emoved ASAP. Thus, users of
testing/unstable could still use unison2.40.102 from stable
(hoping there won't be any conflict in the near future) so
that they would be able to sync with stable machines without
requiring a backport of unison 2.48 in stable.
This is what I currently do, but since
On 2016-01-04 17:24, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Le 22/12/2015 00:38, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big...
I'm
not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
Moreover, this package was created to provide compatib
Le 22/12/2015 00:38, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
>> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
>> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
>> pre
Alexander Wirt writes:
>> This should be integrated in the backports.d.o repositories.
> Backports is not for fixing bugs in stable.
I think there is a misunderstanding here.
This is not about fixing unison in stable. "unison" 2.40.102-2 in stable
works fine. It is not broke
Hi,
On 29/12/2015 11:13, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty
>>>> big... I'm not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a
>>>
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
> >> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
> >> Moreover, this package was created to prov
Hi,
>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
>> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
>> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
>> previous Debian releases, but ano
Hi,
On 07/12/2015 16:23, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>
> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
> prev
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 14:02:41 +, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Jakub Wilk [2015-12-09 14:47 +0100]:
> > Looks like a fallout after #620112.
> > This change in sbuild should be reverted. It didn't fix binNMU
> > co-installability, and made binMNU changelog entries less helpful.
>
> It may not have fi
+++ Jakub Wilk [2015-12-09 14:47 +0100]:
> * Stéphane Glondu , 2015-12-07, 16:23:
> >>* is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1?
> >For "who", I don't know.
>
> BinNMU are usually scheduled by the Release Team.
> This package was part of the ncurses transition:
> https://release.debian.org
Jul 2015 09:50:21 +0200
...which is strange, because unison doesn't use ncurses AFAICT.
Not on amd64, but it does link to ncurses on some other architectures.
This is probably unintentional. For example, I see this in the mips
build log[0]:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a
Dear Stéphane,
> But I now understand the problem: unison2.40.102 uses Obj.magic (i.e. an
> unsafe coercion) to cast a format string into a string. The previous
> unison version was compiled with OCaml 4.01.0, where format strings were
> indeed strings. The new version was compile
ly=yes
>
> * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for amd64; no source changes.
> * Rebuild against ncurses 6.0.
>
> -- amd64 / i386 Build Daemon (babin) Fri,
> 31 Jul 2015 09:50:21 +0200
...which is strange, because unison doesn't use ncurses AFAICT. Also,
the date is m
+++ Norbert Preining [2015-12-06 20:15 +0900]:
> Dear all,
>
> (please Cc)
>
> is there a way to track down who create a binnmu? Currently unison2.40.102
> is broken on sid and segfaults (see bug report in Cc), and that is solely
> caused by the binnmu
> 2.40.102-3+b1
> because several peop
Dear all,
(please Cc)
is there a way to track down who create a binnmu? Currently unison2.40.102
is broken on sid and segfaults (see bug report in Cc), and that is solely
caused by the binnmu
2.40.102-3+b1
because several people confirmed that -3 works without problems.
My questions are:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I wont to ask if there is something with the maintainer of unison. There
are at least 3 important bugs where at least one of them can be fixed
very easy as there is a working patch in the bug report. But nothing
happens.
The bugs are 309908
16 matches
Mail list logo
