On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Nathanael Nerode:
> >> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious
> >> audio CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses
> >> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest
Hi list,
I tried to build heimdal-0.7.2 using the testing source package for
stable. The built itself went fine, but the splitting into subpackages
failed. Also I have no clue how to fix the problem. So can anybody give
me a tip what went wrong here? Since there is no 'binary:' target in
rule
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:26:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> And guess what? System tests are actually more reliable, especially
> when the user tells you what the system is. You can simply flip to
> compiling foo_linux.c or foo_solaris.c and go on your way.
This will never work. Real life
Hello Javier,
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2006-08-15 19:41 +0200]:
> I have written and collected some network testing scripts in a new
> 'ifupdown-extra' package which is right now available in
> http://people.debian.org/~jfs/ifupdown-extra
>
> This package provi
For me, there is no problem with OOo on sarge:
~$ uname -a
Linux magic 2.6.8-3-686 #1 Sat Jul 15 10:32:25 UTC 2006 i686 GNU/Linux
libfreetype62.1.7-2.5
openoffice.org-writer 2.0.3-1bpo1 from backports.org
Regards,
Ralph
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: fretsonfire
Version : 1.0.192
Upstream Author : Sami Kyostila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/
* License : GPL
Description : game of musical sk
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: nifticlib
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : NIfTI Data Format Working Group
* URL : http://niftilib.sourceforge.net/
* License : public domain
Programming Lang: C
Descrip
Hi,
I've two problems with libslang2. The first is, the package libslang2
includes a patch that changes the behaviour of a function. But jed
expects the function behaviour as given in the original slang2 library.
I've reported this bug #369152, 80 days ago, but the maintainer does not
react. The u
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:36:52PM +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hello Javier,
Hi there.
> > This package provides additional scripts for ifupdown to test for some
> > common
> > problems when setting up interfaces:
> >
> > - interfaces without a link (admin can have that condition abort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
>Hi
>
>
>I've been using Debian for 4 years because I felt confident about
> it's quality. I've swallowed the ancient software in the name of
> stability. I've been proud of security updates. I learned how to make
>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:31:51PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> IIRC, "security updates" do just (and *only*) that: fix *security*
> bugs, not *feature* bugs.
they do fix bugs caused by regressions in security updates though.
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi all,
I am trying to use pbuilder to test a package I am about to prepare for
upload but no matter which way - pbuild as root or pdebuild inside
source tree, I try the result is always the same. When pbuilder is
trying to execure configure from inside the chroot is fails with the
error
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:57:21PM +0200, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
> I am trying to use pbuilder to test a package I am about to prepare for
> upload but no matter which way - pbuild as root or pdebuild inside
> source tree, I try the result is always the same. When pbuilder is
> trying to ex
On 2006-08-17 00:02:22, The Fungi wrote:
Try:
chmod +x configure
Looks to me like execute permission for configure probably isn't
set.
In my source tree configure has execute permission but when building
the deb-package I notice these warnings:
dpkg-source: warning: executable mode 075
On (17/08/06 00:08), Michael Rasmussen wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-17 00:02:22, The Fungi wrote:
> >
> >Try:
> >
> > chmod +x configure
> >
> >Looks to me like execute permission for configure probably isn't
> >set.
> In my source tree configure has execute permission but when building
> the deb-pac
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
> On 2006-08-17 00:02:22, The Fungi wrote:
> > chmod +x configure
> >
> >Looks to me like execute permission for configure probably isn't
> >set.
> In my source tree configure has execute permission but when building
> the deb-package I notice these
On 2006-08-17 00:53:16, James Westby wrote:
You could see if chmod u+x configure in your debian/rules fixes it,
but
it shouldn't be necessary.
How I am going to do that? configure is in the tar.gz.diff file and
from what I know debian/rules has no access to that file?
--
Hilsen/Regards
Mic
On (17/08/06 00:57), Michael Rasmussen wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-17 00:53:16, James Westby wrote:
> >
> >You could see if chmod u+x configure in your debian/rules fixes it,
> >but
> >it shouldn't be necessary.
> >
> How I am going to do that? configure is in the tar.gz.diff file and
What file is tha
On 2006-08-17 00:54:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
It means that your upstream is having issues; configure should be +x
in the orig.tar.gz.
In this special situation orig.tar.gz is not to blame since orig.tar.gz
is not prepared to use autotools in which case configure does not exist
in upstream.
On 2006-08-17 01:53:59, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
It's the way diff/patch works. They don't preserve execute
permissions.
I have realised that and I am opting for Don Armstrong solution which
solves the matter. Thanks.
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen
Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael ra
> In my source tree configure has execute permission but when building
> the deb-package I notice these warnings:
>
> dpkg-source: warning: executable mode 0755 of `configure' will not be
> represented in diffdpkg-source: warning: executable mode 0755 of
> `depcomp' will not be represented i
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
> It's true that you can, but it's no excuse. Upstream has reason to
> ship pre-built automake/autoconf output, because historically, random
> users could be expected to have 'make' and a C compiler, but couldn't
> be expected t
On 16-Aug-06, 04:00 (CDT), Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:26:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> > And guess what? System tests are actually more reliable, especially
> > when the user tells you what the system is. You can simply flip to
> > compiling foo_
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16-Aug-06, 04:00 (CDT), Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This will never work. Real life example from a couple of weeks ago: I
>> wrote a program that was running happily on Sarge, then somebody wanted
>> to build it on RHEL and failed beca
> "Thomas" == Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> How is that different from a non-responsive maintainer (in
Thomas> which case you don't even know that the message arrived on
Thomas> his mail system)?
First you need to define "non-responsive maintainer". Depending on
> "Rüdiger" == Rüdiger Ranft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rüdiger>cdbs = 0.4.32
My first guess would be to try back porting cdbs first.
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: tptest3
Version : 3.1.7
Upstream Author : Ragnar Loenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://tptest.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: keytouch
Version : 2.2.0
Upstream Author : Marvin Raaijmakers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://keytouch.sourceforge.net/index.html
* License : GPL
Program
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You figure out where the incompatability points are, and you write
> functions to mask them. Of course the functions themselves have
> #ifdefs (or some other way of controlling compilation), but you get it
> *out* of your main code base.
Gee sounds lik
[Steve Greenland]
> My experience is that the ones whose build instructions say "edit the
> makefile to pick your platform and compiler" compile and work, and
> when they don't, they're easy to fix. The ones that use autoconf tend
> to blow up on non-Linux[1], in ways that are hard to debug and da
[Philipp Matthias Hahn]
> Which doesn't work because of linux-utils-2.12r/mount/fstab.c:55
As I recall, Andries (util-linux upstream) produced, at least a year
ago, a kernel patch which allows the kernel to store an extra string of
user data from 'mount', and display it in /proc/mounts, so that n
> Now, I have awaken because of bug 372719. Wine crashes, OpenOffice.org
> 2.0 crashes upon saving a document. The bug was introduced in
> "security update" of libfreetype. Identification of problem was quick
> in OpenOffice.org community, and also in Debian. Just apply the next
> security update t
Michael Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-08-17 01:53:59, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>>
>> It's the way diff/patch works. They don't preserve execute
>> permissions.
>>
> I have realised that and I am opting for Don Armstrong solution which
> solves the matter. Thanks.
You could run
Le Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:52:52AM +1000, Brian May a écrit :
> Subject: Your message to Pkg-mediawiki-devel awaits moderator approval
>
>
> The reason it is being held:
>
> Post by non-member to a members-only list
>
Dear all,
In the case of the mail list of the packaging project of debi
If the bug, that You call *feature*, has been introduced by *security
updates*, how do they get fixed then? Does it get fixed ever?
Ron Johnson wrote / napísal(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Hi
I've been using Debian for 4 y
Charles,
I agree that my message has been very emotional.
I'm sorry for that and I apologize to all I have hurt.
I really lost my nerves. You can imagine that from the fact, that I'm
active member of some 15+ GNU bug/mailing lists and really don't need
more. For 4 years with Debian, nothing
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 17.08.2006, 10:52 +1000 schrieb Brian May:
> * In one case you can usually assume the maintainer got the message,
> in the other case you practically got confirmation that the message
> didn't get through.
>
> * If the maintainer doesn't respond, you can always send a ping
37 matches
Mail list logo
