Re: packaging jack...

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:48, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 15:19:38 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> But there is a point. If an application is expected to cope with >> missing functions at runtime, why not at compile time too? > > because the used implementation at runtime

Bug#578443: bristol: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: error: token ""i386|amd64"" is not valid in preprocessor expressions

Source: bristol Version: 0.40.8-3 Severity: serious Justification: FTBFS User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: kfreebsd Hi, your package no longer builds on kfreebsd-*. On kfreebsd-amd64: | libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/X11R6/include -Wall -g -I./../include/sla

Bug#568272: mplayer: Overwrites configuration file it generated itself

Le dimanche 18 avril 2010 à 22:51 +0200, Reinhard Tartler a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 19:23:52 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > >> Can you please send me the md5sum of the conffile that was generated > >> for you in the default install? I'll add it then to our maintainer > >> scripts t

Bug#578278: marked as done (aeolus - FTBFS: error: unrecognized command line option "-march=native")

Your message dated Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:47:08 + with message-id and subject line Bug#578278: fixed in aeolus 0.8.4-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #578278, regarding aeolus - FTBFS: error: unrecognized command line option "-march=native" to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: bristol-data_0.40.8-3_all.deb to main/b/bristol/bristol-data_0.40.8-3_all.deb bristol_0.40.8-3.diff.gz to main/b/bristol/bristol_0.40.8-3.diff.gz bristol_0.40.8-3.dsc to main/b/bristol/bristol_0.40.8-3.dsc bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.deb to main/b/bristol/bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.deb

aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: aeolus_0.8.4-3.diff.gz to main/a/aeolus/aeolus_0.8.4-3.diff.gz aeolus_0.8.4-3.dsc to main/a/aeolus/aeolus_0.8.4-3.dsc aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.deb to main/a/aeolus/aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.deb Override entries for your package: aeolus_0.8.4-3.dsc - source sound aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.deb

Processing of aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.changes

aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: aeolus_0.8.4-3.dsc aeolus_0.8.4-3.diff.gz aeolus_0.8.4-3_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ries.debian.org) ___ pkg-multime

Processing of bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.changes

bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: bristol_0.40.8-3.dsc bristol_0.40.8-3.diff.gz bristol_0.40.8-3_amd64.deb bristol-data_0.40.8-3_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ries.debian.org) ___

[bts-link] source package amsynth

# # bts-link upstream status pull for source package amsynth # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html # user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org # remote status report for #564852 (http://bugs.debian.org/564852) # * http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=det

Re: packaging jack...

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 15:19:38 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: > But there is a point. If an application is expected to cope with > missing functions at runtime, why not at compile time too? because the used implementation at runtime might not match the implementation that was used at compilation

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:21:07PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 19.04.2010 15:16, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Is the current status summarized somewhere in a bugreport or wiki page (not just scattered across multiple bugreports, as your earlier post might imply)? Reinhard has already taken

tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1_i386.changes is NEW

(new) tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1.diff.gz optional doc (new) tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1.dsc optional doc (new) tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1_all.deb optional doc TAP-plugins documentation Tom's Audio Processing LADSPA plugins Tom Szilagyi has written a number of plugins for LADSPA compatible hosts (

tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.diff.gz to main/t/tap-plugins/tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.diff.gz tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.dsc to main/t/tap-plugins/tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.dsc tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.deb to main/t/tap-plugins/tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.deb tap-plugins_0.7.1.orig.tar.gz to main/t/tap-plugin

Processing of tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1_i386.changes

tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1.dsc tap-plugins-doc_20040817.orig.tar.gz tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1.diff.gz tap-plugins-doc_20040817-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running o

Processing of tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.changes

tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.dsc tap-plugins_0.7.1.orig.tar.gz tap-plugins_0.7.1-1.diff.gz tap-plugins_0.7.1-1_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ries.debian.org) _

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

Am 19.04.2010 15:16, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Is the current status summarized somewhere in a bugreport or wiki page (not just scattered across multiple bugreports, as your earlier post might imply)? Reinhard has already taken the burden to summarize the issue in #522373. -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabia

Re: packaging jack...

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:00, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:10:37PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 19.04.2010 14:46, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: If a social problem then that seems a good approach. If really a technical problem I suspect it is better to go address the technical committee. From a technical POV the package in

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

Am 19.04.2010 14:46, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: If a social problem then that seems a good approach. If really a technical problem I suspect it is better to go address the technical committee. From a technical POV the package in NEW is just as fine as the one currently in the archive. I'd say

Re: packaging jack...

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 21:01:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:25:

Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:03:01AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:40, Reinhard Tartler >> wrote: === csound: = 1 Release Goals bug(s): - #414330   csoun

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:30:24PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 18.04.2010 19:31, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: Talk with me! - [...] Maybe we should take this opportunity and sensitize the new DPL with the problems we are facing as pkg-multimedia -- in particular the effectiv

Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:03:01AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:40, Reinhard Tartler wrote: === csound: = 1 Release Goals bug(s): - #414330   csound: FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD: missing OS detection   Part of release goal: kfreebsd-* as rele

Re: bits from the (newbie) DPL

Am 18.04.2010 19:31, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: Talk with me! - [...] Maybe we should take this opportunity and sensitize the new DPL with the problems we are facing as pkg-multimedia -- in particular the effective boycott of our work on the mplayer package, being stuck in the N

Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:40, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> === csound: >> = 1 Release Goals bug(s): >> - #414330 >>   csound: FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD: missing OS detection >>   Part of release goal: kfreebsd-* as release architectures > > has been uploaded on April 14,

Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 07:40:30AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > === Packages with a new upstream version according to DEHS: > > kmidimon 0.7.2 (Debian: 0.7.1-1) We have version 0.7.3 ready to be uploaded since 2010-03-10 in our git repository: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia