On Saturday, December 25, 2021 4:39:21 PM EST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-12-25 16:25:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > So the -f option is needed *everywhere*.
> >
> > Certainly not a serious bug. I don't think building the package after
> > write protecting the contents is a particula
On 2021-12-25 16:25:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > So the -f option is needed *everywhere*.
>
> Certainly not a serious bug. I don't think building the package after write
> protecting the contents is a particularly supported configuration.
I am *not* write protecting the contents. I supp
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 3:43:24 PM EST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Control: severity -1 serious
> Control: tags -1 ftbfs
> Control: retitle -1 postfix: FTBFS Arch-All as rm on a write-protected file
> is interactive
> On 2021-12-23 11:12:40 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > there seems to be 'rm
On 2021-12-23 08:35:44 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Thanks. Fix staged in git for the next upload. It seems slightly odd to me
> that this comes up now as it's been that way since at least 2012.
Not really. Compared to postfix 3.6.3-1, "Rules-Requires-Root: no"
has been added to debian/contr
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: tags -1 ftbfs
Control: retitle -1 postfix: FTBFS Arch-All as rm on a write-protected file is
interactive
On 2021-12-23 11:12:40 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> there seems to be 'rm' missing the '-f', which makes the package fail to
> build from source if the
Package: postfix
Version: 3.6.3-2
Severity: normal
Hi,
there seems to be 'rm' missing the '-f', which makes the package fail to
build from source if the building system has rm aliased to 'rm -i'.
Since all other 'rm' calls in rules have a '-f' too, it though I'd
report it.
A patch can be f
6 matches
Mail list logo
