to support their customers, they're well aware that they have
to target particular distributions and versions - and they're quite
happy working and certifying particular vendors individually.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 15:15 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> As discussed on debian-devel, different versions of these conffile handling
> shell functions on the wiki are being copied into maintainer scripts
> repeatedly, and adding a program to dpkg that handles things is a more
> maintainable approach.
es.
>
This has never been a problem with dpkg, I don't believe the new
implementation would cause any problems either.
> As we removed one package in favor for another (xinetd replacing
> inetd, for example), we relied on Obsoletes to do the right thing.
>
As noted this is
g systems and embedded systems. ipkg seems
> > to be a sufficient package management solution for the extremely small
> > systems...
>
> One problem is that you have a static and a dynamic part of meta data
> for dpkg:
>
Note that the static part, at least from dpkg's
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 17:13 -0400, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:54:18PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > The current dpkg database counts for less than 0.1% of the entire used
> > disk space of a typical Debian system. Even with the new meta-data,
(per package probably). Otherwise the fork rate will probably
> kill us, wont it?
>
My general thoughts on the API were that a filter would only be run once
for every dpkg run, and instructions given on stdin, results taken from
stdout.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signatu
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 13:45 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:19:29PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > The PDF is the first time I've ever sat down and wrote, in one document,
> > what I've been thinking about for the last couple of years
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:06 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:19:29PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > The PDF is the first time I've ever sat down and wrote, in one document,
> > what I've been thinking about for the last couple of years
her.
The members of that team may or may not depend, for example, on whether
that work is funded or driven by HP and/or Canonical -- on that I don't
have any idea or say, being just a humble code monkey :p
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:56:49 +
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.11.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dpkg Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Scott
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 05:10 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >I've already done this; all the open bugs are known bugs.
> Really? This seems extremely unlikely given the state of the bug reports.
> Consider 52087.
>
> Well then, a lot of
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 01:35 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Is it OK if I go through the antique bugs in dpkg (older than oh, say, 2002)
> and close the ones which are
> (a) unreproducible
> or
> (b) appear to clearly apply only to versions from before 'woody' (<<1.9.21)
>
> This would render th
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 21:20 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> While working on my dpkg-dev bug squashing I noticed that dpkg's debian
> control has some very old stuff in it that is probably not needed
> anymore, like conflicts that are against potato packages or versioned
> dependencies that are
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 17:43 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> I've been preparing to upgrade some woody systems to sarge, and
> colleagues have pointed out to me that the syntax that md5sum outputs
> has changed. This will break my backup and mirroring arrangements.
> Looking in the BTS, I see bug
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:17 +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> <<
> An internal error occured in dpkg. Please report the issue to the debian
> BTS if you can, alongside with any relevant information such as what you did
> to reach this error and the detail of the issue indicated below. If you
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 08:05 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Denis Barbier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Yes, because god forbid a developer should be able to understand what's
> > >
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 19:06 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Scott, in case you don't know why I'm messing about with dpkg: during
> an upgrade from Ubuntu Hoary to Breezy you get a spurious conffile
> prompt about xinitrc, which is due (in part) to #108587.
>
Yup, I had seen. You coming to Uncle Ste
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 20:37 +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 06:36:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Adam Heath writes ("Re: comments/string changes and issues with dpkg's
> > messages"):
> > > ohshite should really be for internal errors only. Things that "Should
> > > No
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 08:19 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Changes:
> > dpkg (1.13.11) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >The "Good, clean fun" Release.
>
> I have updated my archive,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:44:44 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Scott
Forwarded Message
From: Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: dpkg: typo fixes in dpkg-architecture
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:50:12 +0300
Hey Scott,
Was nice to see you again at Debconf!
Here's the little patc
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 06:45 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Scott, if you decide applying this, I propose to handle the calls for
> translation updates. Just keep me posted...or we discuss this at
> Debconf..:-)
>
I don't have much time right now to look, because I'm flying to Debconf
tomorrow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:19:06 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.10
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Scott
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:06 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:32 +0700, Arief S Fitrianto wrote:
> >
> > > Why this explanation is not included in the pot file. IMHO, it can help
> > > us
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:32 +0700, Arief S Fitrianto wrote:
> Why this explanation is not included in the pot file. IMHO, it can help us,
> the translators (at least me), to choose our local word to translate it.
>
The pot file is generated by automake when I do "make dist", it isn't
even in revi
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 03:37 +0300, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> I agree with Konstantinos on this issue (and his proposal) and I would
> like to add a few other remarks that I gathered during the painful
> translation of dpkg before sarge's release:
>
At the disk of being confrontational, I actually do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:52:43 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.9
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Scott
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:17 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > > (tridge is already mentioning in his talks about samba4 that "Debian
> > > is considering using it for dpkg"...:-)))
> > >
> &
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 06:49 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > That being said, I did have some interesting discussions with tridge at
> > LCA about how they test the samba suite.
>
> Also interesting discussions about their new DB system in samba4,
> right? (name of which is currently away from
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 22:51 +0100, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
>As perhaps you already know, I've been working a little in a testsuite
> framework for dpkg. It's maintained as an Arch branch, publicly available at
> http://people.debian.org/~zoso/arch/2005-debian/dpkg/dpkg--test/ .
>
>
On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 17:56 -0700, nuno romano wrote:
> When trying to install binary libfltk I got:
> dpkg:
> dependency problems prevent configuration
> of libfltk1.1c102:
> libfltk1.1c102 depends on libc6(>= 2.3.2.ds1-21);
> however: version of libc6 on system is 2.3.2.ds1-20.
>
This
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 01:34 +0900, Jung-hoon Han wrote:
> I tried compile of java-gnome package libraries to develop java-gnome
> based software. as the Sun's JDK related packages were not allowed as of
> proprietary license. So did so as debian way(compile & packaging them).
> finally I run like
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 07:14 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> My dpkg--stable branch contains a few translation updates which would
> be nice to go in sarge, if that's possible to you.
>
Just done one. Have the same translation updates been applied to your
1.13 tree (with appropriately different
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 14:55 +0300, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> I am asking you, The Dpkg Team, if you will accept such an upload, so
> that dpkg and the whole install process could be localized in Romanian
> [1], also.
>
Your wish is my command.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had stran
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> looks like we're changing this variable anyway, substituting linux by
> linux-gnu. There are some packages, for which the change from i386 to
> i486 makes a difference, and we're not targeting i386 anymore.
>
I can certainly change that;
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:36 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> We had some fun with dpkg-architecture in Ubuntu this morning ...
>
eep
> Turns out that dpkg-architecture iterates through cputable and ostable
> in whatever order the regexes happen to come out of the %cputable_re and
> %ostable_re hashe
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 00:26 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have created a small (68 lines addition in lib/star.c) patch
> for SELinux support in dpkg. This is against the version pulled from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/dpkg--devel--1.13--patch-137. Adding in
> changes to configure, Makefile.am's f
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 15:55 -0500, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > > 1. I don't think unpacking and repacking a deb is as easy as "mv; dpkg
> > > -i; mv;".
> > >
> > Define "unpacking and repacking" ... ? Unpacking a deb is as easy as
> > "dpkg -i" (or just dpkg --unpack). If you want (as a user) to ov
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 17:05 +1000, Rob Weir wrote:
> Can you please add .arch-inventory to the default -i ignore regexp?
> It's basically arch metainfo and shouldn't be included in the diff.
>
We ignore .cvsignore, so should probably ignore this too; probably a
good time to fix the fact that the
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 20:19 +0200, JÃrÃme Marant wrote:
> I experienced some problems with dpkg from experimental:
>
> - It seems to break type-handling. The following command
> returns an empty string instead of an arch list:
>
> $ type-handling any linux-gnu
>
This is likely a bug in typ
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 19:46 +0200, Michael Gebetsroither wrote:
> # l /var/lib/dpkg/info/gawk.md5sums
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.7K 2005-04-05 18:07 /var/lib/dpkg/info/gawk.md5sums
> Problem:
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/gawk.md5sums should imho be created with
> permissions 644 and not 640.
Uh? It d
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 10:02 +0100, Francois Taiani wrote:
> After my last update "dpkg -l" does not work any more.
>
Can you attach it?
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
severity 302995 normal
tags 302995 - sid
thanks
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 02:13 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Blars Blarson wrote:
>
> > gettext failed to build from source on the sparc buildd, however it
> > built fine on my sparc pbuilder. The buildd log lacks some things
> >
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 15:29 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Kamaraju Kusumanchi writes:
> > Package: gcc-snapshot
> > Version: 20050319-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> >
> > While building mpich2 from sources using gcc-snapshot, I am getting the
> > following warnings.
> >
> > dpkg-architecture: wa
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an
> additional argument for debian/rules would fit well into the current model.
>
> Calling "debian/rules prepare" should leave the tree in a state where the
> source
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 22:31 -0500, Keith Browne wrote:
> Package: t1lib-dev
> Version: 1.3.1-9
> Section: oldlibs
> Priority: optional
> Architecture: i386
> Conflicts: t1lib0-dev, t1lib-dev (<< 1.3.1-9), t1lib1-dev, libt1-dev
> Replaces: t1lib0-dev, t1lib0 (>> 0.7.1-5), t1lib1-dev
> Provides: t1l
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:55 +0200, Ivan Kirchev wrote:
> Does Debian package management suite provide C APIs for
> easier program manipulation of .deb files?
>
> I am looking for something like RedHat's rpm-devel C API but
> still in vain...
>
Not currently; it is planned, though not in the nea
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 14:24 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > > So there are three possibilities:
> > >
> > > * dpkg 1.10.11 did not add support for arch-specific entries in
> > > *Depends* and closing 1
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 06:59 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I think the line
> >
> > .R control-filnamn
> >
> > might be meant to be ".I".
>
> Scott, I can handle such fixes in my archive if you prefer focusing on
> more important bugs. Just let me know.
>
Please; handle anything invol
all
Version: 1.13.3
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dpkg Development
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 20:42 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> reopen 252657
> # more clarification needed, I do not intend to play BTS ping-pong
>
Uh, my bad -- the "-done" on that was accidental. This bug should
remain open.
> On 2005-03-18 Scott James Remnant <
: 1.7
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:21:32 +
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 1.13.2
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dpkg Development
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
dpkg - Package maint
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 13:16 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:33:31AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > tags 291939 - patch
> > thanks
> >
> > I've made another step towards this overall goal on the 1.13 branch.
> > archtable has
severity 296030 minor
tags 296030 pending
thanks
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 21:18 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> When using the -D2 option from dpkg to show the maintainer
> scripts called, it would be nice of it also showed which
> arguments where passed to it.
>
This isn't wishlist, it was a bug in th
tags 291939 - patch
thanks
I've made another step towards this overall goal on the 1.13 branch.
archtable has been replaced with two separate tables, cputable and
ostable.
These changes break this patch though; dpkg-architecture can now output
a DEB_*_ARCH_CPU and DEB_*_ARCH_OS variable which is
tags 173205 pending
thanks
Will be possible in 1.13.2:
descent dpkg-1.13% ./scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl -ti486-linux
dpkg-architecture.pl: warning: Default GNU system type i386-linux-gnu for
Debian arch i386 does not match specified GNU system type i486-linux
dpkg-architecture.pl: warning: Spec
tags 263743 - wontfix
tags 263743 + pending
thanks
This bug was left open as "wontfix" because of it's reference to linux-*
architecture names; the ppc64 archtable entry was added before the most
recent discussion even started.
Will let Robert open a separate bug for the linux-* stuff if he wants
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> > that
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > > package name accordingly?
> > >
> > Yes, that
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
> > powerpc port
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > >
> > W
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange thin
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 17:48 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > the latest version of gcc-4.0 is even more restrictive than the previous
> > ones. There is a new error message 'array type has incomplete element type'
> > for constructs like 'extern struct
severity 294895 normal
reassign 294895 apt
thanks
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 12:20 +0100, Frank KÃster wrote:
> Thank you. This clearly shows that there was no attempt to configure
> emacsen-common before giving the error message about a2ps:
>
On closer examination, a2ps and emacsen-common are being
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 02:03 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Is it certain that this is a dpkg bug? I notice that the submitter's
> typescript shows he was using apt 0.5.27 when upgrading, which was before
> the Dpkg::MaxArgs setting was bumped to 1024 -- the first typescript shows a
> total of 640
Unfortunately, this problem turns out to be not as trivial to solve as
first thought. Not from a code point of view, but from an acceptable
implementation point of view.
Having dpkg notice a certain style of postfix (I prefer the "+b1" form)
in the Version of a package and strip that before assi
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 18:36 +0700, Arief S Fitrianto wrote:
> On Sel, 8 Maret 2005, 5:49, Denis Barbier berkata:
> > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:04:07PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > * Strings for all programs are concatenated in the same PO file.
> > Translators usually prefer translating mo
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 23:49 +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> * Dpkg is being translated via Rosetta, how are you going to merge
> translations?
>
Yeah, someone imported it but it was missing half the .po files; and
several others were incomplete. I haven't done anything to merge
translations
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:49 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This demonstrates dpkg working correctly when dpkg --remove and dpkg
> --purge are manually invoked on an installed (and then removed) package.
>
So, just to be clear, if you --remove then --purge this package it
works; but if you only
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 15:15 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I've re-synced my dpkg--devel--1.13 branch with yours.
>
> The translations for 1.13 are not complete (except French which I keep
> complete myself) and would require a call for update to translators in
> case you plan to upload it to
: Dpkg Development
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dselect- a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 118910 128388 164591 164889 256323 258051 280693
reassign 297614 tetex-base
retitle 297614 tetex-base: symlink to directory replaced by directory in package
thanks
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:24 +0100, Frank KÃster wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 08:29 +0100, Frank KÃster wro
reassign 297614 ucf
thanks
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 08:29 +0100, Frank KÃster wrote:
> Frank K.ster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > dpkg makes circular symlinks out of ordinary conffiles. These files
> > are just ordinary files in 2.0.2c-6, and are unchanged at the same
> > place in 3.0-0.4
>
>
reassign 296896 sudo
severity 296896 normal
retitle 296896 sudo/sudoedit hardlinks make it hard to use dpkg-statoverride
thanks
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 08:08 -0600, Steve Bremer wrote:
>When I try to apply custom permission settings using dpkg-statoverride in
>Sarge or SID (version 1.10.27), the s
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:46 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>It seems dpkg sets the state of a package wrong when the purge
>failed and it was called with --purge.
>
Yup, verified with a banana ...
The (grossly oversimplified) steps that dpkg goes through are:
1) deferred_remove() is called on the p
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:34 -0500, Adam Skutt wrote:
>Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
>> In particular, start-stop-daemon documents
>> that --chuid is incomplete and, for example, doesn't even set
>> supplementary groups.
>Actually, no, it doesn't. The manpage
severity 295169 normal
retitle 265169 "[S-S-D] doesn't set HOME enviroment variable when switching
users via --chuid"
thanks
merge 265169 267784
thanks
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 23:42 -0500, Adam R. Skutt wrote:
>Justification: breaks unrelated software
>
Software using start-stop-daemon is implicit
tags 957 - patch
thanks
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 18:53 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>This functionnality would be really, really, really useful. This bug is
>open since 1995, and in June 2004 someone gave a patch to implement the
>requested functionnality. Is it possible to include this patch ?
>
tags 293041 pending
thanks
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 22:07 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Debian Policy section 7.4 says to prefer real packages over virtual ones.
>
> I do not know how apt-get behaves but when aptitude is asked to install
> dpkg-dev it pulls in bcc even if gcc is pulled in too fo
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 14:31 +0100, Kees van den Broek wrote:
> Today, I encountered this bug. So it's never been solved (or broken again).
>
Christian?
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 15:51 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Package: dpkg-doc
>
Package isn't present in 1.13, this bug is therefore implicitly fixed in
that branch (and in a later experimental upload).
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round th
severity 254998 wishlist
retitle 254998 "[DPKG] place space before ellipsis to match initscript style"
thanks
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 11:42 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > Given "dpkg-style" predates policy by quite some time, I suggest
> > that it is Policy that should change, if anything.
>
> So y
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:03 +, Brian Brunswick wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:51:43 -0500, Alfie Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nine years?!? Wow...
> >
>
> What is stopping it being merged? If there is anything needing to be
> done I offer to clean it up.
>
In general, a way to sto
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 11:43 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:08:02AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> >
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:25 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> > "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> > bug for this. Feel free to reti
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> bug for this. Feel free to retitle/merge if you think otherwise.
>
> The changes are prett
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 00:42 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's useful to pass to anything that accepts a GNU type, because they
>
> That's a very weak excuse to keep this unfixed. Please document it as a
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 15:32 +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >> 4) Add a dependency on autotools-dev; promoting it all the way from
> >>opt
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 02:24 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On line 170 :
> ] elsif ($! != &ENOENT){
> should be
> ] elsif ($| != &ENOENT){
>
Perl documentation says:
$! If used numerically, yields the current value of the C "errno"
variable, or in other words, if a
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 03:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can you try the patch in :
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=273407
>
Again, I don't think this is related right now.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the t
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 02:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I looked closer at the source and all test of the error value are made
> against $! instead of $|.
>
I'm not sure this is relevant to this bug -- keep the discussion on
#273407 for now, if they turn out to be related later they can be
severity 291194 normal
merge 291194 287152
thanks
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> So as to have proper file name encoding, I'm used to have
> TAR_OPTIONS=--format=posix
> But then built packages don't work:
>
I think this is a dup of the above bug. If that patch does
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 09:12 +, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Ar 19/01/2005 am 09:08, ysgrifennodd Scott James Remnant:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 05:48 +, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> >
> > > This is a minor change to the dpkg-source manpage that makes the
> > >
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 05:48 +, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> This is a minor change to the dpkg-source manpage that makes the
> dpkg-source -b summary match that given in the dpkg-source --help
> output.
>
Diolch.
Merged; I couldn't find a bug# for this, how did you trip over it?
Scott
--
Have y
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 20:02 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, a bug without any reply for over 3 month is some cause for someone maybe
> loosing his calm, he is clearly a volunteer like you, and a fellow contributor
> to debian. All the remarks that apply to you which you justly gave above, also
>
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:19 +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
> Scott, could you tell us if this patch is going to be applied,
>
Yes, either this or a very similar patch will be applied.
> and when (next upload, perhaps ?)
>
In the 1.13 series, sometime over the next year.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ev
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:02 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I am just wondering if you would care to give any particular reason to your
> "wontfix" tag ? That conclusion to that bug report is maybe a bit terse, don't
> you think ? Not at all what an unsuspecting reader of our BTS is in his right
> to
tags 274677 - wontfix
thanks
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:02 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> In this case it is clear that he does not want to see the severity
> above "normal", so trying to change the severity yourself will not
> change the severity the maintainer has in his mind (which is the one
> t
tags 274677 wontfix
thanks
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:58 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > Debian GNU/Hurd is not a released architecture.
>
> Yes, but as GNU/Hurd lives only in unstable, this is actually broken
> for all currently available distribu
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
