Hi,
I have just uploaded a new version of the package and most issues should
be fixed now. I would be glad if someone could have a look at it and
maybe find remaining mistakes.
Yours sincerely
Andreas Moll
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:14:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:46:20 +0100, Marc Haber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There is no
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:03:24PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but ucf does not know about the file any more if it is not in the new
package and will therefore not handle it.
Uh, if you don't 'ucf --purge' it, I fear it will remain in the ucf
cache.
Hi,
Chris Amthor wrote:
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
IANADD so i cannot upload it for you, but anyways some comments.
Hope they help you.
* General:
- public-key-file: What is it for? As far as I see, you don't package
it, so why should you need to include it?
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are 23 lines of code which have the potential for a lot of bugs.
I do not think it is a good idea to cutpaste this code into a hundred
packages.
I didn't know you were alone maintaining a hundred of packages that need
this particular removal code.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 02:37:46PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are 23 lines of code which have the potential for a lot of bugs.
I do not think it is a good idea to cutpaste this code into a hundred
packages.
I didn't know you were alone
Roberto C. Sanchez roberto at connexer.com writes:
A parallel branch structure might make sense in your case. Then you can
just merge trunk changes up to your branch periodically. As long as you
use dpatch and don't touch any upstream files, you will never have a
conflict.
[EMAIL
Hi,
haven't known that you are the author, so some things are different:
Chris Amthor schrieb:
Hi Patrick,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
IANADD so i cannot upload it for you,
No problem.
but anyways some comments. Hope they help you.
Yes, they helped, though I still have some
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't know you were alone maintaining a hundred of packages that need
this particular removal code. Interesting.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I'll stop wasting my
time.
I meant that when a maintainer copies code in its maintainer
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, use previous-version+svn-stuff if you're packaging
that version plus some additional upstream modifications, and use
next-version+svn-stuff if you're packaging an alpha or beta arelease
^
I hope you meant '~' here.
of
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 04:13:24PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't know you were alone maintaining a hundred of packages that need
this particular removal code. Interesting.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I'll stop wasting my
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt this.
The code is definitely not what I call complex. The tetex-bin package
is, but not that particular piece of code, once isolated.
Additionally, this is a huge waste of maintainer time. Code like this
_BELONGS_ into a standardized tool.
Hi,
I have a package called morg-mailcommands that depends on Postfix.
Trying to install it with aptitude gives
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
E: Unable to correct dependencies, some packages cannot be installed
E: Unable to resolve some dependencies!
Some
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:52:53 +0100, Marc Haber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I haven't thought about this in the necessary depth. To a newbie DD
who has only been with Debian for six years it looks like ucf is not
completely finished.
ucf scratches the itch I had to begin with, and it
Hi Székelyi,
On 1/24/07, Székelyi Szabolcs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package called morg-mailcommands that depends on Postfix.
Trying to install it with aptitude gives
(...)
You are missing some important pieces of information:
1) How you tried to install the package
2) Where is this
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:08:14 +0100
schönfeld / in-medias-res [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Your package does not include a manpage for a binary. Thats not an
'error', but is highly recommended and the fact that there is none,
results in a lintian warning.
Ahem, correct. That's for
Florent Rougon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, use previous-version+svn-stuff if you're packaging
that version plus some additional upstream modifications, and use
next-version+svn-stuff if you're packaging an alpha or beta arelease
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package ballview.
Package name: ballview
Version : 1.2-1
Upstream Author : myself
URL : www.ballview.org
License : LGPL
Section : science
It builds these binary packages:
ballview - A free
Hi Andreas
Thanks a lot for your work.
Package name: ballview
Version : 1.2-1
Upstream Author : myself
URL : www.ballview.org
License : LGPL
Section : science
It builds these binary packages:
ballview - A free molecular
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libsbc.
* Package name : libsbc
Version : 0.0cvs20060124-1
Upstream Authors : Marcel Holtmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henryk Ploetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brad Midgley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL
On Wed January 24 2007 09:18, Székelyi Szabolcs wrote:
...
Removing all exim4 packages fixes the problem, however I would like
to ask:
* aptitudes says I have held broken packages. `dpkg
--get-selections` says I have no held packages at all. Is this a
(small) bug in aptitude?
* Why is my
Steffen Joeris schrieb:
Hi Andreas
Thanks a lot for your work.
Package name: ballview
Version : 1.2-1
Upstream Author : myself
URL : www.ballview.org
License : LGPL
Section : science
It builds these binary packages:
ballview - A
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:37:24AM +0100, Andreas Moll wrote:
make: execvp: debian/debian-ball-install: Permission denied
make: *** [clean] Error 127
Hi,
I dont have any clue what went wrong with the permissions of this file
since I have tested the package multiple times on several
Le Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:37:24AM +0100, Andreas Moll a écrit :
debian/debian-ball-install clean
make: execvp: debian/debian-ball-install: Permission denied
make: *** [clean] Error 127
Hi,
I dont have any clue what went wrong with the permissions of this file
since I have tested the
OoO En ce début d'après-midi nuageux du samedi 20 janvier 2007, vers
14:38, je disais:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package sshproxy.
Anyone interested in sponsoring it ?
--
BOFH excuse #447:
According to Microsoft, it's by design
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
25 matches
Mail list logo
