On 02/06/15 18:29, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Tuesday 02 June 2015 10:07:30 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Quoting: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#severities
serious
is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a
must or required directive), or, in the
On Wednesday 03 June 2015 13:42:53 Tomasz Buchert wrote:
[snip]
Hi Sune,
will this [1] do the trick?
Build the package and check that no binary ends up depending on qtbase-abi-x-
y-z. If that's true, the patch worked.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's
On Wednesday 03 June 2015 17:05:42 Tomasz Buchert wrote:
On 03/06/15 11:18, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
On Wednesday 03 June 2015 13:42:53 Tomasz Buchert wrote:
[snip]
Hi Sune,
will this [1] do the trick?
Build the package and check that no binary ends up
On 03/06/15 11:18, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
On Wednesday 03 June 2015 13:42:53 Tomasz Buchert wrote:
[snip]
Hi Sune,
will this [1] do the trick?
Build the package and check that no binary ends up depending on qtbase-abi-x-
y-z. If that's true, the patch worked.
It
Le 01/06/2015 21:20, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
On Monday 01 June 2015 16:21:59 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 24/05/2015 20:46, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
Source: stellarium
Version: 0.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
I think the severity of this bug is overstated. There is no reason why
this should
On Tuesday 02 June 2015 10:07:30 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Quoting: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#severities
serious
is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a
must or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's or
release manager's
On Monday 01 June 2015 16:21:59 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 24/05/2015 20:46, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
Source: stellarium
Version: 0.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
I think the severity of this bug is overstated. There is no reason why
this should warrant removing stellarium from testing.
Le 24/05/2015 20:46, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
Source: stellarium
Version: 0.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
I think the severity of this bug is overstated. There is no reason why
this should warrant removing stellarium from testing.
Upstream is working on the issue, I suggest downgrading the
Update:
here is a change in the upstream repo:
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stellarium/stellarium/trunk/revision/7669
So, at least for now, they chose 2). However the author notes that the
code still refers to private Qt code, which means that the problem is not
really solved properly. He also
On Monday 01 June 2015 16:21:59 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 24/05/2015 20:46, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
Source: stellarium
Version: 0.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
I think the severity of this bug is overstated. There is no reason why
this should warrant removing stellarium from testing.
Hi,
thanks for the report. The upstream is already looking at this.
I'll also mention a relevant bug: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-3897
Tomasz
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Monday 25 May 2015 14:14:53 Tomasz Buchert wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the report. The upstream is already looking at this.
Great. My suggestion would be to go for KArchive on this.
I'll also mention a relevant bug: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-3897
Yeah. That's kind of what my option
Source: stellarium
Version: 0.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainer,
Stellarium has a copy of qzipreader/writer header files taken out of Qt,
and uses the internal, but unfortuantely available, symbols out of Qt
Gui. It can be directly seen due to the dependency on the internal qt
versioning
13 matches
Mail list logo
