Bug#331623: dosemu: please update with newer libslang version
Package: dosemu Version: 1.2.1-3.1 Severity: wishlist Hi, dosemu is the last Debian package that still depends on the old libslang1 package. Could you please update it to depend on libslang2? -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (100, 'unstable'), (99, 'experimental'), (98, 'breezy') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages dosemu depends on: ii libc62.3.5-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libslang11.4.9dbs-10 The S-Lang programming library - r ii libx11-6 6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 X Window System protocol client li ii libxext6 6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 X Window System miscellaneous exte ii xbase-clients6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 miscellaneous X clients ii xlibs6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 X Window System client libraries m ii xutils 6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 X Window System utility programs Versions of packages dosemu recommends: ii dosemu-freedosb8p-4 FreeDOS package for DOSEMU -- debconf information: dosemu/oldconf: dosemu/renamed: * dosemu/freedos: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#315710: remains active
Package: sodipodi Version: 0.34-0.1 Severity: important [EMAIL PROTECTED] was not corrected! If one select some file in open dialog and presses Cancel sodipodi still opens that file!.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#331624: No alert is shown when file is not writable
Package: sodipodi Version: 0.34-0.1 Severity: important I have the situation: file is in writable user directory but belongs to root (rw-r--r--). Sodipodi seems to save changes but does not and do not show any alerts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#330603: marked as done (gbatnav: FTBFS: missing automake1.9 dep, GNOME1 currently FUBAR)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:32:06 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#330603: fixed in gbatnav 1.0.4cvs20051004-1 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Sep 2005 21:04:23 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 28 14:04:23 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from blars.org (renig.nat.blars.org) [64.81.35.59] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EKj6F-0008V2-00; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:04:23 -0700 Received: from quaff (quaff.nat.blars.org [172.16.2.7]) by renig.nat.blars.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j8SL4LoQ004314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:04:21 -0700 Received: from quaff.nat.blars.org (quaff [127.0.0.1]) by quaff (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j8SL0wGU030229; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:00:58 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by quaff.nat.blars.org (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j8SL0wem030227; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:00:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:00:58 -0700 From: Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: gbatnav: ftbfs [sparc] /bin/sh: ../depcomp: No such file or directory Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Reportbug-Version: 3.17 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: gbatnav Version: 1.0.4cvs20050924-1 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source gbatnav failed to build on my sparc pbuilder. It failed on a sparc buildd due to temporarily unavilable build dependancies, and also failed on other buildds. Making all in common make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/gbatnav-1.0.4cvs20050924/common' source='common.c' object='common.o' libtool=no \ DEPDIR=.deps depmode=none /bin/sh ../depcomp \ gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../intl -I/usr/include/gtk-1.2 -I/usr/include/glib-1.2 -I/usr/lib/glib/include -g -O2 -c common.c /bin/sh: ../depcomp: No such file or directory make[3]: *** [common.o] Error 127 make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/gbatnav-1.0.4cvs20050924/common' --- Received: (at 330603-close) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 11:38:05 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 04:38:05 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMl1i-0006rI-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:32:06 -0700 From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#330603: fixed in gbatnav 1.0.4cvs20051004-1 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:32:06 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: gbatnav Source-Version: 1.0.4cvs20051004-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of gbatnav, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated gbatnav package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem wit
Processing of gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.changes
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 330603 Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing of xwit_3.4-7_i386.changes
xwit_3.4-7_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: xwit_3.4-7.dsc xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xwit_3.4-7_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz xwit_3.4-7.dsc to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7.dsc xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 263209 Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing of xmcpustate_3-12_i386.changes
xmcpustate_3-12_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: xmcpustate_3-12.dsc xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing of gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.changes
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xmcpustate_3-12_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz xmcpustate_3-12.dsc to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12.dsc xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 260846 294392 Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#315710: marked as done (sodipodi: Still opens file while pressing Cancel button...)
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:37:36 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#315710: remains active 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Jun 2005 07:35:05 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jun 25 00:35:05 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.nung.edu.ua (alpha.ifdtung.if.ua) [194.44.112.3] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1Dm5Bw-0001hv-00; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:35:04 -0700 Received: from s-andy.nung.edu.ua ([194.44.112.39] helo=localhost.localdomain ident=sandy) by alpha.ifdtung.if.ua with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Dm5OE-0006eh-00; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:47:46 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andriy Lesyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: sodipodi: Still opens file while pressing Cancel button... X-Mailer: reportbug 3.12 Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:34:51 +0300 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Level: Package: sodipodi Version: 0.34-0.1 Severity: important -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.4.27-2-386 Locale: LANG=ru_RU.KOI8-R, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.KOI8-R (charmap=KOI8-R) Versions of packages sodipodi depends on: ii libart-2.0-22.3.17-1 Library of functions for 2D graphi ii libatk1.0-0 1.10.1-2 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfontconfig1 2.3.2-1 generic font configuration library ii libfreetype62.1.7-2.4FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib ii libglib2.0-02.6.4-1 The GLib library of C routines ii libgtk2.0-0 2.6.4-3 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libpango1.0-0 1.8.1-1 Layout and rendering of internatio ii libpng12-0 1.2.8rel-1 PNG library - runtime ii libpopt01.7-5lib for parsing cmdline parameters ii libxml2 2.6.16-7 GNOME XML library ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4compression library - runtime -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 315710-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:37:33 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:37:33 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.irb.hr [161.53.22.8] (UNKNOWN) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwLk-00045H-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:37:33 -0700 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (diziet.irb.hr [161.53.22.31]) by mail.irb.hr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j94NbRR2009429 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:37:27 +0200 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j94NbaAT013296 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:37:36 +0200 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j94Nbac3013294; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:37:36 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: diziet.irb.hr: mvela set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#315710: remains active References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:37:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Andriy Lesyuk's message of "Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:40:18 +0300") Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 161.53.22.8 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: sodipodi So
Bug#331774: cgiemail depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: cgiemail This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#331775: chastity-list depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: chastity-list This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#331812: eco5000 depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: eco5000 This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: chastity-list about to be removed (see #321594)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 331775 wontfix Bug#331775: chastity-list depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition There were no tags set. Tags added: wontfix > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332123: tripwire depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: tripwire This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332157: xfs-xtt depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: xfs-xtt This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332166: zope-backtalk depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-backtalk This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332167: zope-callprofiler depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-callprofiler This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332168: zope-cmf depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-cmf This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332169: zope-cmfpgforum depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-cmfpgforum This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332172: zope-dtmlcalendar depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-dtmlcalendar This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332174: zope-kinterbasdbda depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-kinterbasdbda This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332175: zope-lockablefolder depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Package: zope-lockablefolder This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#332166: marked as done (zope-backtalk depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition)
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:08:09 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#332166: fixed in zope-backtalk 0.3-7 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:47:52 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:47:52 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwVk-0005rY-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:52 -0700 Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id B4AC917F72; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:52 + (GMT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zope-backtalk depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:52 + (GMT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: zope-backtalk This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. --- Received: (at 332166-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 00:08:32 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 17:08:32 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.irb.hr [161.53.22.8] (UNKNOWN) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwpk-0003zF-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:08:32 -0700 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (diziet.irb.hr [161.53.22.31]) by mail.irb.hr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j95080bV011573 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:08:00 +0200 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j95089gj014343 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:08:09 +0200 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j95089Rm014341; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:08:09 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: diziet.irb.hr: mvela set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#332166: fixed in zope-backtalk 0.3-7 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:08:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Joey Hess's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:52 + (GMT)") Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 161.53.22.8 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: zope-backtalk Source-Version: 0.3-7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:03:27 +0200 Source: zope-backtalk Binary: zope-backtalk Architecture: source all Version: 0.3-7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Gr
Bug#332167: marked as done (zope-callprofiler depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition)
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:09:40 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#332167: fixed in zope-callprofiler 1.4-4 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:47:54 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:47:53 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwVl-0005rj-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:53 -0700 Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id C701F17F72; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:53 + (GMT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zope-callprofiler depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:53 + (GMT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: zope-callprofiler This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. --- Received: (at 332167-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 00:10:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 17:10:02 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.irb.hr [161.53.22.8] (UNKNOWN) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwrC-00045T-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:10:02 -0700 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (diziet.irb.hr [161.53.22.31]) by mail.irb.hr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j9509V8e011658 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:09:31 +0200 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j9509eVN014359 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:09:40 +0200 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j9509ew7014357; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:09:40 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: diziet.irb.hr: mvela set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#332167: fixed in zope-callprofiler 1.4-4 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:09:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Joey Hess's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:53 + (GMT)") Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 161.53.22.8 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: zope-callprofiler Source-Version: 1.4-4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:22:26 +0200 Source: zope-callprofiler Binary: zope-callprofiler Architecture: source all Version: 1.4-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency:
Bug#332172: marked as done (zope-dtmlcalendar depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition)
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:10:55 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#332172: fixed in zope-dtmlcalendar 1.0.15-6 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:47:59 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:47:59 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwVr-0005sc-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:59 -0700 Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2695917F72; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:59 + (GMT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zope-dtmlcalendar depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:59 + (GMT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: zope-dtmlcalendar This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. --- Received: (at 332172-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 00:11:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 17:11:02 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.irb.hr [161.53.22.8] (UNKNOWN) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwsA-0004I7-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:11:02 -0700 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (diziet.irb.hr [161.53.22.31]) by mail.irb.hr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j950AkDq011719 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:10:46 +0200 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j950AtYx014368 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:10:55 +0200 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j950Atwv014366; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:10:55 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: diziet.irb.hr: mvela set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#332172: fixed in zope-dtmlcalendar 1.0.15-6 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:10:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Joey Hess's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:47:59 + (GMT)") Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 161.53.22.8 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: zope-dtmlcalendar Source-Version: 1.0.15-6 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:28:00 +0200 Source: zope-dtmlcalendar Binary: zope-dtmlcalendar Architecture: source all Version: 1.0.15-6 Distribution: unstab
Bug#332175: marked as done (zope-lockablefolder depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition)
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:13:29 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#332175: fixed in zope-lockablefolder 0.1.0-6 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:48:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:48:02 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwVu-0005uA-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:48:02 -0700 Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5792D17F72; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:48:02 + (GMT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: zope-lockablefolder depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:48:02 + (GMT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: zope-lockablefolder This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0 Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf, and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all. debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it. This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf. --- Received: (at 332175-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 00:13:32 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 17:13:32 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.irb.hr [161.53.22.8] (UNKNOWN) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EMwua-0004mk-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:13:32 -0700 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (diziet.irb.hr [161.53.22.31]) by mail.irb.hr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j950DKqb011797 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:13:20 +0200 Received: from diziet.irb.hr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j950DTn8014376 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:13:29 +0200 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by diziet.irb.hr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id j950DTPs014374; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:13:29 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: diziet.irb.hr: mvela set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f From: Matej Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#332175: fixed in zope-lockablefolder 0.1.0-6 References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:13:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Joey Hess's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:48:02 + (GMT)") Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 161.53.22.8 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: zope-lockablefolder Source-Version: 0.1.0-6 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:06:04 +0200 Source: zope-lockablefolder Binary: zope-lockablefolder Architecture: source all Version: 0.1.0-6 Distributi
Bug#248861: marked as done (rxvt missing from KDE menus)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#248861: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 May 2004 13:42:50 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 13 06:42:50 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from dip-220-235-45-221.wa.westnet.com.au (fw.computerdatasafe.com.au) [220.235.45.221] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1BOGU2-BJ-00; Thu, 13 May 2004 06:42:50 -0700 Received: from Dolphin.demo.room (Dolphin.demo.room [192.168.9.114]) by fw.computerdatasafe.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBEE1AD1A; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:45:43 +0800 (WST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: rxvt missing from KDE menus X-Mailer: reportbug 2.58 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:43:33 +0800 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level: X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1 Package: rxvt Version: 1:2.6.4-6 Severity: normal A few updates ago xterm vanished from my KDE menus. As I use rxvt fairly often I'm a little disappointed. Please, put it back:-)) Yeah, I use xterm and rxvt and konsole and gnome-terminal all. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-1-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages rxvt depends on: ii base-passwd 3.5.7 Debian base system master password ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii xlibs 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1 X Window System client libraries m -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 248861-close) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 05:38:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 22:38:02 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EN1st-0002BA-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 From: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#248861: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2 Source: rxvt Source-Version: 1:2.6.4-9 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of rxvt, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated rxvt package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:20:36 -0500 Source: rxvt Binary: rxvt-ml rxvt Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:2.6.4-9 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Changed-By: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Description: rxvt - VT102 terminal emulator for the X Window System rxvt-ml- multi-lingual VT102 terminal emulato
Bug#226386: marked as done (rxvt: Control+Shift+Prior/Next doesn't work)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#226386: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
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 responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Jan 2004 10:57:58 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 06 04:57:57 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 200-158-234-146.dsl.telesp.net.br (rory.example.net)
[200.158.234.146]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AdoIe-p4-00; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:19:00 -0600
Received: by rory.example.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 08948A0F5; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:18:39 -0200 (BRST)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:18:39 -0200
From: "Alexis S. L. Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: rxvt: Control+Shift+Prior/Next doesn't work
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.37
X-Editor: Vim-602 http://www.vim.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE,UPPERCASE_25_50
autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
X-Spam-Level:
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: rxvt
Version: 1:2.6.4-6
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi
(Prior = PageUp, Next = PageDown)
According to /usr/share/doc/rxvt/rxvtRef.txt.gz (and to a comment in the
source code), Ctrl+Shift+Prior should generate ESC[5@ . But it actually
scrolls up, as if I had pressed just Shift+Prior .
The problem lies in the file src/command.c in the function lookup_key.
When checking whether to scroll, it only checks whether Shift is
pressed, no caring whether Ctrl or Meta are also pressed or not.
The attached patch fixes this for me - but I haven't tested all the
#ifdef'd alternatives.
Alexis
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux rory 2.4.23-rc1 #1 Sat Nov 15 04:15:09 BRST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR
Versions of packages rxvt depends on:
ii base-passwd 3.5.5Debian base system master password
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii xlibs 4.2.1-15 X Window System client libraries
-- no debconf information
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="scroll-up_down.patch"
rxvt-2.6.4-alexis/src/command.h |9 -
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN src/command.h~scroll-up_down src/command.h
--- rxvt-2.6.4/src/command.h~scroll-up_down 2004-01-05 19:52:04.0
-0200
+++ rxvt-2.6.4-alexis/src/command.h 2004-01-05 20:17:11.0 -0200
@@ -196,20 +196,27 @@ typedef struct {
#ifdef SCROLL_ON_SHIFT
# define SCROLL_SHIFTKEY (shft)
+# define NOSCROLL_SHIFTKEY 0
#else
# define SCROLL_SHIFTKEY 0
+# define NOSCROLL_SHIFTKEY (shft)
#endif
#ifdef SCROLL_ON_CTRL
# define SCROLL_CTRLKEY (ctrl)
+# define NOSCROLL_CTRLKEY 0
#else
# define SCROLL_CTRLKEY 0
+# define NOSCROLL_CTRLKEY (ctrl)
#endif
#ifdef SCROLL_ON_META
# define SCROLL_METAKEY (meta)
+# define NOSCROLL_METAKEY 0
#else
# define SCROLL_METAKEY 0
+# define NOSCROLL_METAKEY (meta)
#endif
-#define IS_SCROLL_MOD (SCROLL_SHIFTKEY || SCROLL_CTRLKEY || SCROLL_METAKEY)
+#define IS_SCROLL_MOD ((SCROLL_SHIFTKEY || SCROLL_CTRLKEY || SCROLL_METAKEY) \
+ && (!NOSCROLL_SHIFTKEY && !NOSCROLL_CTRLKEY &&
!NOSCROLL_METAKEY))
typedef struct XCNQueue_t {
struct XCNQueue_t *next;
_
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--
---
Received: (at 226386-close) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 05:38:02 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 22:38:02 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EN1st-0002B8-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
From: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#226386: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tu
Bug#296667: marked as done (rxvt: broken manpage about cutchars : BACKSLASH)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#296667: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Feb 2005 21:23:09 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 23 13:23:09 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from base.8d.com (natch.usine.8d.com) [209.47.172.20] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1D43yO-0001E9-00; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:23:09 -0800 Received: from xavier by natch.usine.8d.com with local (Exim 4.34) id 1D43yN-0006hi-HA; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:23:07 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: xavier renaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: rxvt: broken manpage about cutchars : BACKSLASH X-Mailer: reportbug 3.2 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:23:07 -0500 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Level: Package: rxvt Version: 1:2.6.4-6.2 Severity: minor cutchars: string The characters used as delimiters for double-click word selection. The built-in default: BACKSLASH `"'&()*,;<=>[EMAIL PROTECTED]|} if one does rxvt*cutchars: BACKSLASH `"'&()*,;<=>[EMAIL PROTECTED]|} it will cut at B, A,C, K,S,L,A,S,H which of course is not desired it should be : \ `"'&()*,;<=>[EMAIL PROTECTED]|} thanks -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable'), (250, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages rxvt depends on: ii base-passwd 3.5.9 Debian base system master password ii libc62.3.2.ds1-20GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libx11-6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Window System protocol client li ii xlibs4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 X Keyboard Extension (XKB) configu -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 296667-close) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 05:38:49 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 22:38:49 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EN1st-0002BC-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 From: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#296667: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 3 Source: rxvt Source-Version: 1:2.6.4-9 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of rxvt, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated rxvt package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:20:36 -0500 Source: rxvt Binary: rxvt-ml rxvt Architecture: source i386 Versi
Bug#322391: marked as done (rxvt: non-POSIX in debian/rules)
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#322391: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 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 responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Aug 2005 12:56:26 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 10 05:56:26 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.visit.se [212.214.126.10] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1E2q8A-0005ri-00; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:56:26 -0700 Received: by mail.visit.se (Postfix, from userid 503) id 58E612468012; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:56:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fruitmachine.visit.se (cust.dsl-fiber-lan.snet.lk.81.216.50.98.visit.se [81.216.50.98]) by mail.visit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0A52468011 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:56:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tommy by fruitmachine.visit.se with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1E2q87-0005Hc-00 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:56:23 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:56:23 +0200 From: Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: rxvt: non-POSIX in debian/rules Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: rxvt Version: 1:2.6.4-7 Severity: minor Tags: patch I get a FTBFS on my system because I have dash as standard shell instead of bash. Here's a simple patch that makes the offending line in debian/rules POSIX compliant. diff -rN -u old-rxvt/debian/rules new-rxvt/debian/rules --- old-rxvt/debian/rules 2005-08-10 12:47:59.0 +0200 +++ new-rxvt/debian/rules 2005-08-10 12:56:12.0 +0200 @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/html install -m644 doc/*.html debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/html/. install -d debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples - install -m644 doc/menu/[^C]* \ + install -m644 doc/menu/[!C]* \ debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples/. gzip -9v debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/$(package)/examples/* gzip -9v debian/tmp/usr/share/man/*/* -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Received: (at 322391-close) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Oct 2005 05:38:01 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 22:38:01 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EN1st-0002BG-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 From: David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#322391: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 5 Source: rxvt Source-Version: 1:2.6.4-9 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of rxvt, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt-ml_2.6.4-9_i386.deb rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.diff.gz rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9.dsc rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb to pool/main/r/rxvt/rxvt_2.6.4-9_i386.deb A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated rxvt package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEG
