On 01.11.05 Hamish Moffatt (ham...@debian.org) wrote:
Dear Hamish,
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked to see the
differences against my
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 03:48:30PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
On 01.11.05 Hamish Moffatt (ham...@debian.org) wrote:
Dear Hamish,
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file
tags 336714 unreproducible
thanks
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't think the new packages have been in unstable very long so
others may have this problem. Please tag it unreproducible, but perhaps
not close it yet?
You are right, that's the better choice.
Regards,
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:26:29PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
- This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with
packages as
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:54:12PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW this occurred in my amd64 installation, but my i386 chroot didn't
have this issue. It was installed within a few weeks of the amd64.
However I probably have not done any (or as much)
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
- This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with
packages as later released with woody), with the texdocrc file
belonging to the texdoctk package
[snip]
It was
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:26:29PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
- This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with
packages as later released with woody), with the
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked to see the
differences against my installed version, the diff was
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-10
Severity: normal
When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked to see the
differences against my installed version, the diff was against /dev/null
so every line was new.
I did not
12 matches
Mail list logo
