Package: tar
Version: 1.11.8
When attemping to do remote tar operations using the archive name systax
specified in the info file, which is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]:file", if user is not
specified, tar core dumps, when it should use the current username as the
default.
This is probably part of the same
Forwarded message:
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 23 17:47:44 1995
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "J.H.M.Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#1732: Bad arithmetic in new perl packages
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL
J.H.M.Dassen writes:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> @array=(
> "item1 4 units",
> "item2 1.5 units",
> "item3 8 units + see item2"
> );
>
> foreach (@array) {
> if( ($item_name,$amount,$unit,$delimiter,$moreinfo)=
> /^(\w+)\s
> : > Perl seems to be confused making some arithmetic operations (additions).
> : > Sometimes the result of $a+=$b, when $a is 0 and $b is 2 happens to be
> : > 2.04192 or something similar.
> :
> : Fernando, I unfortunately have no idea what is causing this. Please
> : provide a short script
Package: dc
Version: 1.03-8
When running the command mandb -c, I got the message:
Processing manual pages under /usr/man...
mandb: warning: /usr/man/man1/dc.1: whatis parse for dc(1) failed
I recall some comments on mandb recently, so I apologize for this possible
redundancy; the bug logs aren't
The following is taken from an email message I received from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope he doesn't object to my
posting his email and my responses to debian-devel. I
think points made here could usefully contribute to the changes
file format discussion.
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill Mitche
"Susan G. Kleinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> When running the command mandb -c, I got the message:
> Processing manual pages under /usr/man...
> mandb: warning: /usr/man/man1/dc.1: whatis parse for dc(1) failed
I'm going to try to reassign this bug report from dc to man.
When I tried to repro
I should have noted that:
-- I was also using man-2.3.10-2, and
-- when I ran mandb, I got no other error messages than the one
associated with dc.
Other than the message about dc, running mandb -c had (for me) the
desired beneficial effect of eliminating an error message I kept
getting from 'a
Package: inewsinn
Version: 1.4sec-7
I find it *really* annoying that inewsinn recommends trn, since I want tin,
which requires inewsinn or inn, but don't want trn. This makes me have to
go through conflict resolution every time.
Isn't it sufficient that trn and tin require inn or inewsinn?
Bdal
Package: trn
Version: 3.6-2
It's not clear to me why trn uses 'recommends' for a mail transport
and a news article injector, while tin uses 'depends'. I think that depends
makes more sense, so I'm filing this against trn.
Bdale
Hyperlatex doesn't recommend ghostscript but gs from 1.3-5 (and higher)
I'm closing this bug.
--
Erick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31-10-4635142
Department of General Surgery (Intensive Care) University Hospital Rotterdam NL
>
> Hyperlatex doesn't recommend ghostscript but gs from 1.3-5 (and higher)
> I'm closing this bug.
> --
> Erick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31-10-4635142
> Department of General Surgery (Intensive Care) University Hospital Rotterdam
> NL
>
>
Oops this wasn't my intension, forgot BUG in the subject. Trying
Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
>Package: at
>Version: 2.8a-2
>
>The at command sometimes has problems with date parsing which result
>in a SEGV. For example:
>
>$ at tomorrow
>Segmentation fault
I think I've fixed this in the most recent version of at, 2.9a,
which has been out since August or so.
Th
Since noone is maintaining these, and they *desperately* need
updating, I shall do it.
Who has the latest version and which format are they in ?
Ian.
Package: bash
Version: 1.14.4-5
Bash doesn't quote correctly in some cases. Here is a test case which
exhibits the problem:
---start of showbug---
#!/bin/sh
./printargc $0 ${1+"$@"}
---end of showbug---
---start of printargc---
#!/bin/sh
echo 'argc =' $#
---end of printargc---
Running "showbug
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#1753: trn recommends, instead of depends"):
> Package: trn
> Version: 3.6-2
>
> It's not clear to me why trn uses 'recommends' for a mail transport
> and a news article injector, while tin uses 'depends'. I think that depends
> makes more sense, so I'm filing this against
Bill Mitchell writes ("changes file format"):
> Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
> formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
> the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax check.
I completely fail to understand why anyone is pr
Package: netbase
Version: 1.91-1
See the transcript below. The `-f' (flood ping) option is disabled
for non-root users, but IMO the -l option should be restricted or
disabled too.
Ian.
chiark:~> id
uid=1001(ijackson) gid=1001(ijackson)
groups=1001(ijackson),202(doom),203(killer)
chiark:~> ping
reassign 1753 tin
Here's an strace of dpkg failing. [Remember, this is on an empty
directory.]
Notice especially the line that reads:
readdir(4, 0x48000) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
I don't have a clue where that 0x48000 argument is coming from, but it
looks like it's corrupt
Package: source
Version: 1.2.13
To reproduce: do lots of things that need lots of swap, when you
haven't got enough.
Effect: system locks up totally, with only an insignificant amount
of disk activity.
Thrashing badly I could understand (but wouldn't like). Randomly
killing processes I could un
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#1758: recommended"):
> reassign 1753 tin
Damn, that's the second time I've done that.
I'll go and check my mail aliases.
Ian.
The following problem reports are very old but have not yet been marked
as `taken up' by a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or as forwarded
to a developer by CCing a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please help ensure that these bugs are dealt with quickly, even if you
are not the package maintainer in que
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Are you saying it looks anywhere near as nice as mine ?
Well, I think it looks awful, but I will accept your format simply
to end this argument if you or someone else
will write and maintain the parser for it and
an automated tool to generate it.
I don't see how you cou
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Are you saying it looks anywhere near as nice as mine ?
>
> Well, I think it looks awful, but I will accept your format simply
> to end this argument if you or someone else
> will write and maintain the parser for it and
> an
Bill Mitchell writes ("bc-1.03-8 uploaded"):
> added /usr/doc/dc with dc.texinfo man Makefile
Bill Mitchell writes ("sharutils-4.1-7 uploaded"):
> Changes: Added texinfo file and Makefile to /usr/doc/sharutils
Bill Mitchell writes ("indent-1.9.1-12 uploaded"):
> Changes: Added texinfo file and
Michael Alan Dorman writes ("Conflicting with a range of revisions..."):
> Well, I've decided to return to Matt Porters' previous split between
> minicom and lrzsz.
>
> One side-effect of this is that I need to make the updated lrzsz package
> conflict just with minicom-1.71-[1..2] (the ones tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Please add "and document" to this. If tools are introduced into the
> distribution, the author and maintainer of those tools should provide
> and maintain man pages for them.
Yes, that makes sense. The parse wasn't immediately obvious to me. For
example, is the semic
> I completely fail to understand why anyone is promoting this format.
>
> It is ugly, and my format is machine readable too.
But Ian, almost _any_ format can be made machine readable -- but
Bill's format is _easily_ machine readable -- you could slap together
a whole bunch of ways to read it.
Martin Schulze writes ("sysklogd-1.2-13 released"):
> I'm just trying to upload this package. The changes are only minor
> ones. Here are the relevant ChangeLog entries
>
> ...
> * changed the name in control file (Bug#1695)
Aaargh, no !
Please, change it back.
Ian Murdock
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> `|' is not allowed in conflicts; `,' is used to mean OR.
It would be nice if CONFLICTS and the other fields used the same
notation for OR/AND, instead of being in direct apposition.
Could the current behavior be gradually phased out
Ian Jackson writes:
>Bill Mitchell writes ("changes file format"):
>> Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
>> formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
>> the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax check.
>
>I completely fail to u
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, James A. Robinson wrote:
> But Ian, almost _any_ format can be made machine readable -- but
> Bill's format is _easily_ machine readable -- you could slap together
> a whole bunch of ways to read it. I'm very much against going all out
> for "beauty" when you can have a nice
33 matches
Mail list logo
