On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I've prepared a QA Upload for dotfile, that fixes the RC bug against
> this package.
>
> You can find the new source at http://www.lichtenheld.de/debian/
> and I would be happy if someone would upload it.
A
Hi.
I've prepared a QA Upload for dotfile, that fixes the RC bug against
this package.
You can find the new source at http://www.lichtenheld.de/debian/
and I would be happy if someone would upload it.
There is also a bug to switch to po-debconf (#200115) but there are
some problems left
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
dotfile-doc is orphaned, but it seems nobody filed a bug about it in WNPP.
If you want to be the new maintainer, please take it -- retitle
this bug from 'O:' to 'ITA:', fix the outstanding bugs and upload a new
version with your name in the Mai
problems with this mail or the ddts mechanism, or if you think
this could be improved, please contact me directly:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for your attention.
#from: "Alexander Boehm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#packages: dotfile-doc
Description: Dotfile Generator mo
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#68092: ITA: dotfile -- dotfile generator (plus all the modules),
which was filed against the wnpp package.
It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Their explanation is attached
Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:25:13 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#91421: Package dotfile-doc still has at least one file in
/usr/doc
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Package: dotfile-doc
Version: 20010324-1, as in unstable on March 24
According to the Contents file for unstable, dotfile-doc contains at least
one file in /usr/doc/. That directory is deprecated, and policy section
13.3 says that packages should place documentation in /usr/share/doc/
instead
Your message dated Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:38:56 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closed in dotfile-doc 20010324-1
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 no
Your message dated Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:04:55 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closed in dotfile 1:2.4.1-1
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 no
Your message dated Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:02:49 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closed in dotfile 1:2.4.1-1
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 no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 89194 + fixed
Bug#89194: dotfile-doc useless
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Installing:
dotfile-doc_20010324-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/d/dotfile-doc/dotfile-doc_20010324-1.diff.gz
dotfile-doc_20010324.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/dotfile-doc/dotfile-doc_20010324.orig.tar.gz
dotfile-doc_20010324-1.dsc
to pool/main/d/dotfile-doc/dotfile-doc_20010324-1.dsc
dotfile
tag 89194 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:16:57 +0100
Source: dotfile-doc
Binary: dotfile-doc
Architecture: source all
Version
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
dotfile-doc_20010324-1_all.deb: priority is overridden from extra to optional.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package
Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 1.02-3.1 ==> 1.02-3.1: post-install error: couldn't read file
"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/english/bash/main.template"
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.47
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.47
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:01:13 +0100
Package: dotfile-bash
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 62109 + fixed
Bug#62109: dotfile should conflict with dotfile-emacs
Tags added: fixed
> tag 67560 + fixed
Bug#67560: Dotfile Generator can't read byte-compiled files.
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please con
tag 62109 + fixed
tag 67560 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:57:39 +0100
Source: dotfile
Binary: dotfile-fvwm2-ja dotfile-ipfwadm
Package: dotfile-doc
Version: 2.0-1.2
Severity: serious
This package is completely broken. First of all, an essential file
(dotdotfile.css) was not snarfed from the source site, which means the
html documents won't display at all in Netscape because they all link
to it. Second, it steals
Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message
has been received. It has not been forwarded to the developers or
their mailing list; you should ensure that the developers are aware of
the problem you have ente
Package: wnpp
Severity: important
Submitted: 19991128
The current maintainer of this package has orphaned it, but the package
itself is still on the distribution. If you are interested on the package
please send a short note to /this/ bug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) stating so.
Once you have fully adopte
Package: dotfile
Version: 1:2.4-1
I think, this is caused by paranoid umask-setting of root.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /home/juhtolv
% dotfile 5005 | pts/6
The Dotfile Generator version 2.4 Copyright (C) 1995-1997 Jesper K. Pedersen
The Dotfile
Package: dotfile
Version: 1:2.4-2
Severity: normal
dotfile-emacs has been removed from Debian. The changelog of dotfile says
about this:
dotfile (1:2.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream version. Updated upstream URL in copyright file.
The emacs module has been removed upstream
Your message dated 25 Mar 2000 19:54:18 -
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU dotfile 1:2.4-2
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 no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 60060 fixed
Bug#60060: dotfile-bash doesn't start
Severity set to `fixed'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:53:29PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> > Package: dotfile-bash (debian/main).
> > Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> > 60060 dotfile-bash doesn't start
> > [Will take out entire dotfile package]
>
> After reading the bugreport I think that ad
Le Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:53:29PM +0100, Petr Cech écrivait:
> After reading the bugreport I think that adding
>
> rm -f /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/english//bytecompile
> in prerm of all dotfile-* packages.
Yes, probably, please do it ... unless Josip wants to do it (he usually
t
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 11:12:04AM +0100 , Richard Braakman wrote:
> This is an automated message.
>
>
> Package: dotfile-bash (debian/main).
> Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> 60060 dotfile-bash doesn't start
> [Will take out entire dotfile package]
After reading
You have packages on the "bug horizon" list. They will be considered
for removal in 5 days, if the bugs are still open at that time.
If you do not think a bug is release-critical, then please downgrade its
severity.
This is an automated message.
Package: dotfile-bash (debian/main).
le should be bytecompiled at an older version and "no" at this
> > version. I wonder why the installation script didn't delete the old
> > bytecompiled version.
>
> Because it's not implemented? :) Try re-bytecompiling it, and then try to
> run it.
Yo
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 06:12:34PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Did you bytecompile it, for this or a previous version?
>
> I'm not 100% sure. But I think I did say "yes" to the question if the
> module should be bytecompiled at an older version and "no" at this
> version. I wonder why the instal
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 04:13:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Error in startup script: missing "
> > while executing
> > "set __children(thrdprompt__prompt)"
> > (file "/usr/X11R6/lib
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 04:13:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Error in startup script: missing "
> while executing
> "set __children(thrdprompt__prompt)"
> (file "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/english/bash/bytecompile" line 952)
> invoked from wit
Package: dotfile-bash
Version: 1.02-6
Severity: important
When I start dotfile in a xterm, after selecting the module 'bash', the
following error occurs. The modules 'fvwm2' and 'procmail' do start
without any problems.
bash-2.03$ dotfile
The Dotfile Generator
ge ---
Hi.
I'm the author of The Dotfile Generator, and I have just made a new release
of The Dotfile Generator. Is there someone here who would be so kind to
create a debian package for me?
The release is available from:
ftp://ftp.imada.sdu.dk/pub/dotfile/dotfile.tar.gz
Kind Regards and than
Package: dotfile-bash
Version: 1.02-6
Severity: normal
Upgrading 'bash.*' includes dotfile-bash:
Preparing to replace bash 2.02.1-1.4 (using .../base/bash_2.03-5.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement bash ...
Setting up bash (2.03-5) ...
(Reading database ... 55096 files and directories
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 12:27:15PM -0500, marvin stodolsky wrote:
> > I can't reproduce your problem with dotfile-tcsh 1.4-3.
> > Please e-mail me/us the output of this command on your machine:
> >
> > dpkg -l "tk*.*" "tcl*.*" | grep ^
Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I can't reproduce your problem with dotfile-tcsh 1.4-3.
> Please e-mail me/us the output of this command on your machine:
>
> dpkg -l "tk*.*" "tcl*.*" | grep ^.i
>
> This might just be another tcl/tk
Hi,
I can't reproduce your problem with dotfile-tcsh 1.4-3.
Please e-mail me/us the output of this command on your machine:
dpkg -l "tk*.*" "tcl*.*" | grep ^.i
This might just be another tcl/tk 8.2 incompatibility...
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Package: dotfile-tcsh
Version : 1.4-3
I downloaded twice and re-tried the install with same result below:
setting up dotfile-tcsh (1.4-3) ...
missing close-brace
while compiling
"proc promptWidget {default R widget} { ..."
(file
"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfi
Your message dated Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:16:43 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#52439: dotfile-procmail: Doesn't work at all (tcl error?)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Installed version 1.3-1. Works properly when bytecompiled. :-)
[this is CC:d to our release manager so he knows what's happening
regarding this bug in dotfile-procmail]
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 08:49:53PM -0600, Larry Lade wrote:
> From: "Josip Rodin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > GUI portion of program does not even appea
ECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:32:54 + (/etc/localtime)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:32:54 + (/etc/localtime)
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: dotfile: missing template (bash)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 52439 normal
Bug#52439: dotfile-procmail: Doesn't work at all (tcl error?)
Severity set to `normal'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
severity 52439 normal
thanks
Hi,
> Package: dotfile-procmail
> Version: 1.1-2
> Severity: grave
>
> GUI portion of program does not even appear. Spits out long error.
[snip]
I was not able to reproduce that error, it starts up just fine. Can you try
with re-bytecompiling that
Package: dotfile-procmail
Version: 1.1-2
Severity: grave
GUI portion of program does not even appear. Spits out long error. Other
modules of dotfile work properly
Output of stderr:
Error in startup script: invalid command name "-\"
while executing
"-\\"
invo
eived: from lists (helo=localhost)
by anomie.dhis.org with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1 (Debian))
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
id 11AmgW-0001Ym-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:53:16 -0500
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:53:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > The Recommends: dotfile-module (>= ${Source-Version}) is by itself
> > perfectly reasonable, because dotfile is basically unusable without a
> > module. And the newer the modules are, the better (some older ones may
>
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:53:16PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > Package: dotfile
> > Version: 2.3b2-1
> >
> > When using dselect, the Recommends dependancy on dotfile-module (>=
> > 1:2.3b2-1) makes dselect want to install al
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 10:53:16PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> Package: dotfile
> Version: 2.3b2-1
>
> When using dselect, the Recommends dependancy on dotfile-module (>=
> 1:2.3b2-1) makes dselect want to install all available dotfile modules.
> The conflict resolution sc
Package: dotfile
Version: 2.3b2-1
When using dselect, the Recommends dependancy on dotfile-module (>=
1:2.3b2-1) makes dselect want to install all available dotfile modules.
The conflict resolution screen doesn't give the opportunity to deselect
the unwanted ones. The net effect is
Your message dated Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:22:24 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dotfile-doc (2.0-1.2) fixes these bugs.
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
Your message dated Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:22:24 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dotfile-doc (2.0-1.2) fixes these bugs.
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
Package: dotfile
Version: 1:2.3b1-0.1
Severity: normal
Preparing to replace dotfile 1:2.3b1-0.1 (using
.../dotfile_1%3a2.3b2-1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement dotfile ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/dotfile_1%3a2.3b2-1_all.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/doc
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 04:34:16AM +, Lazarus Long wrote:
> Unpacking replacement dotfile ...
> dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/dotfile_1%3a2.3b2-1_all.deb
> (--unpack):
> trying to overwrite `/usr/doc/dotfile/html/index.html', which is also in
> package d
Package: dotfile
Version: 1:2.3b1-0.1
Severity: normal
Preparing to replace dotfile 1:2.3b1-0.1 (using
.../dotfile_1%3a2.3b2-1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement dotfile ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/dotfile_1%3a2.3b2-1_all.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/doc
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't remember if I announced it before, but I'll do it now:
> I intend to package new version of dotfile, which will BTW
> fix the annoying feature of the postinsts, that won't ask
> numerous times again.
Thanks a thousand time
Hi,
I don't remember if I announced it before, but I'll do it now:
I intend to package new version of dotfile, which will BTW
fix the annoying feature of the postinsts, that won't ask
numerous times again.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
t to
> autocompile the others as well - and the other way round.
Another good idea... ask the question, depending on the answer, touch
a file in /var/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/. In the modules postinsts proceed
if it exists. Delete it with the rest on purge.
Right?
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 07:15:28PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > Drake>I'd like to see anything that prompts unconditionally
> > Drake> dropped below Standard prioirity though. dotfile* come to
> > Drake> mind.
> >
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 07:18:48PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > What do you actually mean by unconditionally prompting - the
> > message for bytecompilation? What do you propose, to automatically
> > bytecompile?
>
> is there any good reason not to do that?
The only argument I see against aut
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 11:11:27AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> What do you actually mean by unconditionally prompting - the
> message for bytecompilation? What do you propose, to automatically
> bytecompile?
is there any good reason not to do that? or at least queue the job for
execution when dpk
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 07:15:28PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Drake>I'd like to see anything that prompts unconditionally
> Drake> dropped below Standard prioirity though. dotfile* come to
> Drake> mind.
>
> You're right, this is a complet
>>>>> "Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Drake>I'd like to see anything that prompts unconditionally
Drake> dropped below Standard prioirity though. dotfile* come to
Drake> mind.
You're right, this is a
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 10:32:54PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: dotfile
> Version: 1:2.3b1-0.1
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/english/bash/main.template which is used in
> dotfile.tcl is missing.
Say what? :)
joy:/usr/src/df> dpkg -S /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfi
Package: dotfile
Version: 1:2.3b1-0.1
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/dotfile/english/bash/main.template which is used in
dotfile.tcl is missing.
-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux herbie 2.2.5-ac4 #6 Wed Apr 7 20:44:49 /etc/localtime
1999 i586 unknown
Versions of the
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:34:58 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing fixed dotfile bugs.
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:34:58 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing fixed dotfile bugs.
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 no
68 matches
Mail list logo
