On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:11:16PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> ..., or if he does not remember this note when he launches his package
> two weeks later, in all these cases, user won't have a second chance,
> this information is no more available.
good point. Okay, I'll add it to the README at so
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:16:57PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:11:16PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > ..., or if he does not remember this note when he launches his package
> > two weeks later, in all these cases, user won't have a second chance,
> > this information is
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:49:43AM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Pierre Machard wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:52:31PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > In theory, the "note" should only be displayed by debconf if the user was
> > > upgrading from one
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:24:03AM +0100, Pierre Machard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:52:31PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > In theory, the "note" should only be displayed by debconf if the user was
> > upgrading from one of the really old versions.
> > So if there is no need for the note, i
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:52:31PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:47:12AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > But you might debate that point,with the debian person who filed a bug
> > > suggesting that I needed to do it with debconf in the first place ;-)
> >
> > This had b
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:47:12AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > But you might debate that point,with the debian person who filed a bug
> > suggesting that I needed to do it with debconf in the first place ;-)
>
> This had been debated several times on debian-devel, see eg.
> http://lists.debia
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:28:04PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:52:43AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > Suggestions much appreciated.
> >
> > You should drop your debconf note, and put its content into NEWS.Debian.
>
> drat. just missed the packaging upload I did.
>
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:52:43AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Suggestions much appreciated.
>
> You should drop your debconf note, and put its content into NEWS.Debian.
drat. just missed the packaging upload I did.
But you might debate that point,with the debian person who filed a bug
sugge
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:38:32PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:37:57AM -0800, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a look at the kdrill package because it uses old-style debconf
> > templates without the po-debconf system. I was about to build a patch to
> > s
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:02:54AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Ok. Ok. Since the NMU did not get through, and the diff did. Could you
> please take a look at it?
>
I will be happy to do so. Thanks for the patch file.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
>
> well, since your packaged "bounced", I guess I'll submit mine then.
> but I'll fix that pixmap error first.
> Expect the updated packages to hit the queue in a few hours.
Oh, and just for your convenience, they are also at /home/jf
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:45:38AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > > > I cannot reproduce these errors, the .deb only spits:
> > > > W: kdrill: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
> > > > W: kd
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:45:38AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > I cannot reproduce these errors, the .deb only spits:
> > > W: kdrill: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
> > > W: kdrill: menu-icon-missing /usr/X11R6/include/X11/pixmaps/kdrill.xpm
> >
>
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:46:09PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> For the record, this was NOT an approved NMU. I was happy for you to do it
> previously, presuming you would show the changes to me BEFORE you
> submitted, as you did the first time. But this one missed two critical
> proceedural thing
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:07:30AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> @@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
> +kdrill (6.3.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=low
> +
> + * NMU (approved)
> +- Fixed lintian warning (boilerplate in debian/copyright)
> +- Added spanish po translation to test the po-debconf usag
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:15:04PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:33AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:38:32PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > I was about to upload it, and then I found that it got a plethora of
> > > linti
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:33AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:38:32PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > I was about to upload it, and then I found that it got a plethora of
> > lintian errors.
> >
> > W: kdrill: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link
> > W:
Attached to this mail is the patch with the differences between Philip's
6.3.1-1 version and the 6.3.1-1.1 version I've just uploaded. Since this is
an NMU, the bugs fixed by the previous version (#167374, #167375 and
#169979) should now be closed manually (#221831 should be closed too in
this bat
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:38:32PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:37:57AM -0800, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a look at the kdrill package because it uses old-style debconf
> > templates without the po-debconf system. I was about to build a patch to
> > s
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:37:57AM -0800, Martin Quinson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had a look at the kdrill package because it uses old-style debconf
> templates without the po-debconf system. I was about to build a patch to
> solve this, but I notice that this package is in a very bad shape:
>...
I
Hello,
I had a look at the kdrill package because it uses old-style debconf
templates without the po-debconf system. I was about to build a patch to
solve this, but I notice that this package is in a very bad shape:
- new upstream version 6.3.1 (07.02.2004)
- FTBFS since 20 Nov 2002 for a stupid
21 matches
Mail list logo
