Bug#677582: gcc-4.4-base: upgrade problems since removal of gcj-4.4

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:10:16 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > during piuparts dist-upgrade tests I noticed problems upgrading from > squeeze if gcj-4.4 is installed. gcj-4.4 was recently removed from sid > and testing and there is no clean upgrade path and apt decides to keep > gcc-4.4-base at

Work-needing packages report for Aug 3, 2012

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 459 (new: 2) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 144 (new: 0) Total number of packages request

Bug#677582: gcc-4.4-base: upgrade problems since removal of gcj-4.4

reassign 677582 general thanks I can't see how this is an issue for the gcc-4.4 source package. Therefore reassigning to general to find a more appropriate package, maybe apt? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact lis

Processed: Re: gcc-4.4-base: upgrade problems since removal of gcj-4.4

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 677582 general Bug #677582 [gcc-4.4-base] gcc-4.4-base: upgrade problems since removal of gcj-4.4 Bug reassigned from package 'gcc-4.4-base' to 'general'. No longer marked as found in versions gcc-4.4/4.4.7-1. Ignoring request to alter f

AW: Low acceptance of Elektra

Augeas looks really nice but it misses some of the advantages beside easy parsing. For example restricting access to parts of a configuration to specific users or groups is only possible by splitting the configuration file. This makes the management of configuration files even harder. Another ad

Bug#683679: ITP: lpc21isp -- In-circuit programming (ISP)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Package name: lpc21isp Version: 1.8.3 Upstream Author: Martin Maurer (martin.mau...@clibb.de) URL: http://lpc21isp.sourceforge.net/ License: LGPL Description: lpc21isp is an in-circuit p

Re: Low acceptance of Elektra

On 08/02/12 14:21, Felix Berlakovich wrote: > I recently stumbled over Elektra (http://www.libelektra.org/ but the page seems to be unreachable at the time of this writing) and because I find the idea of a central configuration store very interesting I’ve done some res

Bug#683666: RFH: gradle -- Groovy based build system

Package: wnpp Severity: normal I request assistance with maintaining the gradle package. Java/JVM software projects are increasingly migrating from ant and maven to gradle. Currently, I am the only maintainer of gradle and it is taking me too much time to package new upstream releases. Because o

AW: Low acceptance of Elektra

This looks promising, but I would love to see services like apache, samba or ssh using Elektra. I think that having a single configuration interface can be much more convenient than getting used to several different configuration file formats. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Simon Busch

Bug#683642: ITP: gwt-maven-plugin -- maven plugin to compile Google Web Toolkit applications

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Koch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 * Package name: gwt-maven-plugin Version : 2.4.0 Upstream Author : Charlie Collins , Olivier Lamy , Thomas Broyer * URL : http:

Re: Low acceptance of Elektra

Am 02.08.2012 14:21, schrieb Felix Berlakovich: Hi all, I recently stumbled over Elektra (http://www.libelektra.org/ but the page seems to be unreachable at the time of this writing) and because I find the idea of a central configuration store very interesting I’

Bug#683639: ITP: apache-sshd -- java server and client implementation of the SSH protocol

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Koch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 * Package name: apache-sshd Version : 0.7.0 Upstream Author : Apache Software Foundation * URL : http://mina.apache.org/sshd * License : Apache Programming La

Re: Bug#637232: Multiarch breaks support for non-multiarch toolchain

Jonathan Nieder dixit: > pcc (Portable C compiler): unfixed - http://bugs.debian.org/638309 Yes, but that was not the main showstopper for pcc. Besides upstream bugs on some architectures (recently, even Linux/amd64 broke again – I’m following pcc dev), the main problem was how to get pcc-l

Low acceptance of Elektra

Hi all,   I recently stumbled over Elektra (http://www.libelektra.org/ but the page seems to be unreachable at the time of this writing) and because I find the idea of a central configuration store very interesting I’ve done some research. Anyway I had to realize th

Re: RFC: Why are so many debian packages outdated?

Lars Wirzenius dixit: > No other browser is available on the Amiga they're using as their only > computer, either. lynx-cur, w3m and links2 are known-usable on Debian/m68k, and I’m working on iceweasel currently (already submitted one patch, another one coming soon) and webkit (also FTBFS, will

Re: request for removal of texmacs-extra-fonts

Hi! Am 02.08.2012 09:37, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: > Usualleyreportbig ftp.debian.org should dop the trick. That should have been: 'usually running "reportbug ftp.debian.org" ...'- Best regards, Alexander (and Clara) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or

Re: request for removal of texmacs-extra-fonts

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:11:57PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > Since texmacs 1.0.7.13, texmacs includes all fonts > of texmacs-extra-fonts so texmacs-common sets When that happend, texmacs-extra-fonts should probably have been replaced by an empty transitional package that depends on texmacs.

Re: request for removal of texmacs-extra-fonts

Hi, On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:11:57PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > Since texmacs 1.0.7.13, texmacs includes all fonts > of texmacs-extra-fonts so texmacs-common sets > Conflicts: texmacs-extra-fonts since Sep. 2011 and > it seems there is no problem by now. > So I think texmacs-extra-fonts is

Re: request for removal of texmacs-extra-fonts

Hi! Am 02.08.2012 08:11, schrieb Atsuhito Kohda: [..] > What is the best way to do in this case. > Is this mail enough or something more is necessary? Please see the paragraph "About removals in Debian" on http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.html. Usualleyreportbig ftp.debian.org should dop