On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
> However, I'm not completely sure if that explanation actually matches what
> I was seeing in practice and have not tried only using 'found' recently
> (I've been using both reopen and found, just to be sure...).
Heh. The explanation is the way it's *suppos
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:06, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> > greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> > versions to be removed ('cause th
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> > greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> > versions to be removed ('cause they're equal
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> versions to be removed ('cause they're equal to the found version),
> the bug is reopened as well.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned,
> nondeprecated way to revert the effects of a versioned message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are three reasonable ways, depending on the effect you want to
have:
1) found foobug fooversion; co
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>> So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned, nondeprecated way
>> to
>> revert the effects of a versioned message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> reopen (I think that also clears the fixed list, don't tried it though,
> so
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:48:53PM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> I guess it does. But I thought reopen was deprecated since the versioning
> stuff was added to the BTS. However, the "notfixed" command issued earlier
> didn't completely remove the "done" status from the bug... (And I thought
On Friday 29 June 2007 08:21:18 am Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> > BTW: anybody more versed in the bts system than I am, how can I get
> > #359634 marked as not actually being fixed?
>
> Does a simple reopen not work?
I guess it does. But I thought reopen was deprecated since the versioning
stuff w
BTW: anybody more versed in the bts system than I am, how can I get #359634
marked as not actually being fixed?
Does a simple reopen not work?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-28 17:09]:
> So with your permission, I'd like to close those three bugs.
At least jigdo builds fine here as well, so please feel free to close
them.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
* Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-28 08:40]:
> Does this imply that all FORTRAN-using packages will need to move from
> g77-3.4 to gfortran-4.2 in the near future? To my knowledge there has
> been no mass rebuild of FORTRAN packages with gfortran yet to see how
> smoothly this will w
I've been unable to reproduce any of the "One Definition Rule" bugs you filed.
Jigdo builds fine; apt builds successfully apart from #428623 (and #359634 on
my local setup); and gnome-vfsmm2.6 is fine until it hits #422813. It looks
like something was either fixed or reverted. I also tried co
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-28 16:48]:
> > default compiler in unstable for all architectures and for all
> > languages with the exception of Java (which will follow later).
> > This message describes the plan to make this transition possible.
>
> Could you say something about
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:47:55PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> GCC 4.2 was released on May 13 and has been in unstable since roughly
> that time. The default version of gfortran was recently switched to
> 4.2 and the Debian GCC maintainers would like to move to 4.2 as the
> default compiler i
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> GCC 4.2 was released on May 13 and has been in unstable since roughly
> that time. The default version of gfortran was recently switched to
> 4.2 and the Debian GCC maintainers would like to move to 4.2 as the
> default compiler in unstable for all architectures and for a
15 matches
Mail list logo
