they
forgotten about? Because right now I either have to split them out
into their own tiny package, or hack them myself to make them
versioned. Any ideas?
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric == Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Eric I've packaged automake-1.6, and the versioned binaries and
Eric directories were a big help. But I'm a bit confused why the info files
Eric are not versioned as well
.
* The part of the distcheck target that checks whether uninstall actually
removes all installed files has been moved in a separate target,
distuninstallcheck, so it can be overridden easily.
* Many bug fixes.
=20
=20
=20
--=20
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL
--h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric =3D=3D Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=20
Eric Is this version backwards compatible with 1.6
, which
ony people who don't know enough about autotools (like me) will
experience, as everyone who knows will have upgraded automake already.
There is no more automake package in debian unstable. It has been
renamed automake1.4.
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL
dropping the
Front and Back Cover Texts requirements from the manual?
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W
would be.
Could you try?
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t
?
No. It is perfectly acceptable for a document to have no invariant
sections.
Could you please point out where the FSF have made this policy?
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-BEGIN GEEK CODE
* Ben Pfaff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Eric:
| Is there any way you might consider dropping the
| Front and Back Cover Texts requirements from the manual?
Sorry, this is the FSF policy
=~ /\.(.+)$/ $1 ne 'info')
+ if ($outfile =~ /\.([^.]+)$/ $1 ne 'info')
{
error ($filename:$.,
output `$outfile' has unrecognized extension);
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0
://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2006-03/msg00063.html
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
Index: configure.ac
to
something else, and should probably live with the consequences.
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
A debian user reported this bug. I'm not certain if this a bug in
automake or autoconf, but I would like your thoughts on it. Thanks.
--
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---BeginMessage---
Package: automake
Version: 1:1.10+nogfdl-1
Severity: normal
Hello
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/10/2012 12:14 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
Are older versions of automake also vulnerable?
Yes, all those back to 1.4 (at least). Sorry for not stating that
explicitly.
Awesome :) Is there a diff or git commit I can look
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/10/2012 12:40 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/10/2012 12:14 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
Are older versions of automake also vulnerable?
Yes, all those back to 1.4
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/10/2012 12:14 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
Are older versions of automake also vulnerable?
Yes, all those back to 1.4 (at least). Sorry for not stating that
explicitly.
So I'm not obviously finding this vulnerability
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/12/2012 08:23 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/10/2012 12:14 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
Are older versions of automake also vulnerable?
Yes, all those back to 1.4
upstream.
I didn't write the patch but I expect that's what happened.
So, Debian developers: sorry for the confusion, and please accept my
apologies.
No worries.
Thanks,
Stefano
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description
;
- An entry in the NEWS file of 1.13.2.
- ??? (suggestions welcome)
-*-*-
Feedback, opinions, objections?
Regards,
Stefano
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
it to us ASAP (and try to fix
your environment as well).
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Eric Dorland (e...@debian.org) wrote:
Hi Stefano,
I was just getting around to packaging this for Debian and I have a
question. Given the new versioning scheme shouldn't the APIVERSION (as
defined in configure.ac) be 1.13 and not 1.14? Or more precisely, does
it make sense for the binary
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland e...@debian.org wrote:
Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version
and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for
example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland e...@debian.org wrote:
That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding.
Can you elaborate why?
No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for
paranoia being the right
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
[Re-adding the list, sorry for the confusion]
On 08/12/2013 06:16 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi everybody.
(You didn't reply to the list, did you mean that?)
No, thanks
effort. (automake bug#20314)
>
> - The elisp byte-compilation rule now uses byte-compile-dest-file-function,
> rather than byte-compile-dest-file, which was obsoleted in 2009. We expect
> that Emacs-26 will continue to support the old function, but will complain
> lo
the conditional right here, as _AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT may be further
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
For any copyright year range specified as - in this package,
-that the range specifies every single year in that closed interval.
+note that the range specifies every single year in that closed
interval.
-
--
2.1.4
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/reproducible-builds/Week-of-Mon-20150406/001380.html
--
Eric Dorland e...@kuroneko.ca
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Herrmann <rei...@reiner-h.de>
> > ---
> > lib/mdate-sh | 6 +-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
>
> Applied with slight modifications in commit
> 7c25c996d1c7c212a5981aa0e9c4434b6f33f7b8
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca>
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
30 matches
Mail list logo
