Hi Julien,
Il giorno ven, 01/03/2013 alle 11.31 +0100, Julien Cristau ha scritto:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 08:00:27 +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
[...]
> > The next step is creating hylafax 6.0.6-5 as mentioned by Ivo De Decker.
> > Should I already prepare these updated package of hylafax now?
>
Hallo Giuseppe,
Giuseppe Sacco wrote on 2013-03-11 00:16:
> I checked your package diff, rebuilt the package and tested it. Then I
> uploaded it, so hopefully it should enter unstable.
Perfectly!
> Tomorrow I will also check capi4hylafax -19. If you still need a
> sponsor, I'll gladly upload
Hi Joachim,
Il 10/03/13 20.03, Joachim Wiedorn ha scritto:
Hello Guiseppe,
[...]
I have already uploaded this package to mentors.d.n for sponsoring. Do
you have time to review and sponsor this upload? If not I can write RFS.
See: https://mentors.debian.net/package/hylafax
I checked your pac
Hello Guiseppe,
Giuseppe Sacco wrote on 2013-03-01 10:44:
> The diff I'll use is almost what Ivo suggested in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/12/msg00886.html
Until now I haven't your updated package. So I have made one with the
following debdiff (see attached file). And I have alr
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 08:00:27 +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> Hello Julien,
>
> Julien Cristau wrote on 2013-02-28 22:11:
>
> >> This version 3:6.0.6-5 should be uploaded to unstable.
>
> > is there an ETA for that new upload?
>
> At first we need an updated version of capi4hylafax to solve
Il giorno ven, 01/03/2013 alle 08.00 +0100, Joachim Wiedorn ha scritto:
[...]
> The next step is creating hylafax 6.0.6-5 as mentioned by Ivo De Decker.
> Should I already prepare these updated package of hylafax now?
I have been waiting for capi4hylafax being accepted, but now I think
I'll packag
Hello Julien,
Julien Cristau wrote on 2013-02-28 22:11:
>> This version 3:6.0.6-5 should be uploaded to unstable.
> is there an ETA for that new upload?
At first we need an updated version of capi4hylafax to solve one half
of the problems between hylafax and capi4hylafax. This new version is
a
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 00:12:57 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi Joachim,
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:39:27PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> > a) create the updated version 3:6.0.6-5 which is the same as 3:6.0.6-1
> >and then create the next version 3:6.0.6-6 which all needed patches
> >
Hi Joachim,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:39:27PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> As said I will try to update capi4hylafax because of this RC bug. If I can
> fix this RC in capi4hylafax, then I must move this bug to the capi4hylafax
> package before upload, right?
You should file a separate unblock
Hello!
Ivo De Decker wrote on 2012-12-22 22:35:
> As there is still an RC bug in sid, I don't think it makes sense to do a TPU
> upload for the other one now. I'm attaching the TPU fix for 682824 for
> reference.
As said I will try to update capi4hylafax because of this RC bug. If I can
fix this
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 22:35:33 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> It might be best to revert all the changes in unstable (since -1) that are not
> suitable for wheezy, and try to get a version in unstable that fixes both RC
> bugs in a non-intrusive way (based on -1). That way, the package could be
>
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:18:43PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > diff -ruN 6.0.6-1/debian/hylafax-client.postrm
> > 6.0.6-2~wheezy1/debian/hylafax-client.postrm
> > --- 6.0.6-1/debian/hylafax-client.postrm2010-06-20
> > 00:29:50.0 +0200
> > +++ 6.0.6-2~wheezy1/debian/hylaf
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 00:27:15 +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> Hi Cyril and Julien,
> this a diff from the version currently sitting in testing (6.0.6-1) and
> a possible upload to t-p-u (6.0.6-2~wheezy1).
>
> As you may see, I limited all changes to what is strictly required in
> order to fix t
Hi Cyril and Julien,
this a diff from the version currently sitting in testing (6.0.6-1) and
a possible upload to t-p-u (6.0.6-2~wheezy1).
As you may see, I limited all changes to what is strictly required in
order to fix two really important bugs already corrected in unstable.
If you approve thi
Il giorno lun, 01/10/2012 alle 10.23 +0200, Julien Cristau ha scritto:
[...]
> The BTS thinks #661482 and #682824 are RC bugs affecting the version in
> testing.
You are right, I am going to prepare and updated package during this
weekend.
Thanks,
Giuseppe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-re
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 09:39:50 +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> could you please explain why you would remove hylafax from wheezy (I am
> probably missing something here)? Isn't the package currently in testing
> good enough? All RC bugs have been already solved. If you think it is
>
Hi Julien,
could you please explain why you would remove hylafax from wheezy (I am
probably missing something here)? Isn't the package currently in testing
good enough? All RC bugs have been already solved. If you think it is
compulsory to fix these bugs on the wheezy version, than I may prepare
an
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 00:44:03 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hello Giuseppe,
>
> Giuseppe Sacco (18/08/2012):
> > during last month there were one seriuos and one grave bugs against
> > hylafax. Both of them have been fixed almost three weeks ago while
> > upting the package with some change
Hello Giuseppe,
Giuseppe Sacco (18/08/2012):
> during last month there were one seriuos and one grave bugs against
> hylafax. Both of them have been fixed almost three weeks ago while
> upting the package with some changes due to better use debconf.
>
> The list of diff is not that long, and is
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Hi,
during last month there were one seriuos and one grave bugs against
hylafax. Both of them have been fixed almost three weeks ago while
upting the package with some changes due to better
20 matches
Mail list logo