Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Roland Mas
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: proglog
Version : 0.1.9
Upstream Author : Zulko
* URL : https://github.com/Edinburgh-Genome-Foundry/Proglog
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Python
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon McVittie
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome
Version : 41.0
Upstream Author : Georges Basile Stavracas Neto, Matthias Clasen et al
* URL : https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/xdg-
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 at 17:25:32 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Hsieh-Tseng Shen [210920 16:54]:
> > The ledmon package was reported by
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994521 to cause ledmon
> > service was unable to run due to the broken dependency of libsgutils2-2.
> >
Control: severity -1 critical
Control: retitle -1 Soname change without package name change
Control: found -1 1.45-1
Control: block 994521 by -1
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:25:32PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > The ledmon package was reported by
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.
* Hsieh-Tseng Shen [210920 16:54]:
> The ledmon package was reported by
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994521 to cause ledmon
> service was unable to run due to the broken dependency of libsgutils2-2.
>
> It seems like the softlink will keep changing since 1.45:
Upstream cha
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:38:06PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:03:50AM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
For such a simple tool, do we really need such many versions?
At least you've asked the question. I'd love to think that there was a
proper evaluation of BSD which ver
Package: libsgutils2-2
Severity: wishlist
Hi Maintainer,
The ledmon package was reported by
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994521 to cause ledmon
service was unable to run due to the broken dependency of libsgutils2-2.
It seems like the softlink will keep changing since 1.45:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alastair McKinstry
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: findlibs
Version : 0.0.2
Upstream Author : ECMWF (The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts)
* URL : https://github.com/ecmwf/findlibs
On 2021-09-20 04:48 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 05:32:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > I must admit that I have no idea why replacing such a longstanding
> > utility is deemed necessary.
>
> Maybe this riddle will help.
>
> Imagine that you are the product manager for Debian
On 2021-09-20 02:18:48 + (+), Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> they need to work with our upstreams too, especially the Linux
> kernel community.
[...]
A majority of the contributors to StarlingX are currently employed
at Wind River and Intel, and I think both organizations already have
a few peop
On 2021-09-20 02:11:06 + (+), Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Normally one would get "Connection refused" when connecting to a port
> that isn't open, but at this site one gets "No route to host", as if
> there is no network path to reach the host, which is clearly not true
> since the HTTP port w
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:03:50AM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
For such a simple tool, do we really need such many versions?
At least you've asked the question. I'd love to think that there was a
proper evaluation of BSD which versus GNU which prior to the latter
being uploaded to NEW, and there'
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:45:06AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:11:06AM +, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Normally one would get "Connection refused" when connecting to a port
> > that isn't open,
>
> "Connection refused" is generated by TCP reset packets.
That, or ICMP type
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:11:06AM +, Paul Wise wrote:
> Normally one would get "Connection refused" when connecting to a port
> that isn't open,
"Connection refused" is generated by TCP reset packets.
> but at this site one gets "No route to host", as if
> there is no networ
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 11:18 +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Oh, you mean 2021.9.9 won't be seen as the last of the century?
By default, version comparison in Debian and other packaging systems are not
alphanumeric, but each part of the version.
Debian has some features to amend versions, like + and
Le lundi 20 septembre 2021 à 11:11 +0200, Markus Frosch a écrit :
>
> I would keep using the versioning style of upstream.
>
> dpkg and uscan should be pretty much fine with this:
>
> $ dpkg --compare-versions 2021.8.23 eq 2021.08.23; echo $?
> 0
Oh, you mean 2021.9.9 won't be seen as the last
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 11:00 +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
> I'm having an issue with an upstream where the latest git tag is
> v2021.8.23 ; I would have liked them to (also) tag v2021.08.23, but
> that won't happen.
I would keep using the versioning style of upstream.
dpkg and uscan shou
Hi,
I'm having an issue with an upstream where the latest git tag is
v2021.8.23 ; I would have liked them to (also) tag v2021.08.23, but
that won't happen.
So I need some uversionmangle magic.
I know how to get the parts $1=2021, $2=8 and $3=23, but I don't know
how to say $2 ($3 will need a sim
*Hi Sir,*
*I am selling guest post service If you want to boost your website traffic
and your site to Google's top-ranking then I’m offering you my websites
for back-links or link placement. You can get good Domain and Page
Authority Keyword-based websites links from me related to your desire
Nich
Hi Dear,
How are you? Hope you are doing well
Let me introduce myself, I am a blogger outreach.
I can provide you advertisement through services in this following
▶︎▶︎▶︎Link building -> Increased Rankings -> More Traffic -> Increase DA ->
Presently I’m involved in:
▶︎Content writing
▶︎Link buildin
20 matches
Mail list logo
