My mail or the BTS must be lagging somewhat. Forgive me if I repeat
myself.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 03:05:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:57:19PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But clearly if you're
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 01:28:40AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
My mail or the BTS must be lagging somewhat. Forgive me if I repeat
myself.
I have seen such problems as well, so I guess it's not your e-mail.
Sure, agreed; it's certainly a bug, it just doesn't seem to break anything.
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:39:00PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
Anyway, why keep an empty package on all those architecture.
Why not let perl-base provide libperl5.8 and kill libperl5.8 on those
architectures.
Or have libperl5.8 always contain the actual shared library and have
perl-base
Package: libperl5.8
Version: 5.8.8-6.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
As strange as it may sound, the libperl5.8 package is empty for all
non-i386 architectures. Fortunately, the actual library is in the
perl-base package (at least for powerpc).
Cheers,
Nicolas
severity 397237 important
thanks
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:43:11PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
Package: libperl5.8
Version: 5.8.8-6.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
As strange as it may sound, the libperl5.8 package is empty for all
non-i386 architectures.
close 397237
thanks
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But clearly if you're just reporting this strangeness now, months after the
package was uploaded, the package isn't actually unusable. So why should
this be grave?
BTW, the packages in sarge shipped the
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But clearly if you're just reporting this strangeness now, months after the
package was uploaded, the package isn't actually unusable. So why should
this be grave?
OK, you may be right, but this certainly is strange!
BTW,
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:57:19PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But clearly if you're just reporting this strangeness now, months after the
package was uploaded, the package isn't actually unusable. So why should
this be
8 matches
Mail list logo
