Re: ITP Timeframe

in our spare time. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

executing scripts after receiving a fax

ms should exist? Create a mail with the fax as png, a mail with pdf, a automatic print-out? Any more? I hope my proposal is clear, and would like to receive comments and suggestions on this. Thank you for your time for reading (and maybe even answering) my mail. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.

RFS: dpkg-sig

eers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: dpkg-sig

* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031221 09:28]: > I'm currently looking for a sponsor for upload of dpkg-sig. Thanks, package is now on ftp-master. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

ignoring updates to a conffile?

e old configuration, and postinst of the new package?) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ignoring updates to a conffile?

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031228 22:25]: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > A rather problematic issue is on upgrades from a previous package > > where the previous one had it as a conffile. I think about the > > following: Just

Why are these packages removed from testing/sid?

x27;t have a RC-bug. They're not noted in http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt, but according to packages.qa.d.o they're not longer in sid. So: Why? What mistake did I make? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F

Re: Buildds fail on quite a few architectures

re not broken anyways. In the other case I'd have advised you a rebuild-only upload so that the packages are build on all architectures against the same X-version.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0

Re: RFS: irssi-scripts - collection of scripts for irssi

l. if no-one else does sponsoring, I'd do it (but not today, but on Saturday or Sunday). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

p. > > What did I do wrong? A common problem is that you need _exact_ binary match between the way your name is written in the changelog and in the uploader field. However, I didn't check wether this was the problem in this case. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

What did I do wrong? > What was the version number? The Debian revision number should only > be one digit, not two (NMU) or three (binary NMU). The version number has no effect at all whether katie considers something to be a NMU or not. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-b

Re: Delayed NMU with dupload

> or find it in Andy's bug report against dput regarding the upload queues.) See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/debian-devel-announce-200402/msg00012.html (and there's also a bug report against dupload ;) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040401 05:25]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The version number has no effect at all whether katie considers > > something to be a NMU or not. > Something in the archive scripts does care. Binary only NMUs are

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040401 22:55]: > > * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040401 05:25]: > > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The version number has no effect at all whether katie considers > > > > s

Re: Building multiple packages from a single source tree

t-pkging-practices.en.html#s-multiple-binary You could also take a look at a package that does this. I hope this helps for the first steps. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: NM's to fix bugs? (Was: Asking for an advocate (gURLChecker))

tter. Well, now it's the question for me how long to wait until trying a NMU (and that would be really difficult for a non-maintainer). It's sometimes difficult to fix a bug. But it's often more difficult if you can't apply your fix. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-bar

Re: NM's to fix bugs? (Was: Asking for an advocate (gURLChecker))

nly say yes. I'm > much less likely to say yes when people pop up out of the blue. Well, that's a reason for making fixes for packages you maintain. ;-) Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C Fac

Re: NM's to fix bugs?

* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030414 16:20]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Bugs] > > Well, and (for me) more importantly: I've send patches for different > > bugs, asked for more information from the bug submitter and so on > > (abo

How to fix an upgrade bug to woody?

Hi, what to do with an upgrade bug to woody? The bug just makes the programm (it's a getty) to fail _once_ (and only in special envrionments) and after that it works right without any manual intervention. The bug is http://bugs.debian.org/136403 Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/an

Re: How to fix an upgrade bug to woody?

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030429 18:49]: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 01:17:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > what to do with an upgrade bug to woody? The bug just makes the programm > > (it's a getty) to fail _once_ (and only in special envrionments) and after >

debugging aids for a package and manpages

re or less namespace pollution and would put them in /usr/lib/. For the same reason I would put there a README file and no manpages. What do you think? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

<    1   2