Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> I'd rather set no recommendation at all, or conflict with old
> udev...
The former, by the way, makes perfect sense for something that isn't
absolutely required and will be a complete non-issue when the package is
released (even in a few weeks time) along with the res
Mashrab Kuvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 28 July 2005 00:34, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Mashrab Kuvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I added language name in Uzbek into Language section. Is it correct
> now?
>>
>> Well, you should also specify Casechars, Not-Casechars, and
>
> The
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 01:01 +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > The reason a logical 'X isn't installed' does not
> > work is that you could install Y, which depends
> > on no X, and then just install X. Now Y is silently
> > broken by a package that knows nothing about Y.
>
> As far as I know, su
On Thursday 28 July 2005 00:34, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Mashrab Kuvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I added language name in Uzbek into Language section. Is it correct now?
>
> Well, you should also specify Casechars, Not-Casechars, and
They are optional, aren't they? Anyway, ... (see below)
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 07:12:16AM +1000, skaller wrote:
>
> Two methods, one is not tenable:
>
> (a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
> (b) When Y depends on no-X, if Y is installed, no-X is
> synthesised and installed too if it doesn't exist,
> (and conflicting with X to prevent X bei
Mashrab Kuvatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:27, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> * Your aspell-uz.info-aspell is not correct. See
>> http://dict-common.alioth.debian.org/dsdt-policy.html#infofile for
>> more info.
>
> I added language name in Uzbek into Language section.
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:27, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Almost there, just a few more things:
>
> * The urgency should be set to low, not high.
Fixed.
> * Why have you deviated from the upstream version?
I don't have a good reason for this. I just blindly followed aspell-en.
This time deb and sou
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:22 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> > >
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:22:44AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
> > suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
> > you think so?
> To be honest, no.
> If yo
Hi Martin,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I just adopted python-xlib, fixed the outstanding bugs, and put
> the revised package at
While you're at it:
- If you read Matthew's FAQ, you'll find that the copyright file isn't
correct.
- You're #249071 has "127.0.0.1" in the comment but "localhost" in the
Geert Stappers wrote:
> Some advice about requesting a sponsor: reread
> http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html#rfs
>
> And for the "interest level" I guess that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> good place for also RFS.
Thanks for the advise. Posting to debian-python is certainly a good
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> > "Recommends: no-udev | udev (>= 0.060-1)".
>
> An elegant solutio
Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need some help with finding a good resolution for Bug#320029.
>
> In summary, the current version of my 'librmagick-ruby' package was
> compiled against libmagick6-dev_6.0.6.x. It works nicely when run
> with libmagick6_6.0.6.x, but fails when libmagi
I need some help with finding a good resolution for Bug#320029.
In summary, the current version of my 'librmagick-ruby' package was
compiled against libmagick6-dev_6.0.6.x. It works nicely when run with
libmagick6_6.0.6.x, but fails when libmagick6 is upgraded to the version
currently in unst
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Geert Stappers wrote:
> That is what is done with python. Please post also the description
> > of the non "default" or "dummy" packages.
>
> I haven't really changed the description since I adopted the packages,
> but here you
Title: Message
Dear FlexWindow user,
The FlexWindow update you send encountered an
error in the account verification. As a result your window has not been
updated. The cause of the problem is most proba
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
> suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
> you think so?
To be honest, no.
If you do a Recommends: udev (>= ...), most people will just install the
recommended udev a
Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> "Recommends: no-udev | udev (>= 0.060-1)".
An elegant solution ;-)
> I guess this would behave as expected, but
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * You probably shouldn't repack the .tar file so that the md5sum will
> match the upstream version. Usually for an upstream that distributes
> a .tar.bz2, you just want to do "bunzip2 foo.tar.bz2; gzip -9
> foo.tar" and then use the resulting .tar.g
20 matches
Mail list logo
