Your message dated Wed, 16 May 2001 15:02:10 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#96309: fixed in lm-sensors 2.5.4-13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 16 May 2001 15:02:10 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#93545: fixed in lm-sensors 2.5.4-13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 16 May 2001 15:02:10 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#93545: fixed in lm-sensors 2.5.4-13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Wed, 16 May 2001 15:02:10 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#93545: fixed in lm-sensors 2.5.4-13
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Martin Quinson wrote:
> I've seen a lot of effort to remove all files from /usr/doc in profit to
> /usr/share/doc, but nobody trying to enforce the part "13.4 Accessing the
> documentation" of the policy.
Well, not so -- I have searched out and filed bugs on exactly this
before. Normal proprity II
Martin Quinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But what about a dh_fhs part (or what ever) of debhelper which would add
>these lines to the good scripts, and move /usr/doc files to there correct
>location. I mean, would it be usefull, or is it overkill ?
I think you misunderstand what debhelper script
Colin Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk ?crivait:
>> > Sorry, but these are "serious" bugs. We want to have /usr/doc symlinks for
>> > _all_ our packages in woody.
>>
>> I'm a
reopen 91828 "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tag 91828 - fixed
severity 93545 serious
severity 94577 serious
severity 91828 serious
tag 94577 + patch
merge 93545 94577 91828
thanks
One or more of these bugs need to be fixed -- MODULES_LOC should be either
removed or made useful by kernel
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 91828 "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bug#91828: only builds as root in /usr/src
Bug reopened, originator set to "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> tag 91828 - fixed
Bug#91828: only builds as root in /usr/src
Tags removed: fi
Package: csh
Version: 5.26-10
Debian Version: 2.2r3
Kernel: 2.2.17
Our test system makes strong use of the "set" command to get a
list of files to test against. Using our previous version of Debian,
Debian 2.1, this worked quite nicely. Using this construct on other
Linux distribution
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk ?crivait:
> > Sorry, but these are "serious" bugs. We want to have /usr/doc symlinks for
> > _all_ our packages in woody.
>
> I'm against submitting more & more RC bugs that are
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:29:26AM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> But what about a dh_fhs part (or what ever) of debhelper which would add
> these lines to the good scripts, and move /usr/doc files to there correct
> location. I mean, would it be usefull, or is it overkill ?
People using dh_* stuf
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:54:58AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Martin!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Here is a small stupid script to find packages owning a directory in
> > /usr/share/doc without its counterpart in /usr/doc :
>
> Lintian already checks for this.
Oh. Well. It's the second time in a
Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk écrivait:
> Sorry, but these are "serious" bugs. We want to have /usr/doc symlinks for
> _all_ our packages in woody.
Why ? What does it gain us ?
I'm against submitting more & more RC bugs that are not worth it
considering that we don't have
Hi Martin!
You wrote:
> Here is a small stupid script to find packages owning a directory in
> /usr/share/doc without its counterpart in /usr/doc :
Lintian already checks for this.
> It is impossible to do the same job by grepping the Contents-* files
> because the policy says "The symlink must
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>...
> > What do you think about this all, guys ? Should I report critical bugs
> > against the above packages (the policy says "must") ?
>
> No, please no. It's really too much nitpicking here, those bugs aren't
> so important. All the packages are stil
Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:48:14AM +0200, Martin Quinson écrivait:
> I think we could make a dh_fhs, which insert the code fragment given in the
> policy in the files, and move anything still in /usr/doc or /usr/man to
> /usr/share.
Why ? debhelper does already do all this stuff.
> What do you th
Hello,
I've seen a lot of effort to remove all files from /usr/doc in profit to
/usr/share/doc, but nobody trying to enforce the part "13.4 Accessing the
documentation" of the policy. It is written "each package must maintain a
symlink /usr/doc/package that points to the new location of its
docume
18 matches
Mail list logo
