Re: quantlib 0.9.9 is nine days old but has not been built on any arch

2009-12-20 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 20 December 2009 at 17:55, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | Hi, | | Sorry for the delayed response. | | On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 07:17 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > On 15 December 2009 at 19:40, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | > | libquantlib-0.9.7 has been removed from unstable. However,rquantlib is |

Re: Bug#557785: AW: Bug#557785: vzctl: symlinked config file: symlink overwrittenwhen --save isspecified

2009-12-20 Thread Ola Lundqvist
Hi Adam Sorry for the delay. Here is the debdiff you have asked for. It is a simple backport of the change done in upstream GIT. Best regards, // Ola On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:21:59PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [CC list trimmed] > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 12:30 +0100, Ola Lundqvi

Re: quantlib 0.9.9 is nine days old but has not been built on any arch

2009-12-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, Sorry for the delayed response. On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 07:17 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 15 December 2009 at 19:40, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > | libquantlib-0.9.7 has been removed from unstable. However,rquantlib is > | still not built on several architectures (it's waiting for r-base,

Bug#561713: marked as done (Please hint shorewall and shorewall6)

2009-12-20 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:39:50 + with message-id <1261330790.12102.1388.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net> and subject line Re: Bug#561713: Please hint shorewall and shorewall6 has caused the Debian Bug report #561713, regarding Please hint shorewall and shorewall6 to b

Bug#561713: Please hint shorewall and shorewall6

2009-12-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 14:43 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: minor > > It appears that both shorewall and shorewall6 are stuck and require > manual hinting for testing propagation. Please hint them. Hint added. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: SRM update request: gnash (Re: Any hope of an gnash update in Lenny?)

2009-12-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 17:47 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > would you accept a update of gnash via s-p-u with the attached patch for > 497633, severity important, causing ~/.Xsession of a user under certain > frequent circumstances to grow several hundred megabytes in a few days as one > can

Re: spu for vpb-driver 4.2.38-1?

2009-12-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 07:03 +1030, Ron wrote: > There's a bug in libvpb0 that can cause asterisk to crash when no > config file is present and no cards are detected. In that case the > card count is uninitialised, and random hilarity may ensue. > > It's been suggested that this warrants an u

Re: [SRM] debmirror: update because of change in main Debian archive

2009-12-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 20:54 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > The main Debian archive now has rsyncable gzipped meta files. > > This has caused debmirror to unnecessarily download the gzipped file after > first applying pdiffs, because the md5sum of the gzipped file created by > debmirror no longer matc

Re: Patch to fix GHC bug in stable

2009-12-20 Thread Philipp Kern
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:13:16AM -0200, Marco TĂșlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > a patch to fix bug #554069 in stable is in: > http://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~marco/64fix.patch > If you have any comments on the patch, please mail me, since I'm not > subscribed to debian-release. Please go ahead. Kind