On 06/03/2016 09:50 PM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
> Well, you've done way more damage than me: I haven't broken any packages.
People who don't touch anything, also cannot break anything.
Furthermore, there was NOTHING broken - at ALL.
> I tried to help by warning others, you cried like a baby. And inst
> Seriously, fuck off! Either roll up your sleeves and help or stop
> annoying others.
>
> I have probably done way more in Debian than you will ever have,
> so I don't have to accept some random stranger telling me off.
Well, you've done way more damage than me: I haven't broken any packages.
I t
On 06/03/2016 07:46 PM, Jordi Burguet Castell wrote:
> It's a bad experience enough to have your system, which worked fine for years,
> suddenly unusable because of a change in testing. No hard feelings, mistakes
> happen, and one can check the bug reports that people have kindly provided.
Excuse
FYI, this bug report was very useful. Even for people not running
apt-listbugs.
It's a bad experience enough to have your system, which worked fine for
years, suddenly unusable because of a change in testing. No hard feelings,
mistakes happen, and one can check the bug reports that people have kin
On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Yasen Atanasov wrote:
> Ok we, the stupid simple user that use testing except stable, should wait few
> days/weeks to get 1.12 packets in order (26 pcs). How long should we wait for
> 27 that are still in 1.10 or 1.8?
A "simple user" shouldn't be using a development release
On 06/03/2016 01:37 AM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
> No problem, Mike.
> That is, as long as apt-listbugs tells others that pluma (etc) won't install.
> But Adrian is even against this. Which is both incomprehensible and childish.
No, I'm against entitled users like you who contribute nothing
but demand o
On 06/03/2016 12:36 AM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
>> This was not a useful bug report - at all. You are not telling me news.
>
> It was useful for everyone who actually uses testing and apt-listbugs
> until you denied everything because a bug in debian testing in your
> head is not a bug, it's a feature.
Package: mate-terminal
Followup-For: Bug #826090
Ok we, the stupid simple user that use testing except stable, should wait few
days/weeks to get 1.12 packets in order (26 pcs). How long should we wait for
27 that are still in 1.10 or 1.8?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT
No problem, Mike.
That is, as long as apt-listbugs tells others that pluma (etc) won't install.
But Adrian is even against this. Which is both incomprehensible and childish.
Anyway, I've said everything I had to say.
Thank you all, goodbye!
2016-06-02 18:56 UTC−04:00, Mike Gabriel :
> On Fr 03 J
On Fr 03 Jun 2016 00:36:09 CEST, Le Déchaîné wrote:
2016-06-02 17:08 UTC−04:00, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
:
On 06/02/2016 08:37 PM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
I don't care about you either, but I care about Debian. You don't.
You know what I meant. The thousands of packages in testing worked and
in
2016-06-02 17:08 UTC−04:00, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
:
> On 06/02/2016 08:37 PM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
>> I'm using debian testing on my desktop with apt-listbugs installed.
>> apt-listbugs prevents me from installing broken things... at least,
>> when Adrian doesn't close useful bug reports.
>
> Thi
On 06/02/2016 08:37 PM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
> I'm using debian testing on my desktop with apt-listbugs installed.
> apt-listbugs prevents me from installing broken things... at least,
> when Adrian doesn't close useful bug reports.
This was not a useful bug report - at all. You are not telling me n
On 06/02/2016 07:48 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:18:52PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On 06/02/2016 06:13 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>> Packages do not propagate to testing when they have RC bugs.
>>
>> Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'm not going to file an RC bu
Santiago,
could you PLEASE stop arguing with me? I am not going to agree with you!
I was there when the decision about the always releasable testing was made
and it was most certainly *not* about making testing ready for production
use. It was made, to _reduce_ the freeze period, that's all. Heck
Control: close -1
On Do 02 Jun 2016 20:35:22 CEST, Santiago Vila wrote:
I came here because of my personal "dpkg-buildpackage -A" project:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=binary-indep;users=sanv...@debian.org
Ack.
A bunch of MATE packages entered testing today, my autobu
I'm using debian testing on my desktop with apt-listbugs installed.
apt-listbugs prevents me from installing broken things... at least,
when Adrian doesn't close useful bug reports.
> Again, I DO NOT CARE. Testing is TESTING. Not "use on production machine".
After doing update/upgrade/dist-upgrad
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:23:18PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Hi Santiago,
>
> On Do 02 Jun 2016 18:13:21 CEST, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > A serious bug against mate-terminal would have prevented the mate-terminal
> > from the new MATE to enter testing before the rest of MATE.
> >
> > Now it'
Hi Santiago,
On Do 02 Jun 2016 18:13:21 CEST, Santiago Vila wrote:
A serious bug against mate-terminal would have prevented the mate-terminal
from the new MATE to enter testing before the rest of MATE.
Now it's too late, but that's not an excuse to tell people not to
report bugs.
You are ri
Control: close -1
Hi Jimmy,
On Do 02 Jun 2016 08:50:18 CEST, Jimmy K. wrote:
Package: mate-terminal
Version: 1.14.0-1
Severity: important
after doing sudo apt-get update / upgrade / dist-upgrade
$ mate-terminal
(mate-terminal:2157): Gtk-ERROR **: GTK+ 2.x symbols detected. Using GTK+ 2.x
an
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:18:52PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 06:13 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Packages do not propagate to testing when they have RC bugs.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'm not going to file an RC bug report
> for every single package just because
On 06/02/2016 06:13 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Actually, it is completely possible with the tools we already have.
>
> If Package A in testing does not work together with package B in unstable
> which is about to enter testing, we can avoid having package A and B
> together in testing by submittin
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:30:35PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 05:09 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The testing ditribution is supposed to be in an always releseable state.
>
> That is correct. But this particular fact is something that is inevitable
> and extremely hard
On 06/02/2016 05:09 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The testing ditribution is supposed to be in an always releseable state.
That is correct. But this particular fact is something that is inevitable
and extremely hard to sort out. Also, the always releasable state is
more related to RC bugs, not to tes
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 09:25 AM, Le Déchaîné wrote:
> > Looks like apt-get is mixing packages.
> > mate-terminal-common is at 1.14.0-1 in testing.
> > pluma is at 1.14.0-1 in testing.
> > mate-desktop is still at 1.12.1-1 in testing, not available for
Package: mate-terminal
Version: 1.14.0-1
Severity: important
after doing sudo apt-get update / upgrade / dist-upgrade
$ mate-terminal
(mate-terminal:2157): Gtk-ERROR **: GTK+ 2.x symbols detected. Using GTK+ 2.x
and GTK+ 3 in the same process is not supported
Trappe pour point d'arrêt et de trace
25 matches
Mail list logo
