hi Axel,
yes, still interest.
You are correct: latest version is in the PPA.
I can update the git if needed.
Let me know if you need action or information from me.
regards
Yann
2015-04-10 16:20 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia :
> Bella,
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > I
Best wishes for 2013 !
any progress concerning the update to mawk 1.3.4 ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
AFAIK, all repositories, even those not affected by this bug, have a slash
(/).
So this bug affects only reps with a dash (-) in its name.
Anybody working on this?
NEW ELEMENTS:
- Debian testing and Ubuntu12.04 (os-prober 1.51) are affected by the bug:
their os-prober detect Fedora16 but not Fedora17.
- Ubuntu11.04 (os-prober 1.44) detects Fedora17
So the bug seems to be a regression of os-prober. And it seems to be
restricted to the detection of Fedora17.
Package: os-prober
Version: 1.51
Initially reported on
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/os-prober/+bug/1038093
The os-prober of Ubuntu does not detect Fedora when Fedora's partition is
unmounted (which is frequent). Consequence: Fedora does not appear in
Ubuntu's GRUB menu.
WORKAROUND: m
Package: grub2
Version: 1.99-21
OS: Ubuntu 12.04
Originaly posted at https://bugs.launchpad.net/grub/+bug/1037922
The user (Rik = rufn) reported this problem:
- Just before the problem appeared: Rik is not certain what he was doing
but he may have disconnected a second hdd, he now only has one dri
Package: python-software-properties
Version: 0.82.7.2
STEPS TO REPRODUCE:
1. Add the PPA that contains a slash and minus with add-apt-repository:
$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:deluge-team/ppa
2. Removing the PPA with ppa-purge:
$ sudo ppa-purge ppa:deluge-team/ppa
3. Again, add the P
for my work.
>
> If you can force the debian maintainer to update mawk, I would be happy.
>
> I tried it a while back, but failed.
>
> One of my bug reports at Ubuntu (still not any comment on it):
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mawk/+bug/716920
>
> It would be n
Hi Alessio,
Fabrice (another MOTU) is ok to upload Boot-Repair if you agree:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/806291/comments/30
Please could you add a comment?
Regards
Yann
>2012/2/14 Alessio Treglia
>On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM, yannubu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> I updated the GIT with :
>> - embarked g2s-gtk2, so that you can see the difference of packaging.
(the
>> pyGTK2 dependency is moved to the "boot-sav" packa
Package: wnpp
Version: 2.3.1
Upstream Author : Ansuz Peorth
URL : https://launchpad.net/glade2script
License : GPL
Description : Glade interface engine for scripts
Glade2script allows a script (bash, python or other) to display and
interact with a GUI (created with Glade).
Most of the opp
Hello Alessio,
The GIT seems to be down, so i just continue updating the
http://mentors.debian.net/package/boot-repair
Yesterday i set the packaging to "non-native", as i am now working on
Fedora and OpenSuse packaging too.
Of course, i made the according changes, so that it is still lintian -E
--
2012/1/12
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "boot-repair".
>
> * Package name: boot-repair
>Version : 3.04
> Upstream Author : Yann Mrn (yannubu...@gmail.com)
> * URL : https://sourceforge.net/p/b
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "boot-repair".
* Package name: boot-repair
Version : 3.04
Upstream Author : Yann Mrn (yannubu...@gmail.com)
* URL : https://sourceforge.net/p/boot-repair/home/Home/
* License : GPLv3
Hello
I updated sources, taking into account all comments from reviews.
Now my problem is how to use dh_install . I would be happy if someone
knowing dh_install packaging could help on this.
As long as there is no solution with dh_install, i will use the only
packaging solution i know (setup.py)
Dear all, does somebody know an example of package using dh_install ?
(the one in manpage is not explicit enough for me).
Thanks Thomas for your help.
By the way, what alessio has to do with all this?
>
He helped for the packaging preparation ( created the GIT, and improved
several files in the
> Just FYI, you should use 2 branches, one for your upstream
> code, and one containing that + the debian folder, so that
> one can use "git-buildpackage".
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
i read the git-buildpackage man, but i'm sorry i don't understand what to
change in the GIT, nor how to create a 2nd br
Happy new year !
I disabled the update from PPA, removed the setup.py, created the
packages.install files, moved data to debian/tmp
and changed the rule to %:dh_install --sourcedir=debian/tmp
See http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/boot-repair.git
But now I get this error when i
Hello Alessio,
2011/12/28 Alessio Treglia
> Yann,
>
> don't worry, please merge the setup* scripts into a single one, let
> the final setup.py install files in one-shot, I'll arrange things in
> debian/* to create three different binaries (*.deb) by tuning
> dh_install control files (debian/pack
dear all,
updated GIT tree:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/boot-repair.git
I still need help to create Debian&Ubuntu packagings.
Regards, and best wishes for this end of year :)
Yann
2011/11/5, yannubu...@gmail.com :
> 2011/11/2, Alessio Treglia :
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'd be interested in having this in Debian unstable soon, so how's the
>> current status of these ITPs?
>> Do you still have interest in doing the job? If you need help to
2011/11/2, Alessio Treglia :
> Hi!
>
> I'd be interested in having this in Debian unstable soon, so how's the
> current status of these ITPs?
> Do you still have interest in doing the job? If you need help to
> handling the packaging or a mere sponsor, please don't hesitate to
> ask.
>
> I hope to
Dear all,
su-to-root is recommended by Lintian, but still not usable by default in
Debian, causing confusion for users, and strange situations such as bug [1]
and [2].
For memory, 2 alternative solutions were proposed in 2008's discussion [3] :
- move su-to-root into debianutils where it would al
Package: clean-ubiquity-common
Version: 3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: needs-packaging
clean-ubiquity-common contains common librairies for 3 tools :
OS-Uninstaller, Boot-Repair and Clean-Ubiquity.
Homepage: https://launchpad.net/os-uninstaller
and https://launchpad.net/boot-repair
Package: boot-repair-common
Version: 3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: needs-packaging
boot-repair-common contains librairies for the 2 following tools:
os-uninstaller and boot-repair
Homepages: https://launchpad.net/os-uninstaller and
https://launchpad.net/boot-repair
Package: os-uninstaller
Version: 3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: needs-packaging
OS-Uninstaller is a graphical tool to uninstall any Operating System
(Windows, MacOS, GNU/Linux...)
Homepage: https://launchpad.net/os-uninstaller
Package: boot-repair
Version: 3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: needs-packaging
Boot-Repair is a little GUI to easily restore access to operating
systems (reinstall GRUB bootloader, restore MBR, repare
filesystems...)
Homepage: https://launchpad.net/boot-repair
2011/7/24 Otavio Salvador
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 16:45, yannubu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > Does NOT work ANY MORE:
>
> Now I have got it working again I think; it was a quoting issue.
>
Perfect, now it works !
> Hello,
>
> Talking with Colin at #debian-boot we found some possible corner cases
> and then we end up doing some more changes. Please give this one a
> final test so I can upload it.
>
Does NOT work ANY MORE:
With /boot:
$ LANG=C sudo os-prober
ls: cannot access /media/Vista/Boot
boot: No such
2011/7/23 Otavio Salvador
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 15:09, yannubu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >> I maked a fake environment and tested this patch locally and it seems
> >> to work. Please give it a try and tell me.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, in both cases (with o
>
> I maked a fake environment and tested this patch locally and it seems
> to work. Please give it a try and tell me.
>
Sorry, in both cases (with or without /boot folder), I get this output:
$ LANG=C sudo os-prober
/dev/sda1:::chain
/dev/sda5:Ubuntu 10.10 (10.10):Ubuntu:linux
Opa!
Output with /boot and patch:
$ LANG=C sudo os-prober
+ . /usr/share/os-prober/common.sh
+ cleanup_tmpdir=false
+ cleanup_ro_partitions=
+ progname=
+ type mapdevfs
+ partition=/dev/sda1
+ mpoint=/media/Vista
+ type=fuseblk
+ debug /dev/sda1 is a FUSE partition
+ log debug: /dev/sda1 is a FUSE
>
>
> I attached a new one and this is more verbose. Please test it.
>
Bom dia Otavio
-> Output with the patch and the (empty) /boot folder :
~$ LANG=C sudo os-prober
+ . /usr/share/os-prober/common.sh
+ cleanup_tmpdir=false
+ cleanup_ro_partitions=
+ progname=
+ type mapdevfs
+ part
2nd patch does not work either:
patch and boot folder:
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ LANG=C sudo os-prober
ls: cannot access : No such file or directory
ls: cannot access : No such file or directory
ls: cannot access : No such file or directory
/dev/sda5:Ubuntu 10.10 (10.10):Ubuntu:linux
/dev/sda6:Ubuntu 11.04
Thanks Otavio.
Unfortunately, your patch does not solve the bug. Please see below the
os-prober output I get in 3 configurations:
1) Normal output (no /boot folder in the Windows partition) :
/dev/sda1:Windows Vista (loader):Windows:chain
/dev/sda5:Ubuntu 10.10 (10.10):Ubuntu:linux
2) Output when
Package: os-prober
Version: 1.44ubuntu1
If the Windows partition contains a /boot/grub/core.img folder (this occurs
when beginners install GRUB by mistake in the Windows partition), os-prober
won't detect Windows any more.
I believe this is due to the fact that there are 2 folders with similar
na
36 matches
Mail list logo
