Re: Bug#513272: Availability of roundl() on armel?

Hi Michael, > I am trying to fix #513272, a FTBFS on armel. The problem basically > boils down to the following snippet failing to compile on armel (tested > with a Debian lenny on a qemu-emulated armel system): see /usr/include/bits/mathdef.h on armel: ] [...] ] #ifndef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH ]

Re: ecki is retiring (Debian RT)

Hi, > ircii -> needs maintainer taken. Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bash /dev/tcp and /dev/udp

Hi Klaus, > >from the bash manpage: > /dev/tcp/host/port > /dev/udp/host/port This has been discussed several times [1][2], and the outcome was every time that this should not be a feature of the shell, but of more specialized tools like nc. Use those or recompile your

Re: Orphaning most of my packages

Hi, > Bug#392665: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi I'll take nvi if no one objects. Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Orphaning my packages

Hi Qingning, > Yes, mrxvt is quite nice with its tab support, and other features. And, > mrxvt is being actively developed by the upstream authors. > Unfortunately, I have not been able to spend much time on mrxvt > lately (being busy with the real life). Indeed, I would like to give > mrxvt awa

Re: Orphaning my packages

Hi Josip, > If you two don't manage to get to it, I'm a backup. :) We need an O wnpp bug > report to record this... may I take that as an offer to sponsor us? :) I've created an ITA bug against wnpp now. (Don't know the number yet, the BTS bot is slow, and I'm in a hurry...) Regards, Jan sig

Re: Orphaning my packages

Hi, > > * rxvt > as a user of rxvt I like to see it remain in Debian. I'm not a Debian > developer Same for me. I'd also take rxvt and am no DD either. Michael, maybe you'd like to agree on some kind of team maintenance? My workload is quite low at the moment, but will rapidly increase in about f

Re: Self-conflicts and self-depends

Hi, > I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far > as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should > be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports. > > This is a list of the packages: > [...] > unison: > Conflicts on

Re: Experimental or unstable.

Hi DDs, > [[ Marc Haber ]] > Experience with adduser shows that no-one besides the maintainers > themselves and their closest environment uses experimental packages. > [[ Simon Huggins ]] > See this worries me a bit. > > I'd love for Debian users to test some more cutting edge versions of > pack

Re: Closing bugs as submitter?

ith a pseudo-header giving the version in question). Ah, thank you for the pointer - my memories of the changes made to the BTS[1] were not as vivid as I had hoped them to be. Regards, Jan [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00010.html -- Jan C. Nordholz s

Re: Closing bugs as submitter?

tty sure about the change, I just wanted to make sure that I'm not considered "hijacking someone's package". As for my contribution: I'd be happy to do more, and I'm monitoring wnpp for packages I feel knowledgeable enough about to offer my help and/or ask for sp

Closing bugs as submitter?

I'd like to save the maintainer some work and tag the bug fixed-in-experimental myself (together with a short explanatory message to the bug log), but am unsure whether I'm allowed to. Regards, Jan -- Jan C. Nordholz signature.asc Description: Digital signature