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: stretch sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161001 qa-ftbfs
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid,
On 10 September 2016 at 13:34, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 10 September 2016 at 08:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Source: zeroinstall-injector
>> Version: 2.10-2
>> Severity: serious
>> Tags: stretch sid
>> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
>> Usertags: qa-f
On 10 September 2016 at 08:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: zeroinstall-injector
> Version: 2.10-2
> Severity: serious
> Tags: stretch sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20160910 qa-ftbfs
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in si
ibglib2.0-0 2.46.2-1
> ii libgtk2.0-0 2.24.28-1
> ii libpango-1.0-0 1.38.1-1
> ii libpangocairo-1.0-0 1.38.1-1
> ii libpangoft2-1.0-01.38.1-1
>
> 0install recommends no packages.
>
> 0install suggests no packages.
>
> -- no debconf information
--
Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://roscidus.com/blog/
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
t me know if you need sponsorship in the meantime, but I
> don't think there is a massive rush.
That would be very useful. I've uploaded the new package here:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector
Thanks,
--
Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://roscidus.com/blog/
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
[1]: Leaving directory '/build/zeroinstall-injector-2.8'
> debian/rules:17: recipe for target 'build-stamp' failed
> make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
>
> [..]
>
> The full build log is attached
On 16 November 2014 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: reopen -1
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 15:21 +, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>> Changes:
>> zeroinstall-injector (2.7-2) unstable; urgency=medium
>> .
>>* Remove old conffile an
d be compiled once for all
for big packages (which either take a lot of place on disks or take a
lot of time to build)"
Looks like this needs to be updated.
--
Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA B
On 1/31/06, Sjoerd Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 11:59:47AM +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> > Not having D-BUS working with the default Python causes lots of
> > problems with non-Debian packages. The following broke after I upgraded
> > t
Package: python2.3-dbus
Followup-For: Bug #346491
Is the problem just the function decorators? It's quite simple to
replace:
@decor
def foo(...):
...
with:
def foo(...):
...
foo = decor(foo)
Not having D-BUS working with the default Python causes lots of
problems with non-Deb
16 matches
Mail list logo
