severity 594636 minor
tag 594636 - patch
thanks
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:09:26 +0200
hoareau jean pierre wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: serious
> Tags: patch
> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in
> the past)
It appears that you are trying to build the debia
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:23:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08:11AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
> >> these scripts more robust against strange administrative pract
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08:11AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
>> these scripts more robust against strange administrative practices or
>> get tired of all this a little bit faster?
> While being rob
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08:11AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
> these scripts more robust against strange administrative practices or get
> tired of all this a little bit faster?
While being robust against "/etc/rcS.d/S50foo
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 594636 vlc
Bug #594636 [general] general: vlc_1.1.2.orig.tar.bz2. FAIL to make the .deb
packages (source and binary)
Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'vlc'.
> kthxbye
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assis
reassign 594636 vlc
kthxbye
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian
Package: general
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
soleil:/usr/src# uname -a
Linux soleil 2.6.32-3-ieee1394 #1 SMP Mon Jun 7 13:44:44 CEST 2010 i686
GNU/Linux
I run DEBIAN squeeze updated this week.
Steps to reproduce: aft
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
> these scripts more robust against strange administrative practices or get
> tired of all this a little bit faster? A large thread in debian-devel
> with no concrete actionable reports is basically useles
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:36:52AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Given that he hasn't bothered to present a single definitively broken script
> > in /etc but instead seems to think that his prowess with grep entitles him
> > to leave this mo
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
> these scripts more robust against strange administrative practices or get
> tired of all this a little bit faster? A large thread in debian-devel
> with no concrete acti
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting posion bit (poison...@gmail.com):
>
>> I'm not going to fill a lot of little bugs for this, I expect debian
>> scripts to be designed following some simple bash best practices.
>
> By what miracle do you expect this to happen (ass
posion bit writes:
> I showed one case in /etc/profile
> I've just fast looked and show another case in /etc/init.d/rc
> I'm getting tired of all this
Could you please either start reporting (wishlist) bugs asking to make
these scripts more robust against strange administrative practices or get
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 04:29:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> In this regard, I don't believe it is being treated specially. I expect
> the DDPO maintainers would be happy to add links to other distributions'
> bug trackers if they have per-package information. My understanding is
> that Ubunt
Quoting posion bit (poison...@gmail.com):
> I'm not going to fill a lot of little bugs for this, I expect debian
> scripts to be designed following some simple bash best practices.
By what miracle do you expect this to happen (assuming you have a
point somewhere) if you don't file bugs?
Do you e
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:53:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 07:14 +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit :
> > It was indeed really interesting to see (at DebConf) the funny way
> > that all talks about such topics were mentioning "the Debian
> > derivatives" when, inde
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fr, 27 Aug 2010, posion bit wrote:
>> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls
>
> Thanks, nice reading.
>
> Best wishes
I haven't write a line of that enlightened wiki :-)
Just sharing information sources with best wishes to all debi
On Fr, 27 Aug 2010, posion bit wrote:
> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls
Thanks, nice reading.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 27, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Not if I have a "/etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon"
> True, but then you deserve all the pain you will receive.
Hi again, Marco and all.
I would love to invite to community to take a read to common
document
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Eremit7
* Package name: ttf-washera-fonts
Version : 4.1
Upstream Author : Abass Alamnehe
* URL : http://www.senamirmir.org/projects/typography/washra.html
* License : SIL Open Font License, Verison 1.1
Programming Lang
Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 07:14 +0200, Christian PERRIER a écrit :
> It was indeed really interesting to see (at DebConf) the funny way
> that all talks about such topics were mentioning "the Debian
> derivatives" when, indeed, all that they were talking about was
> Ubuntu. As I told to Matt Zimme
On Aug 27, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Not if I have a "/etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon"
True, but then you deserve all the pain you will receive.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 27.08.2010 12:29, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 11:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
Not if I have a "/etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon"
Which is again the debian rules and the LSB rules about
naming the init.d scripts.
[ Back to the original subject for what concerns DDPO. I apologize for
having mixed a (not so) brief review of my DPL whereabouts on
derivatives with a personal opinion on the DDPO technical issue; I was
just too lazy to send 2 separate mails, shame on me ! ]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:39:45
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 11:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
>> > >Not if I have a "/etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon"
>> >
>> > Which is again the debian rules and the LSB rules about
>> > naming the init.d scripts.
>>
>> Debian rules an
Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 11:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> > >Not if I have a "/etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon"
> >
> > Which is again the debian rules and the LSB rules about
> > naming the init.d scripts.
>
> Debian rules and LSB won't prevent users (even root) from doing that.
And if ro
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:36:11 +0200, a écrit :
> On 27.08.2010 10:27, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
> >>On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
> >>>look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
> >>>
> >>>
On 08/26/2010 11:20 PM, Thomas Weber wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:42:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> I don't see what a discussion on -devel@ would bring. We are unlikely to
>> come up with a better choice of solutions than what we already have
>> (keep it on by default, revert the cha
On 27/08/10 at 10:43 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ Agreed with everything you wrote before that ]
> > I don't see handling Ubuntu in some special way in DDPO (as proposed
> > in this discussion) as such an horrendous thing. Couldn't we simply
> > ack the fact that having a bug report rate th
On 27.08.2010 10:27, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
for i in /etc/rc$runlevel.d/K$level*
do
On 27.08.2010 10:34, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
for i in /etc/rc$runlevel.d/
[ oops, this mail came out longer than I expected, sorry ]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:14:19AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> As a side comment: we should maybe some day stop faking ourselves by
> just seeing Ubuntu as "Yet Another Derivative". It is by two or even
> more orders of magnitude the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:58:22AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
> > > There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
> > >
> > > There are
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that he hasn't bothered to present a single definitively broken script
> in /etc but instead seems to think that his prowess with grep entitles him
> to leave this most basic proof as an exercise for the reader, I'm pretty
> sure the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
>> On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
>> >look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
>> >
>> > for i in /etc/rc$runlevel.d/K$level*
>> >
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
> On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
> >look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
> >
> > for i in /etc/rc$runlevel.d/K$level*
> > do
> > # Check if the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:58:22AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> While many of these are false alarms (numbers, fixed names, ...), the
> problem is real. Sometimes you even have a proper and improper usage on the
> same or on subsequent lines:
> (/etc/mc/mc.menu)
> case "$i" in
>
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:09:49AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
> > (/etc/mc/mc.menu)
> > case "$i" in
> > *.tar.gz) D="`basename $i .tar.gz`";;
>
> In that case, name-spaced filenames should work, because the
> string is a _quoted_ multi-word string.
i="cat's meow.tar.gz"
posion bit, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:09:49 +0200, a écrit :
> > (/etc/mc/mc.menu)
> > case "$i" in
> > *.tar.gz) D="`basename $i .tar.gz`";;
>
>
> In that case, name-spaced filenames should work, because the
> string is a _quoted_ multi-word string.
Not in the basename cal
On 27.08.2010 08:30, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
I've just started my love history again with squeeze.
There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
There are 172 "$i" (maching without spaces around) 38 of the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
>> > There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
>> >
>> > There are 172 "$i" (mac
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
> > There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
> >
> > There are 172 "$i" (maching without spaces around) 38 of them matches
> > whit spac
42 matches
Mail list logo
