Bug#258867: New upstream version available
Package: asmon Severity: wishlist thanks This is just so this information doesn't get lost ` - Forwarded message from Albert 'Tigr' Dorofeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Albert 'Tigr' Dorofeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: debian-qa@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Couple of patches for asmon Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:38:40 +0200 (CEST) Hello! Indeed, I keep many of the "abandoned" applets up-to-date by including the patches submitted by others. asmon is no exception, so you can send me a note whenever you have a bug report against it. I will appreciate that. The asmon is up to the version 0.64 now and included some changes that made tracing back the bugs somewhat complicated. I hope I managed to update the right places. The new version that includes the bugfixes is 0.65 and is available at: http://www.tigr.net/afterstep/download/asmon/ Thanks! Albert On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Andrew Pollock wrote: > Hi, > > [[ I just tried to send this to Brad, it bounced, and I note that you did > the release of 0.61 according to its changelog ]] > > I've just performed a QA upload of asmon (0.60), because there is no one > currently maintaining it in Debian. > > I applied a couple of user-supplied patches that fixed a couple of minor > cosmetic bugs. I'm not sure if you are aware of them, or if they are fixed > in 0.61, but I thought I would bring them to your attention. > > You can read all about them at http://bugs.debian.org/asmon (they'll be > showing up as closed shortly, but the patch itself is still available). > > regards > > Andrew > -- GPG fingerprint = EDF4 CEA9 4CBF 0FAF 02B3 5839 B871 C957 3953 115F An optimist thinks that this is the best possible world. A pessimist fears that this is true. - End forwarded message -
Bug#343009: Package explicitely build-depends on g++-3.4
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:30:13AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > This bug explicitly build-depends on g++ 3.4 on arm, hppa and m68k > because of a bug that has been fixed a long time ago. This bug asking > you to move to gcc 4.x has been open for about 150 now days without > any answer from you. Do you think you will make an upload soon, > moving to 4.x on all platforms (i.e. dropping the explicit > build-depends on 3.4) or can we do an NMU? > > Or rather, since this is a QA package, should it be removed? The > changelog suggests so: > > okle (0.4+cvs20040728-4) unstable; urgency=low > > * Orphan. Upstream is dead, and kaffeine is now superior in every way. > > -- Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:33:30 -0400 > > and: > > * #333816: O: okle -- DVD player for KDE >Package: wnpp; Reported by: Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > 201 days >old. > > Yep, yep... Andrew? I'd say if it's not offering any unique functionality, drop it in favour of kaffeine. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361603: FTBFS with GCC 4.2: cast from pointer to integer of different size
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 10:45:16AM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote: > On 6/4/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >found 361603 0.1.2.2-4 > >thanks > > > >* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-09 21:11]: > >> * Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-09 13:07]: > >> > It should be noted that this bug only affects 64-bit targets. This > >> > patch is untested on 64-bit targets, but should fix the issue. > >> This works, thanks. > > > >Is it possible that this change got lost? 0.1.2.2-4 fails to build on > >Alpha with GCC 4.2. > > Apparently, yes, it is! How's this for irony. The QA upload of > 0.1.2.2-4 reverted the changes from 0.1.2.2-3 and broke the package! > Funny. How's that? I just took what was in unstable and rebuilt it. I don't go reverting things. Strange in this particular case how I did two uploads of the package though... Too long (and too many packages) ago to remember the specifics. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361603: FTBFS with GCC 4.2: cast from pointer to integer of different size
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:00:14PM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote: > On 6/4/06, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Apparently, yes, it is! How's this for irony. The QA upload of > >> 0.1.2.2-4 reverted the changes from 0.1.2.2-3 and broke the package! > >> Funny. > > > >How's that? I just took what was in unstable and rebuilt it. I don't go > >reverting things. Strange in this particular case how I did two uploads of > >the package though... > > > >Too long (and too many packages) ago to remember the specifics. > > The issue is that I uploaded -3; it was not a QA upload. My changes in > -3 seem to have been omitted from the QA upload of -4. See (far) below > for the changelog from my -3 upload. > Sure, I read the changelog before composing my previous email. My point remains: when I do a QA upload, I take what's currently in unstable. The only possibility, (and it's quite possible, given that I appear to have uploaded this package twice) is I downloaded what was in unstable at some point between you making your upload and me making mine. If this is the case, then I am entirely at fault, and need to stop working in a vacuum, and apologise profusely. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
