Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Is this part of the diff deliberate?
.../...
> Well, there seem to be other sections of that file which were previously
> mixed French/English as well...
Yes, this is deliberate. The original man page usermod(8) was changed
for this release and the
Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> What can be done for bug #230677? It was a year since an NMU was done
> (march 2004). The problem is fixed.
>
> But since it was fixed by the NMU, it's still open as RC bug, and the
> package won't go to sarge.
>
> I think the bug should be closed.
You're right. I noticed that bug after I sent the mail.
Well, I'll try someone to help with another NMU, since bug #282274 is just
a small fix in the build-depeneds lines of the package.
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:16:04AM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
>> What can be done for bug #230677? It was a y
Hello Steve,
On 05-Apr-28 02:56, Steve Langasek wrote:
> by Debian, so I don't think it's fair to require that contrib java packages
> be buildable with any particular j2sdk package.
>
> By all means, please keep filing (and fixing) bugs so that we can get as
> many contrib packages as possible a
Hi Christian,
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 09:59:34AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> After a -sarge2 version which failed to make it to sarge because of
> one of the maintainers stupidity, we rebuilt a 4.0.3-sarge3 version of
> the package, which l10n and documentation fixes:
Is this part of the di
Hi,
lvm2_2.01.04-5 contains a single fix (for a FTBFS on amd64; #298762).
Please consider pushing it into sarge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:55:01AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Apr-27 23:07, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > Thanks for your bug reports, but you have to know that you can't file
> > FTBFS bugs reports about packages that are in contrib and relay on
> > packages that are not in Debian to build!
7 matches
Mail list logo
