Previously Martin Quinson wrote:
> It seems bad to me: It's a kind of dependency there, no ? But on the other
> hand, they just depend a recent dpkg to be installed, not to be used...
It is a dependency that might not be possible to be resolved by an old
dpkg: if it is a versioned dependency using
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Could you please tag them as "fixed" so that everyone sees that they
> aren't present in the current packages?
Euh, you want to mark bugs that might appear in the future as fixed?
That sounds like the wrong way around..
Wichert.
--
_
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> modutils 108934 forwarded serious
Already fixed.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> This bug appears to have been introduced when flag_unresolved_error was
> added in 2.4.7, and the trivial fix of making flag_unresolved_error a
> static and defining it out if the #ifdef should work perfectly (since
> flag_unresolved_error is not referred to outsid
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> This bug appears to have been introduced when flag_unresolved_error was
> added in 2.4.7, and the trivial fix of making flag_unresolved_error a
> static and defining it out if the #ifdef should work perfectly (since
> flag_unresolved_error is not referred to outsid
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> What's being done to fix this bug? When will it be fixed? Etc?
Waiting for upstream.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> This bug's already two weeks overdue, even given the extended deadline
> for fixing RC base bugs, and hasn't seen any progress. I'm sorry, but
> if we want to ever release we *need* a working base system, and really
> if we want it to be remotely timely, we needed
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> Could someone please upload a new modutils to fix Bug#106933? The
> explanation in the report appears to answer Wichert's request for
> moreinfo.
No, I still need the APUS specific configuration.
Wichert.
--
___
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> Could someone please upload a new modutils to fix Bug#106933? The
> explanation in the report appears to answer Wichert's request for
> moreinfo.
How nice of you to ask me first and also ignore other release critical
bugs in this request.
Wichert.
--
Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I'm not sure what the solution is for m68k...
Simply use an Architecture line that does not include m68k.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAI
Previously Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> If the general sentiment is what I think it is, then I agree: LAY IT TO REST
> ALREADY. Linux 2.0 and 2.2 are both obsolete. There's very, very little sense
> in keeping either around. I can imagine some people screaming bloody murder if
> support for 2.2 was r
Previously Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> to contact Brian as well. I'm posting to debian-devel now to ask if
> anyone knows what's up with Brian.
He is alive, He uploaded a package on Dec 3, and his last message
to debian-devel was sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Nov 4.
Big brother is watching you :)
Package: ntop
Version: 1.2a7-11
Severity: important
The clean target doesn't clean config.cache & friends which completely
breaks compilation on for example sparc.
Wichert.
-- System Information
Debian Release: woody
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux fog 2.2.16 #1 Sat Aug 5 16:56:48 PDT 2000 i686
Previously Christian Kurz wrote:
> Well, would this break the whole code? Couldn't we just define char to
> be signed to solve the problem?
No, since you have to be able to return all characters in the 0-255 range
as well as a seperate EOF-error. So you need 9 bits anyway..
Wichert.
--
__
Previously Christian Kurz wrote:
> And how would suggest this could be fixed?
Change c to be an int? getc() is defined to return an int instead of
a char for that very same reason.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signatu
hance of it working without evaporating
> people's crontabs ...
dpkg does do the right thing, I've done it once. Maintainer scripts
however certainly don't.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> Package: modutils
> Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 8550 kerneld start too late
This bug is obsoleted by 2.2 kernels. I'll close it when 2.2 becomes the
defa
ding all of them, otherwise
we'll never release slink.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpFAcf1wCxOq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t about the severity of this. The security
team will check this out on monday.
> sendmail 33152 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sendmail 8.9.3] [0] (Richard
> Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Fix in Incoming
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpoi19pvgi3u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
still a part of the dpkg package we
shouldn't need to worry at the moment.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://
tion of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpxT7hkRPshf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
etting a list of all those packages..
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpfg8syuwhgQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> libtool 32384 libtool: Correct detection of 'alphapca56' patch [0]
> (Frederic Lepied <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
In incoming (version 1.3-2)
> lyx 32299 LyX Copyright problems [0] (Stuart Lamble <[EMAIL
>
===
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpTKWo5LI5To.pgp
Description: PGP signature
slash instead of a dot. But now watch which packages you
list:
> autofs Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> bplay Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>et Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
