Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: severity -1 important
Control: owner -1 !
On 8 August 2014 16:23, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Severity: normal
I type 'U', and get for linux-libc-dev:i386:
Some dependencies of linux-libc-dev:i386 are
On 5 August 2014 01:08, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Stanley Schade wrote:
I am running an up-to-date installation of jessie and recently found
that aptitude does not install the new init package automatically,
though it is marked as essential.
... which is what I would expect.
Control: forcemerge 498239 -1
On 30 July 2014 21:19, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Severity: minor
Doubled error line:
# aptitude install BLAAA
Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched BLAAA
Couldn't find any
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 22 July 2014 18:21, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Hi,
I actually ran into the following on Debian Wheezy, but then also was
able to reproduce this in Sid:
If I try
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 5 August 2014 09:02, Stanley Schade nood0...@web.de wrote:
Hi again,
Am Montag, 4. August 2014, 19:08:35 schrieb Axel Beckert:
Hi,
Stanley Schade wrote:
[...] aptitude does not install the new init package automatically,
though it is
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On 10 June 2014 21:32, Jose Antonio Ortega Ruiz j...@gnu.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Severity: important
I've got a local configuration file in ~/.aptitude/config with the
contents:
aptitude::Keep-Unused-Pattern ;
On 10 June 2014 04:58, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
One remark though about something I didn't notice with the previous
version:
aptitude doesn't seem to cleanly build twice in a row. After a
non-chrooted build with debuild and debclean afterwards,
pdebuild for the chrooted build
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: important
Tags: confirmed
Aptitude is often invoked using su or sudo for privileges to manage
packages. These are not required when calling some other utilities,
such as the pager (as in 'aptitude changelog') or reportbug, or creating
and accessing
On 2 June 2014 15:17, Matijs van Zuijlen mat...@matijs.net wrote:
A suggestion is made in the -done mail that would indeed alleviate the
problem somewhat (swapping user ids), but I see no follow-up bug to
arrange for this to happen.
Are you expecting me to file any follow-up bugs?
No. See
of aptitude-common. (Closes: #746960)
* Remove non-ASCII punctuation from changelog. (Closes: #745680)
* Drop apt-xapian-index to Suggests.
(and misc. upstream changes, as noted in NEWS)
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
On 2 June 2014 19:29, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
There are at least the following packaging changes which is not
mentioned in the changelog entry, but IMHO should:
* There's a new build-dependency on libxapian-dev. This seems due to
upstream changes. Nevertheless this should be
On 2 June 2014 19:48, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Will add:
* debian/control: New Build-Depends on libxapian-dev,
replacing libept-dev.
Thanks.
Uploaded (mentors.d.n).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 15 May 2014 02:48, Miguel Figueiredo el...@debianpt.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: n/a
Tags: l10n, patch
Severity: wishlist
Updated Portuguese translation for aptitude's program messages.
Translator: Miguel Figueiredo el...@debianpt.org
Feel free to
is reverted
until a simple mechanism can be decided upon, perhaps similar to what
happens with ~/.aptitude/config (only create if the path is within the
real users HOME, but even this has some problems).
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ
Control: forcemerge 675833 -1
On 18 May 2014 08:17, Daniel Leidert daniel.leid...@wgdd.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was trying to hack something together and found, that e.g.
aptitude changelog
On 9 May 2014 02:08, Stephen McGregor x...@stephen-mcgregor.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
the specific situation:
- [ already filed as #747406 against ruby]
-a ruby corruption is
Control: forcemerge 740750 -1
On 26 March 2014 22:37, Ralf Jung p...@ralfj.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Hello
when there are several versions of a package available, aptitude seems to be
confused when I ask it to install a specific
(Discussion started here:
https://lists.debian.org/deity/2014/03/msg00015.html)
On 12 March 2014 01:21, David Kalnischkies da...@kalnischkies.de wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:11:57PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:24:37AM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
commit
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 17 March 2014 03:34, Beatrice Torracca beatri...@libero.it wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: l10n patch
Hello!
This is the updated .po file with the Italian translation of aptitude
po4a docs (aptitude-doc-it and man pages).
On 5 March 2014 01:25, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
previously, I was able to do the following in aptitude:
1) Hit [Enter] on a package I wanted.
2) Scroll down, pick the version I want, hit [+].
3) Sort
On 3 March 2014 00:53, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Opinions about this?
I think that it would be nice and I wished for something similar many
times (default binding, not something that I would add and would have
to carry from
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-09 16:41 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com:
Another option would be to have them in after a separator, like
Information, Cycle package information and Changelog. In
On 3 March 2014 03:22, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
Is this bug still happening? I haven't experience it, at least
recently, in several systems that I administer.
I suspect this is rather to do with duplicate lines in the
On 3 March 2014 08:29, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2014 03:22, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
Is this bug still happening? I haven't experience it, at least
recently, in several systems that I
On 3 March 2014 08:21, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 0:12 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-09 16:41 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags 463510 + pending
2014-02-09 15:52 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com:
So I am going to remove reportbug and close that bug report, and then
investigate the
On 3 March 2014 00:38, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags 647474 + pending
Control: owner 647474 !
2014-02-09 10:43 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com:
But as I also said, I think that the way in which Daniel Burrows
On 3 March 2014 08:40, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 0:38 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags 463510 + pending
2014-02-09 15:52 GMT+00:00
Control: tags -1 = wontfix
On 21 February 2014 06:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
The reason why this is not straightforward, as far as I can tell, is
because there's no place where this information is saved.
Right.
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 10 February 2014 06:43, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I created the attached patch, similar to Josh's but moving the cache
if exists. I am fine with integrating Josh's patch as well.
I will merge Josh's patch after some
On 25 February 2014 05:43, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: normal
On a (deliberately minimal) system with bsd-mailx, nullmailer, and
libpcre3 installed, but nothing that actually depends on libpcre3
installed, and libpcre3 set to
Package: libapt-pkg-dev
Version: 0.9.15.1
Severity: minor
Noted on another bug [1] and no doubt observed by anyone who has read
the source of more than one frontend, libapt should contain a function
to generate a list of possible changelog URIs for a package.
Currently apt-get, aptitude,
user debian...@lists.debian.org
usertag 739854 + gift
thanks
Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact
de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain
enough information to implement.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 23 February 2014 18:42, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
user debian...@lists.debian.org
usertag 739854 + gift
thanks
Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact
de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain
enough information to implement
Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact
de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain
enough information to implement.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
from packages.d.o, which are
short and informative.
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
[1] aptitude: using '/section-descriptions' for names and descriptions
[2] synaptic: using gettext for names
[3] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/
[4] http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/8952
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 24 February 2014 13:09, Daniel Dickinson
csh...@cshore.neomailbox.net wrote:
On 23/02/14 08:00 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
As far as I know 'aptitude why' displays the first reason it can find
and for aptitude suggests are a reason. They aren't automatically
installed by it though (but
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
Yves Fischer wrote:
Dear Maintainer,
with commit Switch to cmake. Install full source. [1] you removed the
package libgtest0.
Due to this it is not possible to build google test projects in debian
the same way as using redhat linux, where a libgtest/libgtest_main
On 8 February 2014 23:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Thanks for raising this up and the recommendations.
Some of these things are obsolete already, but I addressed most of the
rest of the things, will be present in the new
On 9 February 2014 03:41, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: block 412830 by 463510
Control: tags 463510 + moreinfo
Hi,
I was pondering about this and I am leaning towards accepting the
suggestion in #463510 and remove the option to run reportbug
On 9 February 2014 03:47, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
I am considering doing this, but even if relatively simple, it would
be quite a lot of work documenting it, adding hints in --help, even
deciding the best short names and
Control: tags -1 = confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 9 February 2014 09:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
forcemerge 647474 720074
severity 647474 minor
owner 647474 !
tags 647474 + patch moreinfo
stop
Hi,
The problem was introduced here in 2007, after a
On 6 February 2014 06:37, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-05 00:56:26 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better
options, such as adjusting the default value of
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to account
On 3 February 2014 17:46, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-03 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
Control: tags -1 - pending
On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Fix
On 2 February 2014 14:56, Chris Tillman toff.till...@gmail.com wrote:
Tags: patch
I think the root of the problem (removing being preferential to upgrading
in Aptitude's worldview) is that the safe-level and remove-level default
scores are the same.
Hi
Thanks for your interest and patch.
On 1 February 2014 23:25, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-31 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading
The safety cost levels are not intended to fine tune the results.
They are a broad base to start from. There are other parameters for
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to provide tweaking (e.g. 3 *
removals + installs). Details are in the manual, where I think it is
quite clear.
More
On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 01:29:30 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally better or worse about either removals
or installs, in some situations you might find this:
solution 1: upgrade 20 packages
solution 2
To begin chasing down a real, workable solution:
The default SolutionCost is safety, priority. I suspect the main
problem here may be due to the unintended interactions of priority
when there are/aren't removals involved, but do not have time to
investigate further just yet *hint*.
--
To
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
[Waiting on feedback whether this is still an issue on the new
changelog service run by ftp-master.]
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading the
Control: tags -1 - pending
On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Fix commited, it will be included in the next release if no problem is
found with the fix.
Rogier rogier...@gmail.com wrote:
When trying to install aptitude on a non-native architecture, installation
fails because not suitable installation candidates are found for some
dependencies, in particular for aptitude-common:
[shell transcript]
I assume a simple 'Multi-Arch: foreign'
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading the files from the
target distribution, when the first attempt to get by package name and
version fails, e.g.:
experimental_changelog
and will
make this issue with State more prominent again. The issue will be
tended to in a continuation of that work.
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/687474
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
On 1 February 2014 13:58, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
The concern being that it is misleading to report not installed for
upgrades, though it may be technically correct, in a sense. It has been
suggested to make things more clear by changing the state field to say
not installed
On 24 January 2014 18:06, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-24 02:38 Daniel Hartwig:
This issue and other inconsistencies in the command line interface
will be addressed by an extensive work I have in progress to
restructure that module, using new tools
On 24 January 2014 05:11, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I am not sure if it's better to leave this open or close
it. Realistically, I don't think that this is going to be fixed,
Not immediately, but that is no reason to close it off. There is real
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dan Jacobson jida...@jidanni.org
To: Debian Bug Tracking System sub...@bugs.debian.org
Cc:
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:01:49 +0800
Subject: aptitude: not installed not noted upon purge
# aptitude purge libgd2-xpm
...
The following
/usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/en/index.html with HTML 4.01
Transitional document type...
No errors!
It seems to have been fixed in this commit, present in 0.6.8:
commit 59d734c9028463c8b436851960195f8c69ef0693
Author: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date
On 1 August 2013 15:52, Axel Stammler a...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
The final sources line (localhost) refers to my own collection of scripts,
which I have
used for a long time. It worked without problems under Squeeze.
Do you also get this error when using apt-get?
-- sources.list:
Control: severity -1 normal
On 29 July 2013 13:45, Axel Stammler a...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
_Every_ time I call Aptitude with the install option, I get a message like
WARNING: untrusted versions of the
Control: block 716828 by 716944
On 24 July 2013 19:03, Lifeng Sun lifong...@gmail.com wrote:
[aptitude] suffers another FTBFS bug [6].
The current versions of google-mock and gtest in unstable are
incompatible with each other. As google-mock relies on gtest,
aptitude will continue to FTBFS
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: merge -1 686124
On 19 July 2013 17:42, Lorenz H-S lorenz-...@lgh-alumni.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
upon choosing Views - New Categorical Browser in aptitude's ncurses inferace,
it crashes
On 17 July 2013 01:16, Uwe Storbeck u...@ibr.ch wrote:
Hi Daniel
APT::Get::Purge should not have any effect in aptitude. Its name
indicates it is only used by apt-get.
Oh, I always thought aptitude inherits apt settings ...
Options in the APT namespace, yes, and some others, but APT::Get
Package: google-mock
Version: 1.6.0-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
gtest is recently bumped to 1.7.0~svn20130629-2 [1]. The 1.6.0
release of googlemock is incompatible with this, though r437 [2] is.
Please upload that version to keep the packages functional.
I appreciate that you do not
Control: merge -1 568876
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 16 July 2013 01:07, Uwe Storbeck u...@ibr.ch wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I have set APT::Get::Purge and Aptitude::Purge-Unused to true.
Aptitude normally honors these settings when
On 3 July 2013 15:54, Harald Dunkel harald.dun...@aixigo.de wrote:
Hi folks,
please note that I don't want to loose the information which
packages have been downgraded on purpose. I just want to _list_
these packages.
Maybe a new search option could help?
This is almost equivalent to
On 2 July 2013 10:56, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'd like some more information regarding these two bugs, where Boost
has defined but not used a local typedef.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:24:20AM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
severity 710210 serious
severity 710211
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 27 June 2013 01:12, Илья Мыльница mylntsa.ilya...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
When I try to append %r escape to format of status line it crashes and
prints Ouch! Got SIGSEGV, dying..\nSegmentation fault and does it every
next running,
On 29 June 2013 17:57, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Please list the steps used to downgrade the package.
Select a package, press v, press + on the package in Testing,
press g 2x.
After the package has been downgraded, exit aptitude. Start aptitide
again
On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list.
Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to testing (e.g.
cryptsetup), then
aptitude search ~U
or aptitude search
On 29 June 2013 16:14, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list.
Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to testing (e.g
Control: severity -1 minor
Control: merge -1 590308
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 24 June 2013 02:03, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
[This experimental version has been withdrawn, I recommend you
downgrade to the latest in unstable.]
# aptitude -o
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
On 24 June 2013 03:18, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Man page says
Similarly, to select a package from a particular archive, append
/archive to the package name: for instance,
On 16 June 2013 16:12, Bill Blough de...@blough.us wrote:
As a followup to my previous message -
When running
apt-get source package
It appears that package needs to be a binary package name, not a
source package name. This makes my earlier observation about the deb
entries make a
On 15 June 2013 07:11, David Kalnischkies kalnischkies+deb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
* Add some kind of profile support, so I can tell apt when it'm in a
bandwidth constrained environment.
You can build a config file and load it
severity 710210 serious
severity 710211 serious
severity 710253 serious
--
On 13 June 2013 20:51, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters).
Raising severity of these
On 2 June 2013 11:13, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
The latter should work just like
# aptitude why bluetooth bluez bluez-compat libbluetooth3
i bluetooth Suggests bluez-cups
p bluez-cupsDepends cups
p cups Suggests hplip
p hplip Suggests python-notify
i
On 2 June 2013 10:42, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 09:25 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Do you have any complaint with the current drawing of tree nodes,
other than “its not the precise unicode graphing characters”?
Well not compliant... it's just
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote:
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/foo.list contains something like:
deb https://$USER:$PASSWD@$MIRROR internal main
and because of confidential information ($USER/$PASSWD) the file is
read-only for root (600).
This is not a comment on the reported bug (not
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: aptitude-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear ftpmasters
Please remove aptitude 0.6.9.1-1 in experimental. It is decided for
some time to abandon this branch, we do no longer support it.
The next release will use a higher version number,
Control: severity 133481 minor
Control: merge 133481 -1
On 1 June 2013 23:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi.
It would be nice when aptitude would use unicode characters for the trees in
the
dependency
On 2 June 2013 09:10, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Hi Daniel.
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 01:03 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Unnecessary noise. Visual cues such as alternate colour are quite
attention grabbing and must be reserved for very important details
Hello Shirish
On 1 June 2013 11:29, shirish शिरीष shirisha...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Severity: normal
Can you reproduce this with 0.6.8.2-1? We are unable to support the
current experimental version.
$ aptitude search gnotski
c gnotski
On 30 May 2013 14:29, Justin R. Isaacson tombston...@shaw.ca wrote:
I understand the last post states that this may not actually be a bug,
but for some reason after running apt-get autoremove my debian 7 wheezy
became un-useable as it removed the wpa-supplicant, libre office, pulse
audio, and
On 29 May 2013 14:38, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Problems in Boost still cause aptitude to FTBFS with gcc-4.8. New
point release to be made available once these blocking bugs are fixed:
- http://bugs.debian.org/710210 in libboost1.53-dev
- http://bugs.debian.org/710211
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 25 May 2013 12:30, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2013 17:52, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org wrote:
Package: distcc
Version: 3.2~rc1-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
it seems the distcc build leaks daemons during its build.
This breaks buildds
3ce917993c54c3e84851cfc44e367ba51e97e54d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:35:13 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] make clone properly handle blocked-by bugs
* Debbugs/Control.pm (clone_bug): Ensure that each new bug is
correctly blocked-by the same bugs
On 28 May 2013 20:17, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 3 May 2013 04:56, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
I have now tried building aptitude using ubuntu saucy chroot which has
gcc-4.8 and boost1.53. This resulted in the following build failure
Control: tags -1 - patch
Test suite requires further work:
In file included from ../../../../src/cmdline/mocks/teletype.cc:23:0:
../../../../src/cmdline/mocks/terminal.h:56:9: error: ambiguous template
specialization ‘make_sharedaptitude::cmdline::mocks::terminal_output’ for
Package: libgtest-dev
Version: 1.6.0-2
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream patch
Control: block 701243 by -1
Dear Maintainer,
googletest 1.6 and earlier has GEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_ that triggers
unused-local-typedef warnings with GCC 4.8. These are fatal for all
users of -Werror e.g. aptitude.
Package: libboost1.53-dev
Version: 1.53.0-4
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream patch
Control: block 701243 by -1
Dear Maintainer,
Boost 1.53 and earlier have a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT macro that generates
unused-local-typedef warnings with GCC 4.8. These are fatal for all
users of -Werror.
This was
~rc1-2) experimental; urgency=low
[ Daniel Hartwig ]
* do not run tests in parallel
* debian/patches:
- 12_test-debian.patch: NoDetachDaemon_Case is broken and leaves an
orphaned process; disabled to keep buildd happy (Closes: #709169)
- 14_test-reliability.patch: improve
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 21 May 2013 17:52, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org wrote:
Package: distcc
Version: 3.2~rc1-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
it seems the distcc build leaks daemons during its build.
This breaks buildds that try to build it since schroot is
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: merge 360338 -1
On 23 May 2013 23:41, Sebastian Dalfuß s...@sedf.de wrote:
Hello.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:50:08PM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
Could you please attach a screenshot of the window that breaks the
sources.list ? What steps will I need to
On 19/05/2013 1:09 AM, Javier Vasquez j.e.vasque...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Architecture: mipsel
After Today's (2013/05/18) aptitude safe-upgrade, aptitude segfaults
upon calling it.
I'm attaching the strace log when calling aptitude.
Please install
Control: severity -1 minor
Control: merge 691681 708409 -1
On 19/05/2013 8:33 AM, Abderraouf Adjal abderraouf.ad...@gmail.com
wrote:
Package: synaptic
Version: 0.75.13
Tags: Ubuntu, synaptic
User: Abderraouf A.
Why on package: synaptic 0.75.13 on Debian 7 i see Ubuntu?
I am on Debian NOT
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 15 May 2013 16:45, Ralf Jung p...@ralfj.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
for around a month now, aptitude fails to download changelogs for many
packages,
including most (of not
Control: tags -1 - confirmed
On 15 May 2013 17:30, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
For a long time changelogs are accessible under
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/. As indicated by the new PTS
links these are now under
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs
1 - 100 of 572 matches
Mail list logo
