Informing -devel, just in case it is useful for anyone:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:55:01AM +0200, Diego wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: normal
>
> I have lost interest in maintaining this package. Just pulling it out
> of the repositories will vanish the code from the internet, which is a
> ba
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:01:01 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > There is a maintained (by RedHat) patch for dealing with PIE. I already
> >
> > It is perfectly reasonable to reject patches until they are
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:45:27PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> I've not seen any discussion of how this is supposed to work, or any
> mention of the planned transition before it broke my systems. There's
> quite a few bugs in ONCRPC related packages related to the current state
> but none of them
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> So, the question that needs an answer is: _why_ isn't it upstream yet?
And that has been answered in another part of this thread.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness gri
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, William Pitcock wrote:
> > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was
> > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches
> > since then?
>
> Only by the kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM
> guys say about Xe
Hello,
since version 4.10, reportbug checks the return code of the package
bug scripts and, it != 0, ask the user if to continue or stop. This is
the way we decided to fix #382010 .
But now I'm wondering if there could be a use case of allowing the
scripts to unconditionally stop reportbug, for ex
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:35:47PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
> since version 4.10, reportbug checks the return code of the package
> bug scripts and, it != 0, ask the user if to continue or stop. This is
> the way we decided to fix #382010 .
>
> But now I'm wondering if there could be a u
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:06:56AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was
> > > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches
> > > since then?
> >
>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> I see that nfs-common depends on portmap | rpcbind. However, nis only depends
> on portmap, and can therefore not be installed at the same time as rpcbind.
Yes, this is the root of the issue - if we're changing what we're doing
with
Package: wnpp
Owner: Jonathan Yu
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libtest-sharedfork-perl
Version : 0.11
Upstream Author : Tokuhiro Matsuno
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-SharedFork/
Mark Brown schrieb am Donnerstag, den 07. Januar 2010:
Hi,
> > I see that nfs-common depends on portmap | rpcbind. However, nis only
> > depends
> > on portmap, and can therefore not be installed at the same time as rpcbind.
>
> Yes, this is the root of the issue - if we're changing what we're
Your friend has invited you to join Mixx!
To register, please click the following link, or paste it in your browser:
http://www.mixx.com/user/invite/2f3836d650e8bdd4278416e4db228de75fc6fb89
- Your friends at Mixx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:35:47PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> But now I'm wondering if there could be a use case of allowing the
> scripts to unconditionally stop reportbug, for example using a
> "special" exit code (140 f.e.) .
I'm generally opposed to this. There are no use cases that I can th
> But now I'm wondering if there could be a use case of allowing the
> scripts to unconditionally stop reportbug, for example using a
> "special" exit code (140 f.e.) .
42 would be nicer.
Besides, does that mean I just have to put a bugscript in all my
packages exiting 42 and those bugs stop flo
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> But now I'm wondering if there could be a use case of allowing the
>> scripts to unconditionally stop reportbug, for example using a
>> "special" exit code (140 f.e.) .
>
> 42 would be nicer.
>
> Besides, does that mean I just have to put a bugscript in all my
> packages e
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: 634 (new: 3)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 122 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 14:35 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hello,
> since version 4.10, reportbug checks the return code of the package
> bug scripts and, it != 0, ask the user if to continue or stop. This is
> the way we decided to fix #382010 .
> But now I'm wondering if there could be a use case o
17 matches
Mail list logo
