Bug#885677: liblablgtksourceview2-ocaml: Depends on unmaintained gtksourceview2

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 13:01, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > Hello, > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 07:22:41AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Le 02/04/2020 à 22:23, Thomas Leonard a écrit : > > > My package (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/zeroinstall-injector) > > >

Bug#885677: liblablgtksourceview2-ocaml: Depends on unmaintained gtksourceview2

Hi, My package (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/zeroinstall-injector) depends on lablgtk2 and the tracker says it will be removed on 4th Apr due to this issue. I can't upgrade to lablgtk3 because Debian/unstable only has an old beta release of that (3.0~beta6-2), which is missing some functions.

Bug#946020: zeroinstall-injector build-dependencies unsatisfiable in testing.

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 01:33, peter green wrote: > > Package: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.14.1-3 > Severity: serious > > zeroinstall-injector build-depends on libcurl-ocaml-dev which is not > currently in testing, either libcurl-ocaml-dev needs to be fixed so it can > return to testing,

Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 18:32, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Le 21/08/2019 à 18:26, Thomas Leonard a écrit : > >> Please remove the following packages from testing: [...] > >> * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 > >> * obus, affected by #933992 >

Bug#934872: RM: ocaml-usb/1.3.0-4 ocaml-sqlexpr/0.5.5-3 zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2 obus/1.1.5-6

Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Dear Release Managers, > > Please remove the following packages from testing: > > * ocaml-usb, affected by #933993 > * ocaml-sqlexpr, affected by #933994 > * zeroinstall-injector, affected by #934340 > * obus, affected by #933992 Hi, I'm the maintainer of

Bug#934340: Please remove the dependency on obus and camlp4

Why have you (I assume) removed 0install and obus from the repository? A camlp4 release for 4.08 came out on Aug 7th: https://github.com/ocaml/camlp4/releases/tag/4.08%2B1 And even if not, surely waiting for the NEW queue to clear so that obus can be upgraded is better than removing working

Bug#934340: Please remove the dependency on obus and camlp4

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 01:54, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Source: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.12.3-2 > Severity: serious > > Dear Maintainer, > > zeroinstall-injector build depends on obus, which is affected by > [1]. According to [2], it is an optional dependency. Please provide a > version

Bug#928106: unblock: zeroinstall-injector/2.12.3-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package zeroinstall-injector The version in testing incorrectly does a case-sensitive check for an HTTP header. With the combination of libcurl in Debian now supporting

Bug#927873: 0install-core: Downloads fail when using HTTP/2 with redirects (e.g. sf.net)

Package: 0install-core Version: 2.12.3-1 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, When downloading from downloads.sourceforge.net (which hosts many of the 0install tools themselves), libcurl now uses HTTP/2 for the download. This causes the Location header to be reported in lower-case, which

Bug#870151: zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0: Option -a cannot be used with .cmxa input files.

On 14 August 2017 at 18:35, Thomas Leonard <tal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 August 2017 at 20:08, Stéphane Glondu <glo...@debian.org> wrote: >> On 06/08/2017 20:17, Thomas Leonard wrote: >>>> zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0. Relevant log: >>&

Bug#870151: zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0: Option -a cannot be used with .cmxa input files.

On 6 August 2017 at 20:08, Stéphane Glondu <glo...@debian.org> wrote: > On 06/08/2017 20:17, Thomas Leonard wrote: >>> zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0. Relevant log: >>>> [...] >>>> Option -a cannot be used with .cmxa input files. >> &g

Bug#870151: zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0: Option -a cannot be used with .cmxa input files.

On 30 July 2017 at 16:06, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Package: src:zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.12-5 > Severity: important > User: debian-ocaml-ma...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: ocaml-4.05.0-transition > > Dear maintainer, > > zeroinstall-injector FTBFS with OCaml 4.05.0.

Bug#848559: zeroinstall-injector: Don't recommend python3-aptdaemon.pkcompat

On 16 March 2017 at 08:15, Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 11:01:16AM +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> OK. I've removed it from the control file: >> >> https://github.com/0install/0install-debian/commit/0dc07b3cd4487fb0bed282495ccef26ed

Bug#848559: zeroinstall-injector: Don't recommend python3-aptdaemon.pkcompat

On 18 December 2016 at 11:52, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Package: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.12-2 > Severity: important > > Please don't recommend python3-aptdaemon.pkcompat. aptdaemon has been > removed from Debian and we don't want an obsolete recommends to keep > it

Bug#846675: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#846675: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: Test failures

On 5 December 2016 at 21:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > Hi Thomas-- > > On Sat 2016-12-03 10:33:11 -0500, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> I can reproduce this on sid. It appears that GnuPG has started >> reporting incorrect error values. I have repo

Bug#846675: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: Test failures

On 3 December 2016 at 07:44, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.12-2 > Severity: serious > Tags: stretch sid > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161202 qa-ftbfs > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of

Bug#846834: gnupg: ERRSIG rc codes are no longer correct (breaks 0install)

Package: gnupg Version: 2.1.16-2 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, I'm trying to fix bug 846675 on the 0install package. It seems to be caused by the latest GnuPG returning incorrect rc codes. On Debian/jessie (GnuPG 2.1.7), I get: $ curl http://0install.net/tests/newkey -o newkey $ gpg

Bug#839511: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: Tests failures

On 1 October 2016 at 15:17, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.12-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: stretch sid > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161001 qa-ftbfs > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of

Bug#837226: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: Tests failures

On 10 September 2016 at 13:34, Thomas Leonard <tal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 September 2016 at 08:46, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: >> Source: zeroinstall-injector >> Version: 2.10-2 >> Severity: serious >> Tags: stretch sid >> User: deb

Bug#837226: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: Tests failures

On 10 September 2016 at 08:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.10-2 > Severity: serious > Tags: stretch sid > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20160910 qa-ftbfs > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of

Bug#828618: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

On 26 June 2016 at 13:15, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:20:33PM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> On 26 June 2016 at 11:24, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to r

Bug#828618: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

On 26 June 2016 at 11:24, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using > OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: >

Bug#815577: libcurl-ocaml: ocurl package is very out of date and lacks Lwt support

Package: libcurl-ocaml Version: 0.5.3-2+b2 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, I've had some reports of 0install hanging on Debian/Ubuntu. I suspect this is due to the very old version of ocurl found there: https://github.com/0install/0install/issues/54#issuecomment-186845945 Debian

Bug#805283: 0install: tries to overwrite file which is also in package 0install-core 2.8-1

.0-0 2.24.28-1 > ii libpango-1.0-0 1.38.1-1 > ii libpangocairo-1.0-0 1.38.1-1 > ii libpangoft2-1.0-01.38.1-1 > > 0install recommends no packages. > > 0install suggests no packages. > > -- no debconf information -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://roscidus.com/blog/ GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA

Bug#804431: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: error: The implementation support/hash.ml does not match the interface support/hash.cmi

> > No problem. Let me know if you need sponsorship in the meantime, but I > don't think there is a massive rush. That would be very useful. I've uploaded the new package here: https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://roscidus.com/blo

Bug#804431: zeroinstall-injector: FTBFS: error: The implementation support/hash.ml does not match the interface support/hash.cmi

ector-2.8' > debian/rules:17: recipe for target 'build-stamp' failed > make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2 > dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 > > [..] > > The full build log is attached or can be viewed here: > > > https://reproducible.debi

Bug#768237: fixed in zeroinstall-injector 2.7-2

On 16 November 2014 18:25, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: reopen -1 Hi, On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 15:21 +, Thomas Leonard wrote: Changes: zeroinstall-injector (2.7-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Remove old conffile and directory when upgrading from the old

Bug#763809: zeroinstall-injector: [INTL:de] Updated German translation

, the translations are not currently used because the new version doesn't yet have gettext support. I need to add this back in, but I'm not sure which is the best library to use. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26192129/gettext-support-in-ocaml -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net

Bug#745043: libobus-ocaml-dev: Fails to install on armhf

Package: libobus-ocaml-dev Version: 1.1.5-3 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, This package doesn't install on armhf: root@debian:~# apt-get install libobus-ocaml-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed.

Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

On 9 February 2014 09:27, Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Leonard tal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 February 2014 22:18, Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard tal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vincent, Many

Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

On 7 February 2014 22:18, Vincent Cheng vch...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Thomas Leonard tal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vincent, Many thanks for uploading this. However, the package has been stuck in NEW for the last few weeks. I'm not sure what the problem

Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

what they'd install), but it makes this transition less of a hassle if you revert to the same source package name. Done: https://mentors.debian.net/package/zeroinstall-injector Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1

Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

this package as a DM for several years; just I need someone to approve the rename as I don't have permission to do it myself. https://mentors.debian.net/package/0install Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0

Bug#726533: RFS: 0install/2.3.3-2 [ITP] -- rename and split zeroinstall-injector package

the new package names? My previous mentor (Jens Peter Secher) is no longer a DD. * Package name: 0install Version : 2.3.3-2 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard tal...@gmail.com * URL : http://0install.net/ * License : GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1

Bug#714996: zeroinstall-injector: needs to be Architecture: any due to OCaml dependencies

a lot of time to build) Looks like this needs to be updated. -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org

Bug#709485: Bug#708530: python3: CVE-2013-2099: ssl.match_hostname() trips over crafted wildcard

with a valid but badly formed X.509 certificate could prevent a user from installing new software, as long as the attacker can intercept and modify the user's network communications. But in that case they could prevent the user from downloading anything anyway. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1

Dear Mentors, I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. In August, I split it into separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. This saves around 100 Mb when deploying to a fresh server. This change was requested by several users, e.g.

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1

On 7 September 2012 16:44, Thomas Leonard tal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: [...] Hi Thomas, The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector. http://0install.net/install-source.html http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1

really helps on servers. e.g. ~100 MB of dependencies for zeroinstall-injector vs ~1 MB for 0install-core on a minimal system (with Python). Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonardhttp://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1

On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:12AM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote: Hi Peter, Sorry, my mistake

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1

On Sep 2, 2012 4:42 PM, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: Hi Peter, The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector. http://0install.net/install-source.html http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero-install/injector/1.11/zeroinstall-injector-1.11.tar.bz2 Regards, Bart

Bug#685998: RFS: 0install/1.11-1 [ITP] -- rename zeroinstall-injector package

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear Mentors, I am a DM, maintaining the zeroinstall-injector package. I have split it into separate packages to avoid pulling in GTK on headless servers. Could someone check it and approve the new package names? My previous mentor (Jens Peter

Bug#685276: openjdk-7-jre: Version number is 7

Package: openjdk-7-jre Version: 7~u3-2.1.1-3 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, The version number 7~... comes before version 7 according to the Debian rules. e.g. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of test-java: test-java depends on openjdk-7-jre (= 7); however: Version of

Bug#640537: zeroinstall-injector: [INTL:de] Initial German translation

2011/9/5 Chris Leick c.le...@vollbio.de: Hi, please find attached the inital German translation of zeroinstall-injector. Kind regards, Chris Added (will be in 1.3) - thanks! -- Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98

Bug#613354: zeroinstall-injector: 0launch fails (missing python module)

popular and people start to think about making it the default. -- Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org

Bug#613354: zeroinstall-injector: 0launch fails (missing python module)

Hi Judicael, Could you try this: $ python import pygtk; pygtk.require('2.0') import gtk I would guess there's some problem with the default version of Python (e.g. running python doesn't run the system version). -- Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6

Bug#604098: zeroinstall-injector: Typo in description

Thanks - will be fixed in the new release. -- Dr Thomas Leonard        http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Bug#521885: debian-maintainers: DM application for Thomas Leonard

Package: debian-maintainers Version: 1.54 Please add me to the Debian Maintainers keyring. The changeset it attached. Thanks, add-AE07828059A53CC1 Description: Binary data

Bug#497569: [zeroinstall-injector] eats all my cpu while downloading

How can I strace a python process? $ strace -p PID -- Dr Thomas Leonard ROX desktop / Zero Install GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#497569: [zeroinstall-injector] eats all my cpu while downloading

YoFrankie in a VirtualBox VM on my computer and on the host machine without suffering any speed problems. Let me know if the changes make any difference... -- Dr Thomas Leonard ROX desktop / Zero Install GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Bug#483969: zeroinstall-injector: Uses syntax incompatible with python2.3.

python2.3. The XS-Python-Version in the control file is wrong. It should be = 2.4, not = 2.3. I can't test it, though: E: Package python2.3 has no installation candidate -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1

Bug#443079: [Pkg-ROX-devel] Bug#443079: Attempts to use 0install

a Debian packaged version of Thumbs, rather than downloading, if one is provided in future. See: http://0install.net/distribution-integration.html -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Bug#443208: Allow 0alias to specify link path (with patch)

directory. Thanks, PS: It's probably better to send patches to the upstream mailing list, as more people will see them there than in the Debian bug-tracker: http://0install.net/support.html -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07

Bug#416162: ITP: zeroinstall-injector -- run programs by URL

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: zeroinstall-injector Version : 0.26-1 Upstream Author : Thomas Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://0install.net/ * License : LGPL Programming Lang: Python Description

Bug#393246: file segfaults on startup

=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages file depends on: ii libc62.3.6.ds1-4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libmagic14.17-4 File type determination library us file recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- Dr Thomas

Bug#374195: --force-remove-reinstreq

Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/python-fuse_2.5-3_i386.deb but I feel I'm back on familiar territory now! Use at own risk! -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Bug#374195: apt: Can't do anything: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error'

1:4.1.1-5 GCC support library ii libstdc++64.1.1-5The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 Versions of packages apt recommends: pn debian-archive-keyringnone (no description available) -- no debconf information -- Dr Thomas Leonard http

Bug#368955: exuberant-ctags: Please apply patch to add support for Java 1.5 generics

Package: exuberant-ctags Version: 1:5.5.4-2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch ctags gets confused by the characters in Java 1.5's generics. This patch (from 2004-10-31) fixes the problem (by simply reusing the same code that supports C++ templates):

Bug#346491: python2.3-dbus: Just the decorators?

On 1/31/06, Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 11:59:47AM +, Thomas Leonard wrote: Not having D-BUS working with the default Python causes lots of problems with non-Debian packages. The following broke after I upgraded today: - ROX-Session (can't even log

Bug#350421: Running xt resets X server

Package: xt Version: 0.9.1-7.1 Severity: important Running 'xtraceroute anywhere' resets the X server (xserver-xorg, version: 6.9.0.dfsg.1-3). Running it from a console shows: Gdk-ERROR **: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) serial 274 error_code 3 request_code 146 minor_code 4 Gdk-ERROR

Bug#346491: python2.3-dbus: Just the decorators?

Package: python2.3-dbus Followup-For: Bug #346491 Is the problem just the function decorators? It's quite simple to replace: @decor def foo(...): ... with: def foo(...): ... foo = decor(foo) Not having D-BUS working with the default Python causes lots of problems with

Bug#344678: [Pkg-ROX-devel] Bug#344678: rox-filer: ROX filer crashes on activation of List View

crashes, and all filer windows close. [...] It's not fixed in 2.4 too. It's fixed in CVS: 15-Dec-2005 Bugfix: Changing the display style crashes the filer with GTK = 2.8.9 because it sends a selection changed event before the view has finished initialising (Thomas Leonard; reported

Bug#325333: [Pkg-ROX-devel] Bug#325333: this is a non-issue

than the Debian package). This defaults to extracting into the same directory as the tar file, although it offers the choice to extract elsewhere (drag instead of pressing Return when the dialog pops up). http://rox.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php/Archive -- Dr Thomas Leonard http

Bug#315442: ImportError: No module named _bsddb

Package: apt-listchanges Version: 2.59-0.2 Severity: normal When doing apt-get install python-gnome2-extras I got this: [...] Get:12 http://www.uk.debian.org unstable/main python-gnome2-extras 2.10.0-3 [7062B] Fetched 3264kB in 54s (60.1kB/s)

Bug#302908: gnucash: Can't edit old transactions - no currency

Package: gnucash Version: 1.8.10-7 Severity: normal Transactions created a long time ago (presumably with a previous version of GNU cash) cannot be edited. GNU cash fails in strange ways. For example, if I edit the 'opening balance' transaction for an account, the 'credit' and 'debit' values go