Might I first suggest that you upgrade as 1.0.6 is in the stable branch and
no new version upgrades will go into place while 1.1.0 is available now and
packaged in both Debian and Ubuntu (which you appear to be actually running)
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 3:00 PM Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Package:
Interestingly this appears to be a long-standing issue as I can't find any
version since Stretch that shows libesmtp-dev depending on libssl-dev.
Versions prior to 1.1.0 did not use pkg-config or Meson/Ninja build
system for that matter. This was the first iteration of the new build
system
There is already an upstream bug filed about this and potential patch
but I was reluctant to apply it as I hadn't seen any real comments on it
from upstream yet.
On 3/13/2018 5:31 PM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Package: python-paramiko
> Version: 2.4.0-1
> Severity: important
> Tags: upstream
>
>
Salvatore,
The patch looks clean and good. I'll get it imported into the Git
repo when I have a few spare cycles to do so, but for now let's let this
update go on through.
On 8/11/2017 4:45 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Control: tags 802658 + pending
>
> Dear maintainer,
>
> I've
I've taken a look at the diff of your fork. I'm about to be out of town
and away from my development box for the next two weeks in about 8 hours
so I can't do anything at this time... I'll let the NMU go through and
then pull your commit hash 96eb8e628c8e87200a208281e569523c8fb77bf8 in
and prepare
Upstream has been completely MIA for several years now. I've not really
checked to determine if there's actually anything dependent on libesmtp
and have contemplated archive removal as I am not taking over as
upstream and the project itself has appeared to be lifeless and I've
merely been keeping
Haven't reached out to confirm with upstream but as the website states
"Swift Mailer integrates into any web app written in PHP 5, ..." I'm not
exactly certain PHP 7 is a concern. I have attempted to build latest
version 5.4.2 under Sid following the suggestions in the ticket and the
package
such breakages as bugs.
Which is exactly as I stated... installation requirement change but no
API change.
On 6/8/2016 9:02 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> I've looked at the paramiko.RSAKey code for 1.16, 1.17 and 2.0 ... Aside
> from changing from python-crypto to python-cryptography I see no
>
still maintaining python-crypto in
their dependencies.
On 6/8/2016 8:12 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 03:33 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
>> Thank you for the report Thomas; however, if you'd taken a beat to check
>> or even contact the maintainer (ie- me) you w
DROID
On Jun 8, 2016 6:43 PM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2016 08:11 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> > Yes I already got the dependency switch from python-crypto to
> > python-cryptography addressed as well... Will you let the package
> > main
Yes I already got the dependency switch from python-crypto to
python-cryptography addressed as well... Will you let the package
maintainer do his job and you take care of your own? Thank you.
On 6/8/2016 2:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Actually, please use what's in Alioth, as it contains more
Thomas,
I already have the 2.0.0 paramiko packaging 99% ready to go. There
is no reason for an NMU by you as I stated in my earlier email message
to this ticket.
On 6/8/2016 1:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I've done a pull request for the paramiko package, and also uploaded
Thank you for the report Thomas; however, if you'd taken a beat to check
or even contact the maintainer (ie- me) you would have found that this
is already being worked on... That said I'm not bothering with
experimental as it's a released version of Paramiko.
Yes, I'd taken a slightly different approach but got to the same results
that you are currently getting. I have included your approach as it is
much cleaner than what I'd hacked together.
Still trying to get to the bottom of those remaining failures causing
the test to fail and the build to
I'll get the changes as they are now pushed up to the repository from my
working directory on my devel box... You'll have to generate a snapshot
debian/changelog (gbp dch -a -S) in order to build it as I won't update
that until I release it.
On 3/12/2016 9:55 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi
I've already been working on getting 1.16.0 packaged since Feb 15th.
As soon as I fix the FTBFS issue and have a package that can be uploaded
I will do so.
On 3/3/2016 9:34 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Source: paramiko
> Version: 1.15.3-1
> Severity: important
>
> Dear maintainers,
>
> I am
On 30.04.2015 04:19, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
Package: python-alabaster
Version: 0.7.3-1
Dear Maintainer,
The latest Sphinx release (1.3.x) depends on alabaster. Namely,
sphinx/theming.py has unconditional import alabaster.
Because of that, I am going to make python{,3}-sphinx depend on
On 12.03.2015 08:46, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
Source: alabaster
Version: 0.6.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
The latest version of Sphinx needs alabaster ≥ 0.7 to be built.
Can you please update the package in Debian to the latest upstream
version (0.7.2 was released two days ago)?
tag 769899 +wontfix +upstream
block 769899 by 661020
thanks
Due to the upstream being AWOL and CVE-2012-1198 not having any
published fixes that I can locate I'm just letting security remove the
package as they have done twice now and let the package die. I won't be
bothering to do anything
Package: gdm3
Version: 3.12.2-2.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Performed routine aptitude upgrade and had new version of gdm installed.
Shutdown laptop and upon restart was no longer presented with the login
greeter. Gnome environment would work by getting to shell and
On 27.08.2014 07:32, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
Hello,
paramiko 1.14.1 has been released yesterday by upstream, and
Jelmer's
patch has been merged by upstream.
Would you please package this version ?
Thank you for pointing out the obvious as BOTH Jelmer and I have been
following the
tag 721911 +upstream
severity 721911 wishlists
thanks
Thank you for this bug report; however, this is an upstream issue not
specific to the packaging. That said it appears that upstream is MIA and
I'm just maintaining stability of the package itself. Therefore I'm
marking this report as a
tag 698075 +pending +moreinfo
thanks
According to upstream this has been fixed in 1.12 and 1.14 is currently
uploaded to testing/unstable. Can you please confirm that everything is
working and if not provide more information to help diagnose.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 20.07.2014 22:45, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
Is there anything I can do to help get this into the paramiko
package?
It'd be great if we could get get this fixed in paramiko, as it would
fix
bzr's sftp support.
Cheers,
Jelmer
I'll take a look at it this evening when I'm back home on my
On 07/07/2014 04:56 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
tags 750517 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for paramiko (versioned as 1.14.0-2.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/10. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Kind regards,
Jelmer Vernooij
Jelmer,
On 07.07.2014 07:37, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:45:34AM -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
On 07/07/2014 04:56 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
tags 750517 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for paramiko (versioned as 1.14.0-2.1) and
uploaded
On 06/29/2014 01:05 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
With the conversion to Debhelper compat level 9, multiarch directories
are passed when running dh_auto_configure for --libdir and
--libexecdir, so the paths used to install the files needs some
adjustment.
Attached is
On 06/03/2014 10:02 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
Package: python-paramiko
Version: 1.14.0-1
Severity: normal
As of recently, paramiko no longer accepts buffer() objects as argument to
BufferedFile.write. Rather, it requires that all arguments be either
bytestrings or unicode strings. This
On 27.05.2014 11:13, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Package: python-paramiko
Version: 1.14.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi there!
First, it was nice to see you in Atlanta! And thanks for uploading
paramiko 1.14.0.
Now, the reason why we required version 1.13.0, is because it adds
support for Python 3. In
On 05/11/2014 09:16 PM, d...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:54:57PM -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
If this work was not done through the very public, very accessible Git repo
that is used to manage the package then it has wasted your time and made
mine harder as I've already been
On 05/11/2014 10:33 PM, d...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 09:37:21PM -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
https://github.com/jbouse-debian/paramiko/commits/master
i saw http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/paramiko.git
from p.q.d.o information. i did not know you worked
On 09.05.2014 09:48, d...@debian.org wrote:
tags 718004 + patch
tags 718004 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for paramiko (versioned as 1.10.1-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
If this work was not done through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
This is quickly going to be a major issue for anyone running a public
SKS server like myself. Due to the vulnerability fixed by 1.1.5 this
is now becoming the minimum version and hosts not running it will
begin to be dropped from the
On 04/08/2014 04:39 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
It's now been more than 3 weeks that you said you've already been
working on the updated packaging for awhile. Did you make any progress?
Is there anything that I could do to help speed-up the process of
updating to version 1.13.0, so that
On 18.03.2014 02:09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Package: python-paramiko
Version: 1.10.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
There's a new upstream release 1.13.0 in PyPi, and OpenStack will
soon
need that one (see: https://review.openstack.org/81132). Please
package the new upstream release.
Cheers,
On 18.03.2014 03:38, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to point out that version 1.13 upstream supports Python 3,
so
it'd be nice to upgrade to that version and add Python3 support at
the
same time.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
As stated in the other BTS report I've already been
On 18.03.2014 04:19, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi Guido and Jeremy,
As a reference, here's a debdiff for supporting Python3 in paramiko,
and
using the new upstream release.
Note that the debdiff changes a bit things in debian/rules, which
might
not be to your tastes. Feel free to cherry-pick
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hello,
As the current package maintainer I see no reason to continue having
this package in the archive.
There is currently no packages depending upon it as I can tell. The
upstream author and website
have been offline now for several years. There is
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hello,
As the current package maintainer I see no reason to continue having
this package in the archive.
There is currently no packages depending upon it as I can tell. The
upstream author has not released
an update in 3 years now. There is a current
:50 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Not my problem... You put the burden on me, I'm giving you the
burden since
you obviously took the time failing to contact me to ask and
ascertain
whether the maintainer might actually be in the process of doing
anything
with the package.
I read the bug traffic
Typically one would contact the maintainer before doing an NMU which
you failed to do. If you had you would have been informed that I'm
waiting on the new upstream maintainer to make the release merging
paramiko and it's fork that would fix most of the issues with the
current code base the
the bugs worked out of it before I upload it and
let you take over.
On 12.11.2012 21:18, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Typically one would contact the maintainer before doing an NMU which
you
failed to do.
Quite the contrary. The message you just
, the issues are
resolved in the new upstream release so as far as I'm concerned their
wont-fix issues in this version. But as I'm turning the package over
to you, do what you like.
On 12.11.2012 21:43, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Thank you
On 09.10.2012 15:12, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Package: paramiko
Version: 1.8
Severity: wishlist
Hi Jeremy, hi Guido,
please note that Python Paramiko from version 1.8 on will have a new
upstream author:
http://bitprophet.org/blog/2012/09/29/paramiko-and-ssh/
Having Python Paramiko 1.8 in
I would tend to agree with your assessment of the situation. I need to
go back and evaluate it all as I wasn't the one that added the patch, it
was done by an NMU without my involvement which is why I dislike NMUs
being done on my packages as they tend to introduce more issues than solve.
I'll get right on that when all other issues that affect functionality of the
package itself. I'll also be moving this to wish list priority.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
Touko Korpela touko.korp...@iki.fi wrote:
Package: python-paramiko
Version: 1.7.7.1-3
Severity: normal
Well let's color me (package maintainer) surprised that an NMU wasn't
fully tested and broke my package yet again. I'll dig into it when I've
got time and see if upstream has worked on addressing the original issue
in the first place.
On 07/19/2012 03:25 AM, Michal Čihař wrote:
Package:
On 07/04/2012 08:57 PM, Luk Claes wrote:
tags 668239 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for paramiko (versioned as 1.7.7.1-2.1) and
will have it uploaded soon.
Cheers
Luk
Any reason you felt that you couldn't actually follow the process I'd
already
In the future I'd point you to the Developers Reference Guide on NMUs
[1].
For starters as the maintainer this is the first mention of an NMU.
Second it doesn't appear this was uploaded under DELAYED queue. If that
was enough where is the nmudiff that was filed to the BTS?
1.
severity 590711 minor
tags 590711 upstream
forwarded 590711 robeypoin...@gmail.com
merge 576697 590711
thanks
So did you even bother to check out the bugs already opened before
thinking I'll file another bug on this package ? If you had you might
have seen that the deprecation warning was
tags 569317 fixed pending confirmed
thanks
The issues were being caused with the dbconfig-common configuration for
the database. I've been working on repairing this along with some other
package overhaul maintenance and should have an updated package that
doesn't have this issue as soon
severity 589167 minor
thanks
Sounds as if your have the apt-mirror.lock file still existing in your
var_path directory from a failed attempt to execute. Apt-mirror will not
remove that file as it has no way to tell if it is actually still
running or not, that's for an operator to
tags 576697 upstream
severity 576697 minor
forwarded 576697 robeypoin...@gmail.com
stop
I believe this is partially fixed now that python-crypto 2.1.0 has made
it's way into the distribution mirrors.
r...@solitare:/# dpkg -l python-paramiko python-crypto
tags 586925 upstream
severity 586925 minor
forwarded 586925 robeypoin...@gmail.com
thanks
This issue is due to upgrades in python-crypto between 2.0.2 and 2.1.0.
Upstream has already been made aware of it and has an open issue [1] on
this. It also is along with BTS #576697 that was the
On 04/06/2010 04:53 AM, HennR wrote:
For everyone who is interested, here is the new bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576596
According to 576596 the issue in python-crypto has been resolved in
2.1.0-2. Does this issue still remain with paramiko? As I
forwarded 572960 libes...@stafford.uklinux.net
tags 572960 upstream
thanks
Brian,
I've had this bug [1] filed and given a grave status as it relates to
NULL bytes in the commonNames of certificates. I've not tried to dig
into it myself as I'm not that familiar with it but was merely
Hmm... And it will probably be resolved when I get a chance to finish
packaging up 1.4.5 which has the fixes already in it so not worth
patching an older version when working on packaging a new version.
Though the update will go to Sid so not sure when squeeze will get it.
Moritz
Looks good, I'll go ahead and accept and incorporate and get a
0.9.5.dfsg-6 release uploaded as soon as I get back home.
Carsten Hey wrote:
tags 571416 + patch
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for libgcgi (versioned as 0.9.5.dfsg-5.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/10. I
Is this already part of the 1.4.5 acidbase upstream code? I'm already
planning to work on getting it packaged this weekend and if it's already
included I'll wait and just upgrade the package than apply a patch.
Marc Deslauriers wrote:
Package: acidbase
Version: 1.4.4-3
Severity: normal
Yes, according to Python Crypto's upstream changelog [1] which the
Debian changelog [1] makes no mention of, there were API changes to
Crypto.Util.randpool.RandomPool so this will wait until upstream
paramiko releases a new version that is compatible with the new version.
If I rebuild and simply
Nussbaum wrote:
tags 571316 - unreproducible wontfix
reopen 571416
thanks
(You typoed the bug number)
On 25/02/10 at 15:50 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
reopen 571316
thanks
On 25/02/10 at 09:36 -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
tags 571316 + unreproducible wontfix
forcemerge 560580
/02/10 at 10:09 -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
tags 571416 + unreproducible wontfix
thanks
Doesn't change the fact I can't reproduce it and won't be wasting any
time tracking it down as it's unproducible. So until you can provide a
patch showing me it's the package and not your build system here
Could you please try to be any more vague or would it be too much to
ask for information that actually helps identify the problem other than
saying there's a problem. Otherwise it's just as big a waste of time as
a snipe hunt.
Vladimir Stavrinov wrote:
Package: acidbase
Version: 1.4.4-3
Then when is the release with the fix as we're not tracking CVS...
Kevin Johnson wrote:
This was fixed in the CVS for the main project. You guys might want to
check that out. :)
Kevin
On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Could you please try to be any more
be duplicate effort.
Kevin
On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Then when is the release with the fix as we're not tracking CVS...
Kevin Johnson wrote:
This was fixed in the CVS for the main project. You guys might want to
check that out. :)
Kevin
On Feb 11, 2010, at 9
were going to try and fix the bug, in that case I thought I
would provide you with a solution that was easier then building it
yourself. I guess I don't understand the work of debian maintainers or
your busy schedules. ;-)
Kevin
On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote
Kevin Johnson wrote:
On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
I don't have time to go tracking through CVS to figure out a patch
for the problem, that was not even mentioned in the initial bug report.
I agree that the bug report was vague and if it had been sent to me, I
would
will be releasing a new version as soon as possible from the main
project. I am not sure when that will be available, so maybe you should
switch until then.
Kevin
On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Vladimir Stavrinov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:56:06AM -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Then when
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi again!
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2010-02-01 18:19:31 CET]:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
An additional possibility might be to limit the scope of security support
to local, trusted users behind an authenticated HTTP zone. We're
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2009-11-27 19:30:47 CET]:
I am currently working on getting 1.4.4 ready to go and remove David
Gil from the package per (#551636)
Actually, I'm not sure, does this address Moritz' concerns, from a
security team's
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2010-02-01 16:12:06 CET]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2009-11-27 19:30:47 CET]:
I am currently working on getting 1.4.4 ready to go and remove David
Gil from the package per (#551636
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2010-02-01 16:12:06 CET]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org [2009-11-27 19:30:47 CET]:
I am currently working on getting 1.4.4 ready to go and remove David
Gil from
I suggest there might be something wrong with the amd64 build box
you're using as the buildd report [1] shows that 0.9.5.dfsg-5 was built
successfully Dec 12th. I've also re-downloaded the 0.9.5.dfsg-5 version
from the mirrors and rebuilt under a pbuilder chroot and it built
successfully
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/12/09 at 12:04 -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
I suggest there might be something wrong with the amd64 build box
you're using as the buildd report [1] shows that 0.9.5.dfsg-5 was built
successfully Dec 12th. I've also re-downloaded the 0.9.5.dfsg-5 version
from
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/12/09 at 13:02 -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/12/09 at 12:04 -0500, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
I suggest there might be something wrong with the amd64 build box
you're using as the buildd report [1] shows that 0.9.5.dfsg-5 was built
Just inquiring on state of the packaging effort as I use pnp4nagios at
work and currently I inherited the system with it installed outside of
packaging. I'm working on packaging up 0.6.2 currently on my own but if
there is no current effort on the 0.6.x track and want to pick up with
me
Acidbase 1.4.4 has been uploaded to the mirrors... Can you confirm
whether or not this issue is still a problem?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
The paramiko package contains only the upstream files... I'm unaware of
fabric and why it would have a copy of paramiko's files in it's build
rather than depending on paramiko if it uses it.
Ralf Treinen wrote:
Package: fabric,python-paramiko
Version: fabric/0.9.0-1
Version:
Feel free to take over the package with my blessing. I personally know
the upstream author as we were co-workers and I packaged it for him. It
was more a vanity package and I've not seen any new development taking
place with the package so it's rather stagnant.
Regards,
Jeremy
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Source: libgcgi
Version: 0.9.5.dfsg-3
Severity: serious
Hi,
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Start Time: 20091128-0635
[...]
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 7), autotools-dev, libssl-dev, dpatch
[...]
Toolchain package versions:
causing problems with my uploads is resolved, I will have the new
package uploaded to Sid.
I have also inquired if fellow co-maintainer, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
Pen~a, is still interested in managing package.
Regards,
Jeremy T. Bouse
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
I am currently working on getting 1.4.4 ready to go and remove David
Gil from the package per (#551636)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Unless you can supply evidence that a recent version of acidbase still
produces this error I'm leaning towards closing this bug as 1.3.9 is the
latest version in Debian and I'm working on 1.4.4. 1.2.7 is too old to
even bother with as it shouldn't be being built on Lenny anyway.
What snort-mysql config files are you saying are being overwritten? I
can not find anything in the packaging that should be touching
snort-mysql configurations. Unless you can provide evidence that can be
reproduced I'm going to close this bug.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
: normal
The current maintainer of libesmtp, Jeremy T. Bouse jbo...@debian.org,
is apparently not active anymore. Therefore, I orphan this package now.
Maintaining a package requires time and skills. Please only adopt this
package if you will have enough time and attention to work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Then it will be fixed when I get 1.7.4 packaged and uploaded. Right now
I'm under a deadline at work and paycheck trumps volunteering. I'll get
it up as soon as possible though.
Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: paramiko
Version: 1.7.3-1
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 11/05/07 at 11:02 -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
I do not agree with the removal and find the suggestion of it a slap in
the face for the time spent trying to work with upstream to get the
licensing issues that would allow the fix to be done.
Hi Jeremy
Vadim Kurland ✎ wrote:
this is fixed in fwbuilder 2.1.14
Thanks for the heads-up Vadim... I'll be trying to get 2.1.14
packaged up shortly. Delay right now is my development machine is packed
up and in storage as we're looking to close on our house purchase this
week or early next.
Micha Lenk wrote:
tags 377372 fixed-upstream
stop
Hi,
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:16:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
libphp-phplot does not depend on php5, only php3 and php4. As php4 is about
to
be removed from the archive, this package will become uninstallable. Please
check
I will look and see if this is reported already upstream and if so find our if
there's a patch to fix or new version that corrects this behaviour. I'll also
try to reproduce the error and report upstream if it is not already.
Jeremy
-Original Message-
From: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL
I'll get to it once I get moved cross-country next week and have my
computers set back up. Frankly right now getting my house packed up in
time for the movers to pick everything up takes higher priority.
Regards,
Jeremy
Michael Prokop wrote:
Package: fwbuilder
Version: 2.0.9-1+b1
Because frankly I've been too busy with other things going on in my life
that don't involve Debian to do so.
Thomas Huriaux wrote:
Hi,
Jeremy T. Bouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10/05/2006):
Being as ACID has lost all upstream development and is replaced by
BASE don't consider anything being done
Being as ACID has lost all upstream development and is replaced by
BASE don't consider anything being done with this package in the near
future.
Regards,
Jeremy
Thomas Huriaux wrote:
Package: acidlab
Severity: minor
Tags: l10n
Hi,
In your debian/packages file, you are using
Being as ACID has lost all upstream development and is replaced by
BASE don't consider anything being done with this package in the near
future.
Regards,
Jeremy
Thomas Huriaux wrote:
Package: acidlab
Severity: minor
Tags: l10n
Hi,
In your debian/packages file, you are using
I've been busy the last couple months, having got married in the past
several months and been working 20 hour days between my day job and my
consulting client. Mostly my client as they're ramping up their fan
portal sites for the NBA teams.
I've also been trying to redo the build
I'm currently dealing with password recovery for Alioth at this time. I
expect to get that dealt with in short order as soon as I get the email.
After doing so I'm going to begin working towards setting up an Alioth
project for Xen packaging. I've got two i386 and one amd64 machines
I've got the Alioth project (pkg-xen) created and I'm currently working
to get things setup and configured within the project. I've already
gotten Guido added to the project at this time as well.
As Saku had mentioned Ralph, I've been in communication with Ralph as
well along with
I am currently working on the 2.0.10 packages and will get them
uploaded soon.
Andreas Sundstrom wrote:
This is apparantly fixed in the new upstream version (2.0.10)
bug #1349326 ulogd option does not work. There was a typo in the class
iptAdvancedDialog ( 'useULOG' instead of 'use_ULOG' )
Given that this bug regarded Xen in Sarge which has since been
released and given that Xen has since been updated upstream as evident
by other wishlist bugs already filed, I'd like to get a status from
doogie on where Xen packaging is at this point.
There are several other unofficial
Steve,
Thank you, I've been swamped with work, consulting and newly
re-married life so I've not had time to get to it. Thank you for doing
this. I'll just incorporate them into the new upstream release packaging
before I upload it.
Regards,
Jeremy
Steve Langasek wrote:
tags 344254
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
