On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 12:19:27AM +0200, Mashrab Kuvatov wrote:
Hi Brian,
thanks for reply. I've rebuilt aspell-uz taking into account your
feedback. Please have a look, it is at
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~kmashrab/aspell/deb/
Almost there, just a few more things:
* The urgency should be
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* You probably shouldn't repack the .tar file so that the md5sum will
match the upstream version. Usually for an upstream that distributes
a .tar.bz2, you just want to do bunzip2 foo.tar.bz2; gzip -9
foo.tar and then use the resulting .tar.gz.
See
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
Recommends: no-udev | udev (= 0.060-1).
An elegant solution ;-)
I guess this would behave as expected, but I think
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
you think so?
To be honest, no.
If you do a Recommends: udev (= ...), most people will just install the
recommended udev and
Title: Message
Dear FlexWindow user,
The FlexWindow update you send encountered an
error in the account verification. As a result your window has not been
updated. The cause of the problem is most
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Geert Stappers wrote:
snip/
That is what is done with python. Please post also the description
of the non default or dummy packages.
I haven't really changed the description since I adopted the packages,
but here you go:
I need some help with finding a good resolution for Bug#320029.
In summary, the current version of my 'librmagick-ruby' package was
compiled against libmagick6-dev_6.0.6.x. It works nicely when run with
libmagick6_6.0.6.x, but fails when libmagick6 is upgraded to the version
currently in
Mike Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need some help with finding a good resolution for Bug#320029.
In summary, the current version of my 'librmagick-ruby' package was
compiled against libmagick6-dev_6.0.6.x. It works nicely when run
with libmagick6_6.0.6.x, but fails when libmagick6 is
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
Recommends: no-udev | udev (= 0.060-1).
An elegant solution ;-)
I
Geert Stappers wrote:
Some advice about requesting a sponsor: reread
http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html#rfs
And for the interest level I guess that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
good place for also RFS.
Thanks for the advise. Posting to debian-python is certainly a good
idea;
Hi Martin,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I just adopted python-xlib, fixed the outstanding bugs, and put
the revised package at
While you're at it:
- If you read Matthew's FAQ, you'll find that the copyright file isn't
correct.
- You're #249071 has 127.0.0.1 in the comment but localhost in the
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
you think so?
To be honest, no.
If you do a
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:22:44AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:22 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
Recommends:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:27, Brian Nelson wrote:
Almost there, just a few more things:
* The urgency should be set to low, not high.
Fixed.
* Why have you deviated from the upstream version?
I don't have a good reason for this. I just blindly followed aspell-en.
This time deb and source
Mashrab Kuvatov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:27, Brian Nelson wrote:
* Your aspell-uz.info-aspell is not correct. See
http://dict-common.alioth.debian.org/dsdt-policy.html#infofile for
more info.
I added language name in Uzbek into Language section. Is it
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 07:12:16AM +1000, skaller wrote:
Two methods, one is not tenable:
(a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
(b) When Y depends on no-X, if Y is installed, no-X is
synthesised and installed too if it doesn't exist,
(and conflicting with X to prevent X being
On Thursday 28 July 2005 00:34, Brian Nelson wrote:
Mashrab Kuvatov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I added language name in Uzbek into Language section. Is it correct now?
Well, you should also specify Casechars, Not-Casechars, and
They are optional, aren't they? Anyway, ... (see below)
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 01:01 +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
The reason a logical 'X isn't installed' does not
work is that you could install Y, which depends
on no X, and then just install X. Now Y is silently
broken by a package that knows nothing about Y.
As far as I know, such things
Mashrab Kuvatov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 28 July 2005 00:34, Brian Nelson wrote:
Mashrab Kuvatov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I added language name in Uzbek into Language section. Is it correct
now?
Well, you should also specify Casechars, Not-Casechars, and
They are optional,
20 matches
Mail list logo
