On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:44:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> If the directory is missing qnd qnother pqckqges does the above, stuff will be
> copied as md5sum which will not be a directory.
>
> This will only happen when a package ith bad dependency is installed and
> installs a md5sum file t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.5
> package flac libflac++5 libflac7 libflac-dev libflac++-dev libflac-doc
> liboggflac++2 liboggflac3 liboggflac-dev liboggflac++-dev xmms-flac
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: liboggflac-
Your message dated Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:59:53 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#305309: bazaar: FTBFS (amd64/gcc-4.0): pointer targets in
return differ in signedness
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:05:42 +0200,
Andreas Jochens wrote:
> I guess you will generally have many more issues than this one when you
> try to build 64-bit packages on a 32-bit buildd (e.g. compiling and
> running 64-bit programs from configure scripts, running 'make check' or
> 'make test' targe
At Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:00:23 +0100,
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I don't think this is just a dpkg-dev bug, these "bi-arch" systems need
> to provide ldd or an equivalent that can read either form of shared
> library that it would support.
>
> objdump isn't a solution either, while it sometimes ca
Hi Stefano and Kurt,
sorry for the long delay, but I was extremely busy...
Thanks for the bug report. This was actually a more subtle issue,
which required the "override" directive in OCamlMakefile to override
user-supplied variables. Things should work now as expected (I hope).
The new distri
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:40:10PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>Package: libbeecrypt6-dev
>Version: 4.1.2-1
>Severity: grave
>
>Attempting to compile a program with -lbeecrypt, and using its md5
>functions, yields:
>
>/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.0.1/../../../../lib/libbeecrypt.so: undefined
>refe
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> close 154482 2.66
Bug#154482: base-config: although woody is "stable", apt-setup still enters
"testing"into sources.list
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Develope
On Aug 16, 2005, at 00:13 , Matthias Klose wrote:
needs libsigc++-2.0-dev (>= 2.0.10-2), libgmp3-dev (>= 4.1.4-7)
Feel free to NMU it together with #323323, of which I thought that I
fixed it already. D'oh.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Yeah, but it doesn't mean we can ignore it.
Luke Schierer wrote:
> you all realize that this will be next to impossible to backport to
> 0.58 or 0.59.x, do you not?
>
> luke
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you all realize that this will be next to impossible to backport to
0.58 or 0.59.x, do you not?
luke
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I feel silly.
I forgot that I had actually compiled gDesklets myself due to the Debian
version being out of date. Oddly enough, it will compile just fine, but
when I un-installed, and got the apt version, two new dependencies (I
think python-xml was one) were installed. So, now gDesklets run
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 323706 +sarge
Bug#323706: gaim: CAN-2005-2103, CAN-2005-2102, AIM/ICQ protocols vulnerability
There were no tags set.
Tags added: sarge
> tags 323706 +woody
Bug#323706: gaim: CAN-2005-2103, CAN-2005-2102, AIM/ICQ protocols vulnerability
Tags were:
Package: gaim
Version: 1:1.2.1-1.4
Severity: grave
Justification: user security hole
This info from http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14531. Seems ubuntu have
released usn-168-1 to announce their fix:
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/usn/usn-168-1
CAN-2005-2102 is about an attacker
Do you want to see real amateurs who have webcams
on their computers in their dorm rooms? This is
not one of those sites with professional girls who
get paid to do this in front of the camera, these
are the average girls next door, at college, trying
to make money and meet guys!
Get free acce
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:47:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#320747: fixed in xsidplay 1.6.5.2-2
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 320851 serious
Bug#320851: usr/lib/gs-esp/8.15/X11.so: Shared library is not PIC
Severity set to `serious'.
> merge 320851 323688
Bug#320851: usr/lib/gs-esp/8.15/X11.so: Shared library is not PIC
Bug#323688: gs-esp: FTBFS: Not using -fPIC to b
Package: gconfmm2.6
Version: 2.8.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Hi Bradley,
As for libglademm2.4, under the 0-day NMU policy for the C++ ABI
transition, I have prepared an NMU for gconfmm2.6 because this
library provides C++ interfaces and must be rebuilt so that a number of
other C++-based pa
Hey,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:06:33PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> I've made an NMU to DELAYED/5 in order to fix this RC bug. I've simply rebuilt
> the package against a newer libid3.
The package is in progress of being handed over to a new maintainer, so
it's in a state of flux now hence the s
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.14
> severity 154482 serious
Bug#154482: base-config: although woody is "stable", apt-setup still enters
"testing"into sources.list
Severity set to `serious'.
>
End of message, stopping
Your message dated Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:13:14 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line obsolete bugreport
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 your responsibility
Package: gs-esp
Version: 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build on atleast amd64 because you
didn't build your library using -fPIC. I get the following
error:
x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -shared -Wl,'-soX11.so' ./obj/gdevxalt.o ./obj/gdevx.o
./obj/gdevxcmp.o ./obj/gd
Package: diveintopython
Version: 5.4-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi!
_Dive into Python_ is released under the GNU FDL license (version 1.1),
although with no unmodifiable & unremovable parts (i.e. Invariant
Sections, Front/Back-Cover Texts, ...).
Nonetheless, the consensus on
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:17:05 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322899: fixed in sidplay-base 1.0.9-5
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 n
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:32:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322629: fixed in f-prot-installer 0.5.17
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 i
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:32:05 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321431: fixed in easytag 1.99.7-2
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 y
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:11:34PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:25:18AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Hi Duncan,
> > could you please have a look on the version of DCC in sid/etch/sarge
> > first.
> > The version of DCC in Debian is the latest version before up
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 323652 +pending
Bug#323652: gfpoken: FTBFS: dialog.c:65: warning: format '%d' expects type
'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int'
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> tags 323226 +pending
Bug#323226: gfpoken_0.25.dfsg.1-1: FT
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:30:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Are there any other details available on exactly what happened leading
> up to the license change? One can change a license to protect oneself
> from harrassment, without agreeing with the claims being made. One can
> even tell ot
AmeriChip International Inc (ACHI)
Current Price: 0.037
Does it Sound New and Exciting to You? Watch This One Trade Wednesday.
Press Release!!
The Board of Directors of AmeriChip International Inc. is pleased to announce
that it has reached a major milestone after the completion of five (5) mon
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> severity 323659 serious
Bug#323659: libquicktime1: Fails at install.
Severity set to `serious'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Hi,
I've made an NMU to DELAYED/5 in order to fix this RC bug. I've simply rebuilt
the package against a newer libid3.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob Bradford - http://robster.org.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: baycomusb
Version: 0.10-5
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build with the following error:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/gtk-1.2 -I/usr/include/glib-1.2
-I/usr/lib/glib/include -I/usr/include/gnome-xml -DCONFIGDIR=\"/usr/etc\"
-DLOCALSTATEDIR=\"/usr/var
Package: rtorrent
Version: 0.3.1-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build because it doesn't have a proper
versioned build dependency on libtorrent4-dev.
It's failing with the following error:
checking for sigc++-2.0 libtorrent >= 0.7.1... Requested 'libtorrent >= 0.7.1'
but vers
Matthew,
I've made an NMU of this package to to fix this bug and have uploaded it to
DELAYED/3. The patch applied is the one included in the bug report.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob Bradford - http://robster.org.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
package worker
tags 323649 pending
thanks
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 21:15, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Your package is failing to build on all 64 bit arches with the
> following error:
Hi Kurt,
I know of this bug already and am preparing a new upload currently. Thanks
for notifying me though.
Cheer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
severity 323656 normal
merge 323656 317671
Ivo Marino wrote:
[...]
> In the file /usr/share/java-package/ibm-j2sdk.sh, on line 29 the
> architecture should be powerpc|powerpc-linux and _NOT_
> amd64|x86_64-linux as actually specified (as wrong duplica
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:17:13 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321549: fixed in libdv 0.104-1
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 your
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> package worker
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: worker
> tags 323649 pending
Bug#323649: worker: FTBFS on 64 bit arches: Checking for #define
HAVE_EXPLICIT_LFS 1 ... FAILED
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 323656 normal
Bug#323656: Wrong architecture for PowerPC on
/usr/share/java-package/ibm-j2sdk.sh.
Severity set to `normal'.
> merge 323656 317671
Bug#317671: java-package: fails to recognize blackdown 1.3 ppc distribution
Bug#323656: Wrong ar
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> merge 321048 323082
Bug#321048: Uninstallable in sid due to C++ transition of libid3
Bug#323082: beep-media-player depends on non-existant package
Merged 321048 323082.
>
End of messa
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> tags 321048 - sid
Bug#321048: Uninstallable in sid due to C++ transition of libid3
Tags were: sid
Bug#323082: beep-media-player depends on non-existant package
Tags removed: sid
>
End
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:17:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#285646: fixed in dvi2dvi 2.0alpha-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:17:03 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323548: fixed in asterisk-chan-capi 0.3.5-12
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:17:15 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323650: fixed in lm-sensors 1:2.9.1-6
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 n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> merge 323082 321048
Bug#321048: Uninstallable in sid due to C++ transition of libid3
Bug#323082: beep-media-player depends on non-existant package
Merged 321048 323082.
>
End of messa
Package: java-package
Version: 0.25
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In the file /usr/share/java-package/ibm-j2sdk.sh, on line 29 the
architecture should be powerpc|powerpc-linux and _NOT_
amd64|x86_64-linux as actually specifi
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:26:46PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Aug-17 17:00, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > For those following, the problem is that people are building 64-bit
> > libraries on a 32-bit platform (or the other way around) as part of the
> > package build. dpkg-shlibdeps us
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 08:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: asterisk-chan-capi
> Version: 0.3.5-11
> Severity: serious
>
> please rebuild, with tightened build dependency on libcapi20-dev.
Thanks Matthias.
I have just rebuilt & submitted with the same dependency to pick up new
soname.
Package: libquicktime1
Version: 0.9.3-2
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
During my last "apt-get dist-upgrade" (Aug 16, 2005), the installation of the
package fails. Trying "apt-get -f install" after is not helping either.
Currently my entire "apt-get" is broken due to
The problem might be caused by the application (or another library)
attempting to dlopen() "libXmu.so" instead of "libXmu.so.6".
This is bad because the ".so" symlinks to a shared library are, per policy,
only provided by -dev packages.
Moving those symlinks to the regular shlib package is the wr
On 05-Aug-17 12:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, that doesn't solve the problem. How are you supposed to invoke a
> 64-bit linker for a bi-arch build being done on a 32-bit buildd?
I guess you will generally have many more issues than this one when you
try to build 64-bit packages on a 32-bit bui
Package: gfpoken
Version: 0.25.dfsg.1-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build with the following error
on 64 bit arches:
if gcc -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"\"
-DPACKAGE_STRING=\"\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE=\"gfpoken\"
-DVERSION=\"0.2
Package: sensord
Version: 1:2.9.1-5
Severity: grave
Tags: sid
Justification: renders package unusable
Hello,
librrd0 was removed from unstable.
Now librrd2 (and -dev) are there so a rebuild against this
version should fix this bug.
thx.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Package: vegastrike
Version: 0.4.3-2
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build on 64 bit arches with the
following error:
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../.. -DHAVE_SDL=1 -DSDL_WINDOWING=1
-DHAVE_SDL=1 -DSDL_WINDOWING=1 -DHAVE_AL=1 -DHAVE_OGG -DDATA_DIR=\"/usr
/share/gam
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 322750 serious
Bug#322750: ghemical: FTBFS on 64-bit platforms (assumes 32-bit pointers)
Severity set to `serious'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(admini
Package: worker
Version: 2.10.2-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package is failing to build on all 64 bit arches with the
following error:
Checking for #define HAVE_EXPLICIT_LFS 1 ... FAILED
if [ -e check_options_failed ] ; then \
rm -f check_options_failed ; \
/bin/false ; \
fi
make
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323430: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322553: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321436: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321049: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:35:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321420: tetex-base uninstallable due to lack of
update-language
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321205: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322159: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322553: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323430: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
On 05-Aug-17 17:00, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> For those following, the problem is that people are building 64-bit
> libraries on a 32-bit platform (or the other way around) as part of the
> package build. dpkg-shlibdeps uses plain old "ldd" to find out the
> dependencies of a binary or shared l
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321205: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321049: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321049: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321049: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321205: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321205: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321436: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321436: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321436: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322159: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322159: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322159: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322553: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322553: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323430: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323430: fixed in gs-esp 8+8.15rc4.dfsg.1-2
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.4
> severity 323562 serious
Bug#323562: libqwt4: uninstallable
Severity set to `serious'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bu
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:25:18AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> could you please have a look on the version of DCC in sid/etch/sarge
> first.
>
> The version of DCC in Debian is the latest version before upstream
> changed its license.
I understand this, but as I mentioned,
Package: ace
Version: 5.4.7-2
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package seems to have a missing build dependency on bzip2:
debian/rules build
tar -xjf "ACE+TAO+CIAO-5.4.7.tar.bz2"
tar: bzip2: Cannot exec: No such file or directory
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:47:04 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323501: fixed in hyperestraier 0.5.4-2
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
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:47:04 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323519: fixed in hyperestraier 0.5.4-2
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
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.3.3-1.1
Tags: patch
Followup-For: Bug #321889
Attempting to self-compile Aptitude results in FTBFS with newer
libapt-pkg, libsigc++ and gcc 4.0. Attached patch fixes this.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (
Here is a strace -s 4096 -xx as requested.
--
see shy jo
execve("/bin/ip", ["\x69\x70", "\x72\x6f\x75\x74\x65", "\x61\x64\x64",
"\x64\x65\x66\x61\x75\x6c\x74", "\x76\x69\x61",
"\x31\x39\x32\x2e\x31\x36\x38\x2e\x32\x2e\x31"], [/* 10 vars */]) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="", ...}) = 0
brk(0
Hi Moritz,
> see http://www.hardened-php.net/advisory_142005.66.html for
thank you very much for alerting me of the problem. I'm presently
working out with upstream whether phpGroupWare is affected and if so
will fix it ASAP.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
--
tag 315946 + patch
thanks
Martin Schulze wrote:
>>Would you consider a fix for #315946 if uploaded to s-p-u?
> I'd like to see your proposed fix.
Ah, sorry. Here is the 1-line-patch patch.
My apologies for incorrectly assuming it had been in sarge before the
freeze but not checking until it was to
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:17:05 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#266355: fixed in shaketracker 0.4.6-5
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 n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 315946 + patch
Bug#315946: phpgroupware: Error in postinst script
Tags were: sarge
Tags added: patch
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Package: python-egenix-stack
Version: 2.0.6-1
Severity: serious
missing comma.
maybe you can drop the 2.1 and 2.2 packages?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reassign 317082 libc6-dev,dpkg-dev
thanks
I managed to grab Matthias Klose and he helped me get a working demo of
the problem on my lowly i386, and I understand the bug now -- there's
some missing context in the above mails.
For those following, the problem is that people are building 64-bit
libr
Your message dated Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:47:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323528: fixed in gprolog 1.2.18-14
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 321644 serious
Bug#321644: mozilla-browser: mozilla 1.7.10 version crashes almost immediately
and all other browsers that use the mozilla core crash with similar frequency
Severity set to `serious'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 317082 libc6-dev,dpkg-dev
Bug#317082: libc6-s390x: missing depends on lib64gcc1
Bug reassigned from package `dpkg-dev' to `libc6-dev,dpkg-dev'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
Hello Matt,
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:12 -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> gprolog fails to build because it contains invalid lvalues in some
> assignments:
>
> > gplc -c -C '-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funsigned-char -Wall -Wall -DDEBIAN'
> > engine.c
> > `-mcpu=' is deprecated. Use `-mtune=' or '-march=
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
