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
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 what
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
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
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 to
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
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Norbert Preining prein...@debian.org 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
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?
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 are at
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
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
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:34 +0900
Norbert Preining prein...@debian.org 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
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
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
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:
16 matches
Mail list logo
