On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:11:02AM +, Howard Young wrote:
> Hello
>
> I had wanted to use MSYS to develop for the other platform. Most of my
> experience is with WIN32 API, ATL3/COM+ and DirectX on the other platform.
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >Huh? ActiveX is woven deeply into, and relies u
新しいメールアドレスをお知らせします新しいメールアドレス： [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FRIEND, CAN YOU BE TRUSTED???.
I AM DAVID,SERVINGARMY痿儡 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION IN IRAQ.
FOLLOWING THE SITUATION IN IRAQ.WE HAVE DECIDED TO ENTRUST THIS FUND INTO YOUR
COSTUDY.FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE OR REGRET. PLS GET BACK
FO
Hi,
sid seems to contain bacula 1.38.11-7+b1, a binary-only NMU for i386,
which breaks bacula-console and various other packages due to broken
deps. The changelog file is signed only "buildd_i386-saens".
packages.qa.debian.org doesn't know about 1.38.11-7+b1.
Strangely, packages.debian.org's pag
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007, Ryan Murray wrote:
> wiki.debian.org has been moved to a new host with lots of available
> disk space, so updates should be fine now. For the first 90 minutes
> after the move exim wasn't running, so updates during this period
> would have failed to send notifications.
>
> I
On 2007-02-22, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strangely, packages.debian.org's page for bacula-console shows
> 1.38.11-7+b1 on all platforms except kfreebsd-i386. It doesn't make
> sense why the package would be bin NMU'd everywhere.
maybe problems with one of the dependencies made a r
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:37 +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007, Ryan Murray wrote:
> > wiki.debian.org has been moved to a new host with lots of available
> > disk space, so updates should be fine now. For the first 90 minutes
> > after the move exim wasn't running, so updates during
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:03:51PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:37 +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007, Ryan Murray wrote:
> > > wiki.debian.org has been moved to a new host with lots of available
> > > disk space, so updates should be fine now. For the firs
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007, Greg Folkert wrote:
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> bugs.debian.org.186 IN A 140.211.166.43
>
> Hope this helps.
It sure did! Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> >
> > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
>
> Maybe the maintainer for making non-binNMU-safe packages ?
That is so much bullshit. Whoever uploaded the binNMU uploaded
On 2007-02-22, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
>> >
>> > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
>>
>> Maybe the maintainer for making non-binNMU-safe packages
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sid seems to contain bacula 1.38.11-7+b1, a binary-only NMU for i386,
> which breaks bacula-console and various other packages due to broken
> deps. The changelog file is signed only "buildd_i386-saens".
> packages.qa.debian.org doesn't know about 1.38.11-
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:53:23AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> > >
> > > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
> >
> > Maybe the maintainer for making non-binNMU-sa
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> binNMUs are done without the bug-report. (It would be rather
> pointless, since the maintainer himself cannot schedule binNMUs on
> Debian's buildds.)
This sounds inaccurate. binNMUs should still be in response to bugs wherever
app
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:59:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2007-02-22, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> >> >
> >> > I think someone deserves a serious thwack
On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any
> occurence of
> Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Source-Version})
> with Depends: bacula-foo (= ${source:Version})
> 3. (optional
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:28:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:53:23AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
> > >
> > > Maybe the maintainer for
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:53:23AM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> > >
> > > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
> >
> > Maybe the maintainer for
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:32:58PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Yes. I wasn't aware that buildds ever modify the changelog or do
> binNMUs though. Aren't buildds simply there to build the existing
> sources on other platforms?
Automatic bin-NMU support was added, I believe within the last year.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
> A binNMU does not show up in the pts, since there are no source
> changes.
Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible for it to show up? Since there
are .changes files with binNMUs, and presumably also migration to
testing sta
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
>> 3. (optional, but clarify things) For all in bacula-foo packages that
>> are arch:any replace any occurence of
>> Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Binary-Version})
> Something is missing here... I su
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> > 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any
> > occurence of
> > Depends: bacula-
* John Goerzen:
> sid seems to contain bacula 1.38.11-7+b1, a binary-only NMU for i386,
> which breaks bacula-console and various other packages due to broken
> deps. The changelog file is signed only "buildd_i386-saens".
> packages.qa.debian.org doesn't know about 1.38.11-7+b1.
Here's the build
Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> binNMUs are done without the bug-report. (It would be rather
>> pointless, since the maintainer himself cannot schedule binNMUs on
>> Debian's buildds.)
> This sounds inaccurate. b
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
>> If your next sourceful upload would fix this it would make the
>> release-team's work easier. The fix is simple:
> I will upload in about 1 hour.
Lovely.
[...]
> Do I need to updat
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> > 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any
> > occurence of
> > Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Source-Vers
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
>> > 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all repla
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # found these ones earlier and all have been fixed already,
> # forgot to add them to this bug. Just for the record.
> block 322762 with 406370
Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug)
Was blocked by: 189856 190020 203278 254800 25491
... so I thought I'd take the liberty of registering "goodbye-apple.com" and
"goodbye-osx.com" in order to protect the namespace. I'll gladly transfer
them over to the first DD to code up something similar for that platform(s).
:-)
Cheers,
Tyler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jan Luebbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: bitbake
Version : 1.6.6
Upstream Author : the bitbake project
* URL : http://developer.berlios.de/projects/bitbake/
* License : GPL, MIT/X
Programming Lang: Python
Descri
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:57:07PM +0100, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> > 1. Add a Buil
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:57:52PM -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> > > 2. For all in bacula-foo packa
Hello,
I am happy to announce the availability of daily runs of
edos-debcheck. The results can be accessed here:
http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/
A first version was set up during the QA meeting in Extremadura, but I
came only recently around to implement some missing features. Fabio
Ma
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:32:58PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:28:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:53:23AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > That is so much bullshit. Whoever uploaded the binNMU uploaded broken
> > > packages.
> >
> >
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> binNMUs are done without the bug-report. (It would be rather
>> pointless, since the maintainer himself cannot schedule binNMUs on
>> Debian's buildds.)
>
> This sounds inaccurate. binNMUs should stil
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:13:07AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > binNMUs though. Aren't buildds simply there to build the existing
> > sources on other platforms? Surely some human was involved here?
>
> wanna-build and buildd have been modified a while back to be able to do
> binNMU's. The
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 19:51:17 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Binary-only NMUs are a necessary evil. The implementation kind of
> sucks, but I'm not sure how a better approach would look like. It's
> not just the dependencies problem, it's also quite confusing that
> you've got a source package w
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: 358 (new: 17)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 83 (new: 1)
Total number of packages request
37 matches
Mail list logo
