Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Charles Plessy
Package name: r-bioc-limma
Version : 3.8.2
Upstream Author : Gordon Smyth
URL : http://bioinf.wehi.edu.au/limma/
License : GPL, LGPL
Programming Lang: R, C
Description : linear models for mic
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:06:28PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 05/28/2011 03:32 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 14:48, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> It seems that the main blocker at the moment is bug #618288 in apt.
> > Fixed in branch for a while, just not yet uploaded. [0]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Filip Brcic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: aspell-sr
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Goran Rakic
* URL : http://srpski.org/aspell/
* License : LGPL
Description : Aspell dictionary
Roger Leigh wrote:
> We could add special behaviour to adduser to unlock the account
> if it already exists when run in the postinst. However, most
> postinsts wrap the call to adduser with a check for whether the
> account already exists, so it would not be called without an
> update to every pr
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:09:40PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (culled cc list of a few people I know read -devel)
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Given the need to consider unlocking as well as locking, I'm not sure
> > it's worth adding special support to deluser: the typical logic used
> > to cr
On Mon, 30 May 2011, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I looked into Debian policy and developers-reference just to be sure.
> Then, I realized that it may be a good idea to make a longer list of
> packages for packaging as long as it is properly maintained together with
> the list in the developers-reference AP
Michael Meskes writes:
>> As far as I know, the FTP masters still use 2.4.3 (before the leading
>> "/" and "./" was removed from file names and before the merge of
>> embedded-$lib -> embedded-library).
> Right, this is wha I expected as the source of the problem. Is there a
> reason why the sys
Thomas Goirand writes:
> P.S: What's blocking DEP5 from reaching the policy?
> I think it's great the way it is right now already...
It's already in the Policy package and was aging there for one release to
be sure we didn't mess anything up when rewriting it to DocBook. Please
review the versi
> As far as I know, the FTP masters still use 2.4.3 (before the leading
> "/" and "./" was removed from file names and before the merge of
> embedded-$lib -> embedded-library).
Right, this is wha I expected as the source of the problem. Is there a reason
why the system uses an older version? Are w
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 05:35:27PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Not all of the rejections are weak rejections you can override:
>
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/#rejections
Right, but my one is listed as nonfatal and the email even said I should
override if I need this.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
M
On 05/29/2011 11:53 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
>
>> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
>> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
>> the copyright file is complete I don
(culled cc list of a few people I know read -devel)
Roger Leigh wrote:
> Given the need to consider unlocking as well as locking, I'm not sure
> it's worth adding special support to deluser: the typical logic used
> to create the user will be insufficient to unlock, so it's no less
> the effort to
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Roland Mas wrote:
> - repository browsers for the major SCM tools are also available from
> wagner, see http://anonscm.debian.org/ for the links.
There seems to be an issue with loggerhead (the VCS browser for bzr).
Some repositories show up, but not all. Notably
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:57:29PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
> hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
> the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
> this DEP.
This is
On 05/29/2011 05:31 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I received an auto-reject because of a lintian error message that, as my
> system
> says, is correctly overridden. Could anyone please tell me which lintian
> version we use to determine auto-rejection and also which lintian version
> we're
> suppos
Hi,
I understand intent is a good one but the proposed list seems not so
well thought though. Unless inclusion criteria is clearly defined, it
becomes just another random bloated list of packages.
My first reaction was that, if we are to have such package, we just need
to depends on build-essent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-05-29 17:31, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I received an auto-reject because of a lintian error message that, as my
> system
> says, is correctly overridden. Could anyone please tell me which lintian
> version we use to determine auto-rejection an
I received an auto-reject because of a lintian error message that, as my system
says, is correctly overridden. Could anyone please tell me which lintian
version we use to determine auto-rejection and also which lintian version we're
supposed to prepare overrides for?
Should the version be the same
On 05/29/2011 05:02 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Currently there are still some outstanding issues before we can really
>> start using multiarch. You can find the status at the wiki page [1].
>
>> It seems that the main blocker at the moment is bug #618288 in apt.
>
>> Please
Luk Claes wrote:
> Currently there are still some outstanding issues before we can really
> start using multiarch. You can find the status at the wiki page [1].
> It seems that the main blocker at the moment is bug #618288 in apt.
> Please help to fix the outstanding bugs for the build tools (pm
Yaroslav Halchenko, 2011-05-23 22:39:48 -0400 :
> on a related note (although not as critical as restoration of
> git://git.d.o which I expect to impact thousands:
>
> $> grep git://
> /var/lib/apt/lists/debian.lcs.mit.edu_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources |
> wc -l
> 3716
>
> )
>
> where pr
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Hello,
>
> from time to time I hear some rumblings about how "3.0 (quilt)" mixes
> badly with VCS. Indeed, one of the primary goals of the format
> was to not require prior knowledge of the patch system to be able to
> modify a package. And it's the case since you can do
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Hi,
>
> Raphael Hertzog (29/05/2011):
>> from time to time I hear some rumblings about how "3.0 (quilt)"
>> mixes badly with VCS. Indeed, one of the primary goals of the format
>> was to not require prior knowledge of the patch system to be able to
>> modify a package.
> Currently there are still some outstanding issues before we can really
> start using multiarch.
Is there anything upstream maintainers should be doing in order to help?
(Except writing makefiles that allow easy cross-compilation, of course.)
-- Juliusz
pgpmIaWRYiIGs.pgp
Description: PGP signa
[I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel, so please CC me on any
response that I need to see.]
I have uploaded ICU 4.8 to experimental. If you have a package that
depends on ICU, please try testing with this version. I will coordinate
with the release team to upload to unstable as soon as
* Raphael Hertzog [110529 10:53]:
> I see 2 ways to solve this:
> a/ detect the common VCS and make --unapply-patches the default in that
>case (but it would require a --no-unapply-patches for the people who
>keep the patches applied in their VCS)
I'd be very disappointed if the more cons
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Emmanuel Bouthenot
* Package name: libunicode-linebreak-perl
Version : 0.0.20110426
Upstream Author : Hatuka*nezumi - IKEDA Soji
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Unicode-LineBreak/
* License : GPL2+ or Artistic
Prog
Am Sonntag, den 29.05.2011, 10:53 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> Again to cope with the scenario explained at the start of this mail,
> once a user has made modifications we must ensure that they end up in a
> proper patch in debian/patches/. Right now this is entirely automatic,
> the generated
Hi,
I currently see a wild mix of different format definitions used by people
hitting debian-mentors. While I personally don't care as long as
the copyright file is complete I don't think this fulfills the goal of
this DEP.
It would be nice if the involved people would clarify what should be
used.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:04:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > > I second your original pr
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> > > system users that
On Sun, 29 May 2011 at 10:08:23 +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
> kdm: :0[21175]: Cannot open ConsoleKit session: Unable to open session:
> Failed
> to execute program /usr/lib/dbus-1.0/dbus-daemon-launch-helper: Succes
Reinstall the package that owns that file (which is "dbus"). If that doesn't
h
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog (29/05/2011):
> from time to time I hear some rumblings about how "3.0 (quilt)"
> mixes badly with VCS. Indeed, one of the primary goals of the format
> was to not require prior knowledge of the patch system to be able to
> modify a package.
thanks for trying to improve the s
Le dimanche 29 mai 2011 à 10:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> b/ modify dpkg-source --before-build to keep a trace of the fact that
>it applied the patches (for example by creating
>.pc/dpkg-source-auto-applied) and in that case have dpkg-source
>--after-build unapply the patches
On Du, 29 mai 11, 10:08:23, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
>
> P.S. Sorry, if I sent this wrong, debian-u...@lists.debian.org claimed my e-
> mail as spam.
- subscribe to whitelist@l.d.o
- if you still have troubles contact listmaster@l.d.o
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users an
Hello,
from time to time I hear some rumblings about how "3.0 (quilt)" mixes
badly with VCS. Indeed, one of the primary goals of the format
was to not require prior knowledge of the patch system to be able to
modify a package. And it's the case since you can do:
- dpkg-source -x
- modify files
- d
Hello list,
I am really despaired! Due to a defective RAM, my /usr was corrupted, and so I
had to reinstall the system from scratch. I installed debian/testing
completely new (except /home, which is on a separate partition). As I am
courious, I saved my package list by dpkg --get-selections >
Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
> I can confirm that I was able to checkout and commit to svn.debian.org until
> yesterday evening. Now it fails and the reason seems to be:
> ~$ ssh -v svn.debian.org
> ...
> debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct
> debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent
> debug1: expecting
38 matches
Mail list logo
