Hi,
* Mauricio Faria de Oliveira (mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) [140817 09:31]:
May you please consider this trivial patch (attached) for an upload?
It would significantly help the ppc64el port to have ghostscript
working, as it's an important build-dep for tens of packages.
I have updated
Quoting Andreas Barth (2014-08-17 11:32:51)
* Mauricio Faria de Oliveira (mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) [140817 09:31]:
May you please consider this trivial patch (attached) for an upload?
It would significantly help the ppc64el port to have ghostscript
working, as it's an important build-dep
* Jonas Smedegaard (d...@jones.dk) [140817 13:17]:
Quoting Andreas Barth (2014-08-17 11:32:51)
* Mauricio Faria de Oliveira (mauri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) [140817 09:31]:
May you please consider this trivial patch (attached) for an upload?
It would significantly help the ppc64el port to
Your message dated Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:50:52 +
with message-id e1xizva-0004tl...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#751917: fixed in ghostscript 9.05~dfsg-9.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #751917,
regarding ghostscript: add ppc64el to symbols file
to be marked as done.
This means that
ghostscript_9.05~dfsg-9.1_mipsel.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
ghostscript_9.05~dfsg-9.1.dsc
ghostscript_9.05~dfsg-9.1.debian.tar.xz
ghostscript-doc_9.05~dfsg-9.1_all.deb
libgs9-common_9.05~dfsg-9.1_all.deb
ghostscript_9.05~dfsg-9.1_mipsel.deb
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:03:39 +
Source: ghostscript
Binary: ghostscript ghostscript-cups ghostscript-x ghostscript-doc libgs9
libgs9-common libgs-dev ghostscript-dbg
Architecture: source all mipsel
Version:
On Sun 17 Aug 2014 at 16:03:13 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Brian Potkin (claremont...@gmail.com):
After more thinking, my (wild) guess is that, at the time this is
done, these groups...do not exist on the system. And adduser user
group then fails when group doesn't exist.
Quoting Brian Potkin (claremont...@gmail.com):
May I leave it to you deal with this non-bug? Close it or mark it
wontfix and leave it open as a sign of user naïvety. :)
Sounds like it makes it a perfect candidate for not a bug, hence
closing. and no need at all to give signs of naivety.
