On Sun, 2013-04-14 at 08:34 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 14-04-13 01:45, peter green wrote:
> > Sorry I could have been clearer in my last mail. I didn't intend to
> > blame you for most of the issues with the patch (you just took a
> > broken patch and made it differently broken) but I could s
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 22:48 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > 1) You used dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH instead of
> > dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU (you could simplify your rules
> > file as well with this).
>
> Hmm, it seems like this was not a smart idea for i386. So the point is
> tha
Paul Gevers wrote:
Please go ahead. Lets get rid of this RC bug in Wheezy ASAP, so we can
release. If I can help by filing and tracking the unblock after
successful build (or I can even do the (unchanged :) ) upload for you),
please let me know (here or in private)
I just uploaded, feel free to
On 14-04-13 01:45, peter green wrote:
> Sorry I could have been clearer in my last mail. I didn't intend to
> blame you for most of the issues with the patch (you just took a
> broken patch and made it differently broken) but I could see how it
> could have come across that way.
Thanks for the
Paul Gevers wrote:
Peter,
Please calm down.
Sorry I could have been clearer in my last mail. I didn't intend to
blame you for most of the issues with the patch (you just took a broken
patch and made it differently broken) but I could see how it could have
come across that way. Still I firmly
Peter,
Please calm down.
1) I made a small change to the what Abou proposed, because his script
did not work on my system (amd64) so most "issues" you mention are
actually proposed by Abou. I think, but he can speak for himself, that
he wanted more or less the same as in Lazarus.
Actually, I rea
Paul Gevers wrote:
I just uploaded with the patch for bug 704252. I didn't feel the other
two items appropriate at this moment.
It took me some more time than expected, because I had to fix two bugs
in your script:
So you are saying that rather rather than sponsoring abou's upload you
made y
> 1) You used dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH instead of
> dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU (you could simplify your rules
> file as well with this).
Hmm, it seems like this was not a smart idea for i386. So the point is
that either we have to fix i486 to i386 or amd64 to x86_64...
Abou,
Hi Abou,
On 11-04-13 00:17, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Can you please take 2.6.0 branch head and upload. The other 2 items are
> just a typo in translation file and a fix suggested by release team
> themselves. I think we really conform to the freeze goals. However if
> you don't like these two fix
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 23:20 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The RT agrees with the patch for this issue. I have not discussed the
> other items as I think they are not in line with the current freeze
> exceptions. I can create an upload tomorrow evening. If you want you can
> prepare that, via mentors,
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 704252 +patch pending
Bug #704252 [fpc] [fpc] Builds binaries not listed in debian/control
Added tag(s) pending and patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
704252: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi
tags 704252 +patch pending
thanks
On 10-04-13 22:45, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I've already committed this on svn on branch 2.6.0.
I saw this after I sent the mail.
> I'm attaching patches for info. If you agree I can upload to
> mentors.
The RT agrees with the patch for this issue. I have not
12 matches
Mail list logo
