Package: crm114
Version: 2002-11-26-2
Severity: grave
I get this:
bash-2.05b$ crm114 /usr/share/crm114/procmailfilter.crm
*** FATAL ERROR ***
Couldn't open the file: /usr/share/crm114/procmailfilter.crm
Sorry, but I can't recover from that. Bye.
(this happened at line 0 of file /usr/
roleplaying_2.0-10_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
roleplaying_2.0-10.dsc
roleplaying_2.0-10.diff.gz
roleplaying_2.0-10_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
Accepted:
roleplaying_2.0-10.diff.gz
to pool/main/r/roleplaying/roleplaying_2.0-10.diff.gz
roleplaying_2.0-10.dsc
to pool/main/r/roleplaying/roleplaying_2.0-10.dsc
roleplaying_2.0-10_i386.deb
to pool/main/r/roleplaying/roleplaying_2.0-10_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debi
> --- /usr/share/doc/megahal/examples/Hal.pm 2000-09-01 13:36:58.0
> -0400
> +++ Hal.pm 2004-01-07 16:04:26.0 -0500
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
> # Save brain.
> sub save {
> $wselect->can_write();
> - syswrite(WRITE,"#save\n\n",8);
> + syswrite(WRITE,"#quie
Hi,
Le Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0500, Matt Behrens écrivait:
> Package: megahal
> Version: 9.0.3-7
>
> When the example bot saves, megahal says something random. That
> appears to stick in the buffer and the bot begins responding not
> to the current query but the query immediately befor
xwave_0.6+2-9_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xwave_0.6+2-9.dsc
xwave_0.6+2-9.diff.gz
xwave_0.6+2-9_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
Accepted:
xwave_0.6+2-9.diff.gz
to pool/main/x/xwave/xwave_0.6+2-9.diff.gz
xwave_0.6+2-9.dsc
to pool/main/x/xwave/xwave_0.6+2-9.dsc
xwave_0.6+2-9_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xwave/xwave_0.6+2-9_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 170005
Thank you for you
Your message dated Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:02:22 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#170005: fixed in xwave 0.6+2-9
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
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:14:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Why is a pure virtual build-depends a serious bug?
> > Could you please point out the section of policy?
>
> Forget the pure virtual bit - nothing in unstable provide
9 matches
Mail list logo