On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 07:04:57AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > One could argue about sending the NMU-patch/interdiff to the BTS, but I
> > personally do not see much point in it, since (hi Omnic!) you can just
> > get it from the
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:43:22AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
I find this extremely annoying.
Please calm down.
Why? There's _no_ excuse not to mail the BTS before NMUing.
You're free to discuss with lamont how to handle such
cases in the future (and communicating him your
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > > I'm sorry the NMU annoyed you but I welcome it. There is nothing worse
> > > than a package that kills buildds, esspecially such a common one.
> > I agree. But still
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One could argue about sending the NMU-patch/interdiff to the BTS, but I
> personally do not see much point in it, since (hi Omnic!) you can just
> get it from the archive and sync it yourself. It still makes sense for
> packages where you suspect the main
Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi Frank,
>
>> Please calm down. Sure, it isn't usual to upload such a quick NMU, but
>> (as Goswin already pointed out) such a bug that makes a package
>> uninstallable that is a common build-depends can really hurt the
>> autobuilders. You're fre
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > I'm sorry the NMU annoyed you but I welcome it. There is nothing worse
> > than a package that kills buildds, esspecially such a common one.
>
> I agree. But still LaMont should have expressed his intent to do so, and
> send the pat
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> You have not posted anything to this bug,
>>> neither a patch nor an intent to NMU. And you won't stop me from
>>> uploading these packages this morning.
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 13:49 +0100, schreef Frank KÃster:
> I must admit that I didn't know that failed *removals* of
> build-dependencies would cause the buildd to fail. Nobody cared to
> indicate that to us.
It can happen. It doesn't happen always, but sometimes it does. In
extreme cases, a buildd
Hi Frank,
> Please calm down. Sure, it isn't usual to upload such a quick NMU, but
> (as Goswin already pointed out) such a bug that makes a package
> uninstallable that is a common build-depends can really hurt the
> autobuilders. You're free to discuss with lamont how to handle such
> cases in t
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You have not posted anything to this bug,
>> neither a patch nor an intent to NMU. And you won't stop me from
>> uploading these packages this morning.
>>
>> I find this extremely annoying.
>>
[...]
> I
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:43:22AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Since then, I was testing the packages with the fixes that we had
> prepared in the last days. You have not posted anything to this bug,
> neither a patch nor an intent to NMU. And you won't stop me from
> uploading these packages this
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote:
>
>> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>> tag 284800 + fixed
>> Bug#284800: tetex-base: Can't be removed: rmdir:
>> `/usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/pxr/': No such file or directory
>> There
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> tag 284800 + fixed
> Bug#284800: tetex-base: Can't be removed: rmdir:
> `/usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/pxr/': No such file or directory
> There were no tags set.
> Tags added: fixed
Was this re
13 matches
Mail list logo
