On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:57:21PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 01 Aug 2011, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Please don't overreact. Upstream has a fine mechanism to record
>> licenses of packages and even individual files, and all we need to do is
> Individual packages, yes, individual files,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:21:39PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Am 26.07.2011 12:27, schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane:
>> Given that the true sources seem to have disappeared, I suppose we
>> could consider the .sty file to be its own source; it is a stretch,
>>
, "upstream" is TeX-live, not TeX-live's
upstram for latex-unicode, which I have not identified btw.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...texlive-latex-extra sources contain...
tags 578358 +upstream,fixed-upstream
severity 578358 grave
thanks
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:18:57AM +, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> Keys created / imported / having passphrase changed with gpg-agent
> 2.0.14 cannot be decrypted (and thus used), preventing all gpg
> operations. This has been fixed u
Hi,
It seems that xchat-guile is uninstallable on amd64 and hurd-i386 (in
unstable) because it depends on libltdl3, which is not available. This
would probably be fixed by a binary NMU rebuild, and would remove one
blocker for removal of libltdl3 in testing, among several.
--
Lionel
--
To UNS
Hi,
Could you please push xchat-guile into testing? It is being held up by
guile-1.8 (dependency) not being available on ia64, but this doesn't
keep guile-1.8 from migrating to testing, so it shouldn't keep its
reverse dependencies from doing so.
Thanks,
--
Lionel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
Are you guys aware that the fix for CVE-2008-0664 is kept out of Lenny
by "block" release hint by luks? I'm not sure what the purpose of that
hint was, but probably not to keep lenny vulnerable.
Note that I'll do an upload shortly to add French support back in,
which was accidentally removed
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:51:46PM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> On upgrading texlive in Sid, which no longer provides a dvidvi binary
> and now Recommends the dvidvi package instead, I got the following:
> Selecting previously deselected package dvidvi.
> Unpacking dvidvi (from .../dvidvi_1.0
Hat="dvidvi maintainer"
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 03:25:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> please update the unblock hint for texlive-bin
> (...)
> And also note that the fix for the RC bug relies on dvidvi_1.0-9
> entering etch (if it doesn't, there's a new bug "no dvidvi for
> texlive users").
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:07:46AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please unblock dvidvi 1.0-8 for migration to etch. I'm the maintainer
>> of the package.
> - The main use is to print an a5 bookle
Hi,
Please unblock dvidvi 1.0-8 for migration to etch. I'm the maintainer
of the package.
The whole background is in bug#411537. We realised that both
texlive-bin and dvdvi (source packages) shipped /usr/bin/dvidvi in one
of their binary packages texlive-extra-utils and dvidvi,
respectively. At t
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:40:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:52:27PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> I have reasons to believe that the i386 build of asterisk-chan-capi
>> was hosed in some way, because several people report that the
>> p
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 07:02:05PM +, Debian Installer wrote:
> Accepted:
> imp4_4.1.3-2.diff.gz
> Closing bugs: 408615
This will need an unblock hint; this is an RC bug (Debian Policy 3.5,
etch RC policy §2 ¶2, missing dependency on a package required for
core functionality).
Thanks,
--
Hi,
Disclaimer: I am not a maintainer of the php-mail-mime package, my
package just depends on it.
Unless vetoed by Jeroen van Wolfelaar (the maintainer), please
consider a freeze exception to allow php-mail-mime 1.3.1-1.1 into
etch. Thanks.
Reason: allows pure PHP5 setups without artificially p
Hi,
I have reasons to believe that the i386 build of asterisk-chan-capi
was hosed in some way, because several people report that the package
in the archive makes a segfault for them, but that the exact same
package compiled from Debian sources on their machine or on the
pkg-voip private autobuild
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:02:04PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> Please keep in mind that the upgrade path from etch to lenny needs
>> to work for etch r0 to lenny r0 as well.
> So I've understood, (...)
Anyway, vorlon has unblocked t
Hat: maintainer of Mailman package in Debian
Hi,
It has just come to my attention that there will be no upgrade path
from the version of Mailman in etch at this time (2.1.9) to the
version lenny will most probably have (2.2.x), but there will be an
upgrade path from the yet-unreleased 2.1.y, y>9,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:44:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:21:35AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>>> Stable release team, please react accordingly; you may for exa
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:03:06PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:02:06PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Martin Schulze:
>>> Imho, it's more useful to upload 2.1.5-8sarge4 and only bump the
>>> version number to get the new ver
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:44:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:21:35AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>> Stable release team, please react accordingly; you may for example
>>> do a binary sourceless NMU for the architectures that have
>
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:02:06PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Martin Schulze:
>> Imho, it's more useful to upload 2.1.5-8sarge4 and only bump the
>> version number to get the new version built for all architectures into
>> the archive.
> While you are at it, you could also include this patc
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:03:34PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> There seems to have been a screw-up in handling of mailman security
> and stable updates: There are two different mailman packages in Debian
> with version number 2.1.5-8sarge3.
> -8sarge3 maintainer update (tha
sarge3 the maintainer update.
Thank you in advance for your participation in untangling that mess,
--
Lionel Elie Mamane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
>> consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
>> number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
> (
24 matches
Mail list logo
