severity 699206 serious
thanks
Hi Dominik,
first of all, please stop including all the email and bottom-posting,
this is a pain and against usual netiquette.
Then ...
On Mo, 30 Sep 2013, Dominik George wrote:
> If you accuse everyone else in the community
[...]
I did not accuse anyone, I ask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Norbert Preining schrieb:
>Hi Dominik,
>
>> Simply put: Because you made no effort to fix it :).
>
>Thanks for the very useful comment.
>
>Yes, I care for RC bugs in my own packages ... and that are quite
>a lot. So no time to fix RC bugs of other
Hi Dominik,
> Simply put: Because you made no effort to fix it :).
Thanks for the very useful comment.
Yes, I care for RC bugs in my own packages ... and that are quite
a lot. So no time to fix RC bugs of other maintainers.
Norbert
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Norbert Preining schrieb:
>On So, 29 Sep 2013, Stephen Kitt wrote:
>> > Uninstall the libc6-amd64:i386 package.
>> > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/03/msg00139.html.
>>
>> But watch out for http://bugs.debian.org/699206 - make sur
On So, 29 Sep 2013, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > Uninstall the libc6-amd64:i386 package.
> > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/03/msg00139.html.
>
> But watch out for http://bugs.debian.org/699206 - make sure you have a root
> sash running somewhere so you can relink /lib64/ld-linux-x86-6
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:58:36 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2013-09-28 22:18 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system,
> > I cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
> > libc-amd64 (>= some.version) which somehow
On 29-09-13 08:40, Norbert Preining wrote:
> What is going wrong here?
For whatever reason, the amd64 build is picking up i386 paths. I don't
know how that happens, except that I expect it is some multi-arch
twitch. I recommend you build your packages in a chroot to avoid this
(an other) issues. I
On 2013-09-28 22:18 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system,
> I cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
> libc-amd64 (>= some.version) which somehow is not what I have although
> I am running amd64 sid.
Uninstal
Hi everyone,
second try, with more data ..
default package texinfo, I am importing a new upstream into my git,
no changes to debian/rules or debian/control, rebuild.
>From the debian/control:
..
Package: info
...
Architecture: any
Multi-Arch: foreign
...
After building the package looks like:
i
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:18:03AM +0400, Norbert Preining wrote:
> since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system, I
> cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
>libc-amd64 (>= some.version)
> which somehow is not what I have although I am running am
Hi everyone,
since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system, I cannot
install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
libc-amd64 (>= some.version)
which somehow is not what I have although I am running amd64 sid.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Norbert
---
On 03/05/2011 12:02, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> With such a large number of packages involved and the transition page
> being constructed from multiple dependency levels, is there a way of
> linking the transitions data from DDPO or having some other output
> which is organised on a per-developer /
On Tue, 3 May 2011 10:21:09 +0100
Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sunday, in collaboration with the release team, I uploaded
> perl 5.12-6 to unstable. This necessarily causes around 400 packages
> to be uninstallable with the new perl. The release team will be
> scheduling binNMUs in
Hi all,
On Sunday, in collaboration with the release team, I uploaded
perl 5.12-6 to unstable. This necessarily causes around 400 packages
to be uninstallable with the new perl. The release team will be
scheduling binNMUs in due course; in the meantime, if you find such a
package, there is no need
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:31:59AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> If a package is uninstallable on testing, is it appropriate
> to file a bug report against it, even though it might be OK
> on unstable?
>
> If a bug report is filled, then people can become aware of the
> problem, preferably before sarg
Hello,
If a package is uninstallable on testing, is it appropriate
to file a bug report against it, even though it might be OK
on unstable?
If a bug report is filled, then people can become aware of the
problem, preferably before sarge is released..
On the other hand, it could irritate the maint
On 20-Sep-01, 20:30 (CDT), Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I made it a *.deb package, because that allows you to use apt-get to
> automatically upgrade the package on a *nfs root* partition to the
> latest version.
(Brian, thanks for the explanation. That was a lot more useful than "you
wa
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> In practise, it might be perfectly safe to install on a normal
> partition. Just that there is no point.
I think it replaces /sbin/init, so it's not harmless..
Thinking about the merits of having diskless nodes being
able to upgrade, is an im
> "Norbert" == Norbert Veber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Norbert> From the description of diskless-image-simple: WARNING:
Norbert> This package can and will break your computer. Do not
Norbert> install manually. It should only be installed via the
Norbert> diskless-newimage, pa
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
>
> If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like
> going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any
> circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :)
>
> Clearly these pacakge
#include
Norbert Veber wrote on Thu Sep 20, 2001 um 09:58:16AM:
> If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like
> going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any
> circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :)
What is the problem? The
On 19-Sep-01, 18:16 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> read the description for xfsprogs-bf and e2fsprogs-bf, your NOT
> SUPPOSED to install them. we need them for boot-floppies.
Fine. Why are they in the main archive? If it's so that the bf can
access them over the net, then the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:16:13PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
> > packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
> > e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
> > for breaki
Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
> [ I sent this to debian-testing a month ago, but the mailing list ]
> [ doesn't exist anymore - it is not archived at http://list.debian.org/ ]
> [ If there is a more appropriate list for this discussion let me know. ]
The list does exist. For some reason it wasn'
severity 112723 critical
thanks
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > This is, IMO a bogus bug.
> > Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already.
>
> A package that will do grave damage to your system if inst
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> This is, IMO a bogus bug.
> Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already.
A package that will do grave damage to your system if installed
is not a real bug?
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
A note.
> Good. Send me a patch.
> I will apply it.
... after woody, probably.
It has been there since potato, and I don't think I will make a last
minute change to a package.
This is, IMO a bogus bug.
Go and fix a real bug. There are enou
Em Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400
Norbert Veber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> It looks like more and more of these are popping up. It seems to me that
by the way, I think we're losing lots of the benefits our release/test cycle
is suppose to give us... I see many people making last-hour change
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote:
> packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
> e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
> for breaking your system if installed.
read the description for xfsprogs-bf and
In Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400 Norbert cum veritate scripsit :
> Why are such things allowed into the archive? Will these things ever
> even
> make it into testing given that they are uninstallable?
diskless-image-secure | 0.3.6 |stable | all
diskless-image-secure | 0.3.15 |
Hi,
It looks like more and more of these are popping up. It seems to me that
packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf,
e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs
for breaking your system if installed.
From the description of diskle
em - currently unanswered.
Right. There're a few packages that aren't installable in woody. There're
also a number that're out of sync, or that have RC bugs, or whatever. It's
not perfect, and it shouldn't really be expected to be.
FWIW, there're accurate lists of unins
[ I sent this to debian-testing a month ago, but the mailing list ]
[ doesn't exist anymore - it is not archived at http://list.debian.org/ ]
[ If there is a more appropriate list for this discussion let me know. ]
The debian FAQ (/usr/share/debian/FAQ) says the following:
: Packages are i
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 01:20:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> tkirc (not installable on any arch, depends on ircii, which isn't in
> potato or woody)
ircii is now in non-us.
Richard Braakman
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 01:20:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There's a list of uninstallable packages for both woody and potato
> (sorted by source package) linked from there too. Stats for potato at
> the moment are: (number of uninstallable binary packages by arch)
>
Hello world,
My `testing' distribution thing is back up on auric (rather than lully)
now. http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/ . It's running daily or so.
There's a list of uninstallable packages for both woody and potato
(sorted by source package) linked from there too. Stats for potat
* "Filip" == Filip Van Raemdonck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Filip> IMO there's yet another issue to consider (which brings another
Filip> complication with it): there may be people who will want both
Filip> mesa and glx, if they own a Riva or Matrox + Voodoo* add-on
Filip> board.
/me waves his h
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > Depends: libgl1 ; which doesn't exist
>
> This exists in CVS. libGL.so.1 is what is used by the latest versions of
> GLX and Mesa. I think the problem was coming up with a sane way to make
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Packages with unknown dependencies:
>
> clanlib0-display-fbdev-dev
> clanlib0-display-ggi-dev
> clanlib0-display-glx
> clanlib0-display-glx-dev
> clanlib0-display-svgalib-dev
> clanlib0-display-x11-dev
>
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I'm experimenting with a script to work out whether packages are
> installable or not. I figured the world at large might be interested in
> some of the results.
>
> The following packages are not installable (ie,
Hello world,
I'm experimenting with a script to work out whether packages are
installable or not. I figured the world at large might be interested in
some of the results.
The following packages are not installable (ie, their Depends:,
Recommends:, and Conflicts: can't be concurrently satisfied) u
41 matches
Mail list logo
