Control: reopen -1
Hi!
Andreas Beackmann reported an issue with the old config management fix
when the package is in config files remaining state (please see
#688435 for details), and provided a small fix for it.
I have applied the fix (please find debdiff between wheezy3 and wheezy4
attached)
On 04.01.2013 15:00, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Andreas Beackmann reported an issue with the old config management
fix
when the package is in config files remaining state (please see
#688435 for details), and provided a small fix for it.
I have applied the fix (please find debdiff between wheezy3
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 19:46 +0100, Hector Romojaro wrote:
El dom, 09-12-2012 a las 16:52 +, Adam D. Barratt escribió:
Apologies for the long delay in getting back to you about this; it
managed to slip under the radar somehow. Please go ahead with the
upload; thanks.
It is Ok, thanks
El dom, 09-12-2012 a las 16:52 +, Adam D. Barratt escribió:
Apologies for the long delay in getting back to you about this; it
managed to slip under the radar somehow. Please go ahead with the
upload; thanks.
It is Ok, thanks for taking a look at this and accepting the changes.
I have
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 16:57 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
I have fixed the postinst permission issue, the postrm aolserver call
and now the local config modifications are authoritative and debconf
values are overwritten with them at the beginning of the config script.
debdiff between testing
Hi,
I have fixed the postinst permission issue, the postrm aolserver call
and now the local config modifications are authoritative and debconf
values are overwritten with them at the beginning of the config script.
debdiff between testing version (2.5.0+dfsg6) and this new one (2.5.0
Ping?
Been trying to make some time to do the modifications so the config file
is taken as the authoritative source (instead of debconf), and upload a
new version of the package.
Will do it in the next few days.
Regards,
Héctor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 20:10 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 04:16:22 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Now, i realise that i'm assuming that the user should only use debconf
to modify these changes (database settings, via package reconfigure),
should i give the user the
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 04:16:22 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Only the changes between the lines ## Debconf changes (DO NOT EDIT
BYHAND) ## and ## End Debconf Changes ### are
overwritten.
The idea behind this was:
- If the file wasn't modified by the user, then the upgrade
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Control: retitle -1 unblock: dotlrn/2.5.0+dfsg-6+wheezy2
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 01:38 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
I have uploaded the new version containing the fix for the new RC bug
previously mentioned to svn, and asked for upload to t-p-u to my
sponsor[1].
Thanks. btw, I'm assuming these issues also apply to the package in
unstable? If so then they should really be fixed there too.
Yes, once the solution is definitive i'll apply the changes to
unstable, otherwise it will break on the upgrade. Openacs package has
the same issues so it will be
The package does not appear to ever use ucf to manage its configuration
files, nor is there any suggestion in the changelog that it ever did so.
If that's the case, why are the calls to ucf{,r} in the postrm to begin
with?
The ucf calls in postrm seem to be remnants of the moodle package code
Hi,
I have uploaded the new version containing the fix for the new RC bug
previously mentioned to svn, and asked for upload to t-p-u to my
sponsor[1].
About the bug and the fix, the problem was that /etc/dotlrn/config.tcl
was being modified by debconf on the install and, as it's marked as a
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 13:35 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Just waiting to see if anyone else has something to say about it, but it
doesn't seem the case.
Ok, i'll prepare the fix for #677060 and ask for upload to
testing-proposed-updates.
That now happened, but on reviewing it I have to
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 23:19:52 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Is there an ETA for the t-p-u upload being ready for review?
The package is ready and i have made the upload request to my sponsor at
the pkg-tcltk-devel list:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 13:35 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Just waiting to see if anyone else has something to say about it, but it
doesn't seem the case.
Ok, i'll prepare the fix for #677060 and ask for upload to
testing-proposed-updates.
Okay; thanks.
Is there an ETA for the t-p-u upload
Is there an ETA for the t-p-u upload being ready for review?
The package is ready and i have made the upload request to my sponsor at
the pkg-tcltk-devel list:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-tcltk-devel/2012-August/002078.html
Regards,
Héctor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Just waiting to see if anyone else has something to say about it, but it
doesn't seem the case.
Ok, i'll prepare the fix for #677060 and ask for upload to
testing-proposed-updates.
Thanks for having a look at this.
Regards, Héctor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 12:10 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 00:40:43 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Please unblock package dotlrn. It fixes an important bug (#677060)
and a minor patch issue.
Unfortunately, and I apologize for that, the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 00:40:43 +0200, Hector Romojaro wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Hi Relase Team!
Please unblock package dotlrn. It fixes
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Hi Relase Team!
Please unblock package dotlrn. It fixes an important bug (#677060) and a minor
patch issue.
Unfortunately, and
21 matches
Mail list logo
