On Monday, April 01, 2013 04:56:01 PM Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > >> Preconfiguring packages .
> > >> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/man/man1/gm-remove_person.1.gz', which
> > >> is
> > >> also in package gnumed-client 1.3.1-1quantal
> > >
> > > I found out it is shipped in both tarballs , gnumed-
> >> Preconfiguring packages .
> >> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/man/man1/gm-remove_person.1.gz', which is
> >> also in package gnumed-client 1.3.1-1quantal
>
> > I found out it is shipped in both tarballs , gnumed-client and
> > gnumed-server. I guess dpkg does not like this.
>
>
> > The file
On Monday, April 01, 2013 04:30:16 PM Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >> Preconfiguring packages .
> >> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/man/man1/gm-remove_person.1.gz', which is
> >> also in package gnumed-client 1.3.1-1quantal
>
>
>
> > I found out it is shipped in both tarballs , gnumed-client and
>
>> Preconfiguring packages .
>> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/man/man1/gm-remove_person.1.gz', which is
>> also in package gnumed-client 1.3.1-1quantal
> I found out it is shipped in both tarballs , gnumed-client and gnumed-server.
> I guess dpkg does not like this.
> The file could either b
Le Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:00:05PM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert a écrit :
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 08:53:17 PM Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just hit an error.
> >
> > Preconfiguring packages ...
> > Selecting previously unselected package gnumed-server.
> > (Reading database ...
On Friday, March 29, 2013 08:53:17 PM Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just hit an error.
>
> Preconfiguring packages ...
> Selecting previously unselected package gnumed-server.
> (Reading database ... 726724 files and directories currently installed.)
> Unpacking gnumed-server (from ..
Hi,
I have just hit an error.
Preconfiguring packages ...
Selecting previously unselected package gnumed-server.
(Reading database ... 726724 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking gnumed-server (from .../gnumed-server_18.1-1quantal1_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 01:23:06 PM Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> > Is it safe to check these changes in or do you want to review them ?
>
> Just be bold and commit your changes. There is no chance to break
> an
Hi Sebastian,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> Is it safe to check these changes in or do you want to review them ?
Just be bold and commit your changes. There is no chance to break
anything from your side. If something will not work on my side I will
not upl
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:39:40PM +0100, Hilbert, Sebastian wrote:
> So we should consider getting 1.2.x into backports.
If that's not hard to do - sure.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-m
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:39:40PM +0100, Hilbert, Sebastian wrote:
> I guess we can safely ignore 1.1.x if that helps.
It doesn't because we are stuck with it for good as far as
Debian goes :-)
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Hi all,
I have checked out trunk and made some changes. I have built with debuild -S
and it went through.
Is it safe to check these changes in or do you want to review them ?
Regards,
Sebastian
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:12:14 PM Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:56:42AM +0100, Hilbert, Sebastian wrote:
> > I would start with testing 1.3.x in experimental. 1.2.x should move to
> > unstable and later to testing.
>
> Both together is not possible unless we want to in
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:56:42AM +0100, Hilbert, Sebastian wrote:
> I would start with testing 1.3.x in experimental. 1.2.x should move to
> unstable and later to testing.
Both together is not possible unless we want to increase
problems SHOULD there happen to be an RC bug in the 1.1
branch.
Hi Sebastian,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:56:42AM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> Let's see what Karsten has to say about this. I guess many Debian users run a
> combination of stable and testing. So from my point of view it might make
> sense to put 1.2.9 into (future) testing and 1.3.x into u
Hi Andreas,
Let's see what Karsten has to say about this. I guess many Debian users run a
combination of stable and testing. So from my point of view it might make
sense to put 1.2.9 into (future) testing and 1.3.x into unstable.
1.1.x is effectively discontinued. I doubt that anyone relies on
Hi Sebastian,
thanks for bringing up this.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:59:31AM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> I see that 1.2.9 is in experimental. I guess there could be more 1.2.x
> versions in the future.
>
> If I got that right Debian is in freeze right now. Wheezy will be the new
> stabl
Hi,
I am starting to look at the docs for updating the gnumed packages in light of
a new major release.
I see that 1.2.9 is in experimental. I guess there could be more 1.2.x
versions in the future.
If I got that right Debian is in freeze right now. Wheezy will be the new
stable , right ? The
18 matches
Mail list logo
