On 2016-01-03 16:54:40 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> The package called "unison2.40.102" version 2.40.102-3+b1 in testing and
> unstable is broken. This broken package is not in stable. If it can't
> get fixed, it probably should get removed.
Yes, I think that it should be removed ASAP. Thus, users of
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 compatibility with
pr
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
>> previous Debian releases, but another
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 broken. There is nothing
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
unison2.40.102 any more. Moreover, this package was created t
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 provide compatibility with
> >> previous Debian rele
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 another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
>> incomp
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
> previous Debian releases, but anot
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
* 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/transitions/html/ncurses.html
But for "why", cf
/us
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 compiled with OCaml 4.02
Le 06/12/2015 12:15, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> * is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1?
For "who", I don't know. But for "why", cf
/usr/share/doc/unison2.40.102/changelog.Debian.amd64.gz:
> unison2.40.102 (2.40.102-3+b1) sid; urgency=low, binary-only=yes
>
> * Binary-only non-maint
+++ 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:
15 matches
Mail list logo
