Bug#361866: [PATCH 0/1] add dpkg solaris-i386 architecture support

2006-05-12 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 00:24:20 -0700, Erast Benson wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 01:49 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 19:42:21 -0700, Erast Benson wrote: And we need 2.11, to distinguish 8,7,9,10,11,12 releases. But I guess, presented dpkg-architecture.pl patch should

Bug#165843: Please localize perl programs as well.

2006-05-12 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 22:54:50 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:35:21AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: Yes, the po files will be split and will only get installed in the dpkg-dev package, I think you misread my question. I totally see that there should be two .pot

Bug#165843: Please localize perl programs as well.

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:40:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 22:54:50 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I think you misread my question. I totally see that there should be two .pot files, I only asked if we really need two directories for that... Two set of .pot files

Bug#31634: Patch

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
tags 31634 - pending tags 31634 patch thanks Hi. I've prepared a patch to replace 822-date with a simple wrapper around date -R for backwards compatibility. I think it would be good to apply that since 822-date is just an unessecary duplication of code in my view. The RFC 2822 which defines the

Processed: Patch

2006-05-12 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags 31634 - pending Bug#31634: dpkg-dev: use date --rfc-2822 instead of 822-date Tags were: pending Tags removed: pending tags 31634 patch Bug#31634: dpkg-dev: use date --rfc-2822 instead of 822-date There were no tags set. Tags added: patch thanks

Bug#318825: dpkg: fix erranous directory not empty warnings (other patch)

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:05:30PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The problem is that the packages in the removed-but-not-yet-purged state still contain empty directories, ones that don't contain conffiles. Above, for example, /usr and stuff below it should not be there for ttf-bitstream-vera.

Bug#318825: dpkg: fix erranous directory not empty warnings (other patch)

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:49:32PM -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I have an alternative patch that at least fixes the defoma/ttf-bitstream case. I haven't tested all the other packages yet. Comments and testing welcome. Cases that this patch doesn't fix include openssl/ca-certificates and

Bug#165843: Please localize perl programs as well.

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 08:59:24PM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 11:18:42 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:40:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 22:54:50 -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I think you misread my question. I

Processed: severity of 366178 is normal, merging 366178 348133

2006-05-12 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.19 severity 366178 normal Bug#366178: dpkg: Don't report unable to delete old directory when upgrade contains a file in that directory Severity set to `normal'. merge 366178 348133

Bug#318825: dpkg: fix erranous directory not empty warnings (other patch)

2006-05-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:49:32PM -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I have an alternative patch that at least fixes the defoma/ttf-bitstream case. I haven't tested all the other packages yet. Comments and testing welcome. Updated patch that also deals with the similar case on upgrade. Index: