Package: gnome
Version: 1:3.0+3
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system
I just reported bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647768
which is a serious issue with the debian system. This happened after a
reboot of a single system and I am afraid to reboot the rest
Dominique Dumont,
I don't think it is sufficient that the dependancy be resolved. I
just upgraded two hosts on my network, as a result dnet-common got
installed on both. I was aked configure, don't configure, or leave it
alone. I chose leave it alone, and guess what -- both hosts on my
network
one of my NICs remembers it's mac addresses between reboots... so i'm having
to look up the old one in my routers' leases to put things right. it took
hours to debug this because hacing multiple systems with the same MAC on the
same network is *never* supposed to happen. wrecked my day. :-(
Package: nagios3-common
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 6.8
The latest nagios3-common package can not be removed because the first if
block in nagios3-common.prerm is missing it's then keyword, causing a
syntax error.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers
tags 492434 patch
thanks
Miron Cuperman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this bug was introduced with the fix for bug #401567.
At that time, the SSL implementation was changed from GNUTLS to NSS.
Unfortunately, the NSS plugin in pidgin does no certificate checking at
all, meaning
reopen 465608
thanks
Here is what I'm getting attempting to install 0.825. debian also refuses to
remove 0.824. I sent a message to debian-user about this earlier today
(attached) but have not gotten a reply yet.
domus:/var/cache/apt/archives# dpkg -i education-chemistry_0.825_i386.deb
-astronomy_0.825_i386.deb
Jay Zach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Hi,
I'm running sid.
I've had the education packages installed for awhile... last week,
an update came out for them which has completely broken the package manager,
making it impossible to upgrade
Gary,
Is there any way you can get a stack backtrace out of this? Like
attaching gdb to a httpd process and then causing the segfault?
Thanks,
Tyler
Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: libapache2-mod-bt
Version: 0.0.19+p4.2340-1
Severity: grave
tag 424833 pending
thanks
Hi Julien,
mod_bt development has continued to stagnate for awhile... one of
these days I'll get the time to keep going on it... my next goal is to get
it moved off of this perforce repo into subversion... i've gotten sick and
tired of perforce...
Hi,
I've fixed the bug in a new build, I will play around with it a bit
and then fire it off to my sponsor to upload.
Thanks,
Tyler
Debian PHP Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: php4-apache2-mod-bt
Severity: serious
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: monodevelop
Version: 0.12+dfsg-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
I started using monodevelop two days ago, got a simple project off of the
ground... then closed it. Yesterday and today I've tried to open it, but
monodevelop crashes on startup. It gets as far as
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been fixed already. Somebody needs to upload a 2.2-compatible
mod_perl, though.
I think all that's neccessary is a control file update to make it
build-depend on the new stuff. I'll give it a shot and let you know. I can't
upload it
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: libbtutil0
Severity: serious
Version: 0.0.19-1
Your package is not installable as it depends on libapr0 which is not
available in unstable anymore. You might want to update the dependency to
libapr1.
I know. :-( Unfortunately, the apache2 in
Package: toolchain-source
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
toolchain-source as it stands is currently unusable for building ARM
cross-compiler targets. It appears that you must specify arm-linux-gnu to
several of the builds in order to get the install to work correctly.
However, this target is not
that it actually fixes the problem and
there aren't any other problems with building on that architecture?
Thanks,
Tyler
Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm.. from the looks of things, this is some sort of conflict between PHP
and apache and probably not a bug
Hmm.. from the looks of things, this is some sort of conflict between PHP
and apache and probably not a bug with mod_bt itself... I wonder if either
of those packages had to do some sort of kludgey workaround to get them to
compile under s390? I will look into it further soon.
- Tyler
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.crackerjack.net/mod_bt/debian/sid/
That one build without any problems.
Awesome, thank you again for your help... I have sent an email off
to Julien letting him know, this should be uploaded soon. :)
- Tyler
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I applied these and zelously went through and made sure everything
in those files is type-safe. Now the result isn't releaseable on 32-bit
platforms, it compiles fine, but it's causing segmentation faults after a
few minutes of operation. :-/
I
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I still get those:
OK Kurt, try this one:
http://www.crackerjack.net/mod_bt/debian/sid/
mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1359
This should fix the problems listed below, as well as Bug #376998.
Let me know; if it works, I'll ask Julien to upload
err, make that and bug #378035...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bt_metainfo.c:120: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3
has type 'apr_size_t'
[...]
bt_bcode.c:143: warning: format '%lli' expects type 'long long
int', but argument 3 has type 'int64_t'
bt_bcode.c:152: warning: format '%i' expects
] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 02:30:21PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Kurt,
Any chance I can get access to a box to play around with? This (and
other problems) could pop up all over the place in the code, it'd be nice to
be able to tackle them all at once instead of just uploading
/debian/sid/
I'll let you know again when I have something I think will actually
work.
Cheers,
Tyler
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:23:23AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Thanks Kurt,
I've been working through your
Package: mod_bt
Severity: serious
Thanks Bastian, I'm filing this upstream as well and will fix this ASAP.
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: mod-bt
Version: 0.0.18+p4.1178-2
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Automatic build of
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: mod-bt
Version: 0.0.18+p4.1178-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Automatic build of mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1178-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
sbuild/s390 85
[...]
** Using build dependencies supplied
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
libapr1-dev.
But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder
Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if I have to remove the apr1 | apr0 sutff, then a new version of
mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
to 2.2 happens.
In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
that this is less
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, name it libapr-dev. If something really can use either one
of the 2, I don't see why you should make a transition so hard
and go and name it libapr0-dev.
So I suggest you rename libapr0-dev to libapr-dev and make it
provide libapr0-dev for now.
tag 377420 patch
thanks
A fix for this bug is available and waiting for my sponsor to upload.
Julien,
Can you please upload mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1178-2? It has been placed
online here:
http://www.crackerjack.net/mod_bt/debian/sid/
The .orig tarball is identical. The only
Package: bittornado
Version: 0.3.15-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
The official btmakemetafile's first two parmeters are:
filename tracker_url
The bittornado's btmakemetafile's first two parameters are:
tracker_url filename
Having bittornado's
Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you justify the grave severity by a citation?
2 grave makes the package in question unusable by most or all users,
or causes data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing
access to the accounts of
Package: anjuta
Version: 1.2.4-1+b1
Followup-For: Bug #343998
anjuta 1.2.4a fixes this crash bug and is available on sourceforge.net. can
the debian anjuta package be updated to this version?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500,
Package: mount
Version: 2.12p-2
Severity: grave
Justification: user security hole
If a non-root user mounts media (in my case, a CD-ROM), and attempts to kill
the process (in my case, a mad combination of ^C and ^\), the filesystem can
be mounted, yet not appear in /etc/mtab.
This means that
33 matches
Mail list logo
