* Keith Packard (kei...@keithp.com) [100111 20:32]:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:38:26 +0100, Andreas Barth
> wrote:
>
> > Could you please bump the dependency on defoma to >= 0.11.10-4 with
> > the next upload, as we still have "badly built" packages in the
> > archive?
>
> I'll set a build depend
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:38:26 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Could you please bump the dependency on defoma to >= 0.11.10-4 with
> the next upload, as we still have "badly built" packages in the
> archive?
I'll set a build dependency on 0.11.10-4 but leave the suggests at 0.7.0
as this is strictly
Hi,
* Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) [091231 17:49]:
> Keith Packard (31/12/2009):
> > Right, I didn't realize there was a bug in defoma as well which was
> > causing this problem; having found an obvious bug in my packaging, I
> > thought that would have fixed the bug; sorry for not testing i
Keith Packard (31/12/2009):
> Right, I didn't realize there was a bug in defoma as well which was
> causing this problem; having found an obvious bug in my packaging, I
> thought that would have fixed the bug; sorry for not testing it
> properly.
Oh well, since in the end, final fixes are flowing
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:10:49 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Still, losing Riku's band-aid wasn't nice. Anyway, now that the root
> issue's being addressed, the band-aid shouldn't be necessary for too
> much time.
Right, I didn't realize there was a bug in defoma as well which was
causing this p
5 matches
Mail list logo
