agg_2.3-3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: agg_2.3-3.diff.gz to pool/main/a/agg/agg_2.3-3.diff.gz agg_2.3-3.dsc to pool/main/a/agg/agg_2.3-3.dsc libagg-dev_2.3-3_i386.deb to pool/main/a/agg/libagg-dev_2.3-3_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 351359 Thank you for your contribution t

Processing of agg_2.3-3_i386.changes

agg_2.3-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: agg_2.3-3.dsc agg_2.3-3.diff.gz libagg-dev_2.3-3_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO

Su mensaje era portador de virus

ATENCIÓN! Se ha detectado virus en su mensaje. El virus ha sido eliminado del mensaje y no será entregado. Para su seguridad le recomendamos que emplee un antivirus actualizado en su sistema informático. Los datos del mensaje son: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Bug#351359: marked as done (libagg-dev: pkg-config --libs return -lagg which is not built with -fPIC and fail to link on amd64 arch.)

Your message dated Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:47:33 -0800 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#351359: fixed in agg 2.3-3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#354895: openoffice.org-base: Form wizard fails with several JREs with different symptoms

Package: openoffice.org-base Version: 2.0.1-2 Severity: important Hi, I've tried to "Use Wizard to Create Form " on my postgresql database. No matter which of the installed JREs I've used the wizard failed: 1. sun-j2sdk1.5 1.5.0+update06 and Blackdown j2re1.4 [jav 1.4.2.03-1] The wizard doesn

GNU/Linux sparc build notes for gcj

Rene, I built m157 on GNU/Linux sparc with gcc4.1/gcj but earlier versions have built with gcc4.0/gcj too. I have been using gcc/gcj from gcc.gnu.org and do not use debian java-gcj-compat or ant packages. This is all with vanilla upstream sources, not using ooo-build. My build notes here for both

Processed: Re: Bug#351359: libagg-dev: pkg-config --libs return -lagg which is not built with -fPIC and fail to link on amd64 arch.

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 351359 + pending Bug#351359: libagg-dev: pkg-config --libs return -lagg which is not built with -fPIC and fail to link on amd64 arch. There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need ass

Bug#351359: libagg-dev: pkg-config --libs return -lagg which is not built with -fPIC and fail to link on amd64 arch.

tag 351359 + pending thanks Hi, Rene Engelhard wrote: > You need that now anyway, even when I do the change. Because if you use -lagg > on Debian you get libagg.a. Which will fail on !i386 if you try to linkl it > nto a shared lib because libagg.a isn't built with -fPIC. You'd need to patch >

Re: two OOo orig.tar.gzs?

Hi, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > > care to explain, in which way? > > I don't know for sure of course, but what if the help gets out of sync > with the binaries? What will happen when you have help that doesn't > match the binaries of OO.o, and especially, having help that was build > >fro

Re: two OOo orig.tar.gzs?

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:48:34PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes: > > Hm, duplicate sources seem like quite a hack to me, > > really? for other sources they were requested by the release > team. or do you mean "it depends ..." Yeah, it depends definitely. I'm not wel

Re: two OOo orig.tar.gzs?

Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes: > Hm, duplicate sources seem like quite a hack to me, really? for other sources they were requested by the release team. or do you mean "it depends ..." > and a potentially fragile at that. care to explain, in which way? > The bottom line seems to be that OO.o has