Hi Julien, hi all
On Di, 13 Nov 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > If the release managers agree I will upload the NMU, but it does
> > not make sense to upload a big NMU with lots of changes and then
> > it is not going into wheezy.
> >
> The release managers won't agree to anything without seeing
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:09:01 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> If the release managers agree I will upload the NMU, but it does
> not make sense to upload a big NMU with lots of changes and then
> it is not going into wheezy.
>
The release managers won't agree to anything without seeing what c
On Di, 13 Nov 2012, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Well, it sounds like that big set of changes is required to actually
> > fix this rc issue, so I would imagine the release team will approve.
> > It does no harm to put it in unstable anyway.
New packages
On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Well, it sounds like that big set of changes is required to actually
> fix this rc issue, so I would imagine the release team will approve.
> It does no harm to put it in unstable anyway.
Should I also take over the package completely?
Maintain
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> The 5 most recent uploads have been nmus and the last maintainer
>> upload was in 2008, which is likely why you haven't heard from the
>> maintainer. The package should probably be orphaned.
>
On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The 5 most recent uploads have been nmus and the last maintainer
> upload was in 2008, which is likely why you haven't heard from the
> maintainer. The package should probably be orphaned.
But the maintainer upload in 2008 was from mhatta, while now
th
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Hi, are you planning to upload this? It would probably be weird for
>> another DD to sponsor it since its your work and its a big diff.
>
> I didn't here from the maintainer, so I am hesitating
On Mo, 12 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hi, are you planning to upload this? It would probably be weird for
> another DD to sponsor it since its your work and its a big diff.
I didn't here from the maintainer, so I am hesitating to upload
such big changes.
What does debian-release say to an
> Attached is a debdiff, if someone has interest.
Hi, are you planning to upload this? It would probably be weird for
another DD to sponsor it since its your work and its a big diff.
Best wishes,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
On Do, 20 Sep 2012, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > I am currently testing such an approach, but I am not sure what is the
> > better option for getting it into wheezy ...
Did loads of tests now:
install from purged state: ok
update from old installed/unchanged: ok
update from old removed/unchanged: ok
u
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:34 +0900
Norbert Preining wrote:
> Ugg, well ...umpf ..yes it works..
>
> But I would suggest trashing all the maintainer scripts and simply use
> dh_installtex for the whole mess. That is the much safer alternative.
>
> I am currently testing such an approach, but I am
On Mi, 19 Sep 2012, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> I've create a patch for this issue, make latex209-{bin,base} packages
> piuparts clean. Could you check attached patch, please?
Ugg, well ...umpf ..yes it works..
But I would suggest trashing all the maintainer scripts and simply use
dh_installtex for
tags 669382 patch
thanks
Hi,
I've create a patch for this issue, make latex209-{bin,base} packages
piuparts clean. Could you check attached patch, please?
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
diff -Nru latex209-25.mar.1992/debian/cha
On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:25:03 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> now after latex209-base was fixed, the same problem shows up in
> latex209-bin. (That package was not tested previously because its
> dependency latex209-base had failed the test.)
>
> 1m13.1s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left files on
Package: latex209-bin
Version: 25.mar.1992-12.5
Followup-For: Bug #669382
Hi,
now after latex209-base was fixed, the same problem shows up in
latex209-bin. (That package was not tested previously because its
dependency latex209-base had failed the test.)
1m13.1s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left
Package: latex209-base
Version: 25.mar.1992-12.4
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on
the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/c
16 matches
Mail list logo
