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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
10 matches
Mail list logo