Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12

2005-08-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:06:39AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 1) upgrade your kernel 2) dist-upgrade That doesn't seem terribly elaborate to me? And if people choose not to read, well, they get a failure on

Bug#325379: marked as done (python-cairo: undefined symbol: cairo_ps_surface_create)

2005-08-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:47:08 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#325379: fixed in pycairo 0.9.0-4 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now

Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12

2005-08-30 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Becuase I roll my own kernel. If I upgrade the kernel with gcc-3.3 (currently the Sarge default) and then upgrade to Etch (which will have gcc-4.0 for a default) I will run into problems if I decide to add new modules to my

Bug#325536: mozilla: FTBFS: change in behavior of __attribute__((unused))

2005-08-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:11:26AM +0200, Alexander Sack - Debian Bugmail wrote: Thanks Steve, where is this patch from? Is this debian made or from bugzilla or somewhere? If it is not yet know to upstream I will forward it. I wrote it. I poked around in upstream cvs a little bit, and couldn't

Bug#325791: libofx2: stale debian/shlibs causes missing reverse dependencies

2005-08-30 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Aaron M. Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The libofx source package includes a debian/shlibs file that inappropriately reads libofx 1 libofx1c2 and evidently overrides dh_makeshlibs; as a result, packages such as gnucash that build against the library fail to pick up appropriate

Bug#325484: udev = 0.060-1 and kernels = 2.6.12

2005-08-30 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Aug 31, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incidentally, is it possible to put udev on hold, upgrade everything else, install a new kernel and then select udev for upgrade? Everything else which does not depend on the new version of conflicts with the old version, which will be a

Bug#325791: marked as done (libofx2: stale debian/shlibs causes missing reverse dependencies)

2005-08-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:17:04 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#325791: fixed in libofx 1:0.8.0-3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now

<    1   2