Package: sddm
Version: 0.18.0-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I have an HP EliteBook 820 Laptop with a separate button to switch
on/off Wi-Fi (xev reports: keycode 255 (keysym 0x0, NoSymbol)
When trying to switch on/off wifi from the sddm login screen, the
trackpad gets disabled (the
Dear Maintainer,
Package: colord-kde
Version: 0.5.0-2
> I was able to load the profile, however on restart the color correction was
> not applied. Going back into colord-kde, the selector was on the correct
> profile, but only moving the selector to default, then back to the profile,
> loads
binary:qdoc-qt5 is NEW.
binary:qdoc-qt5 is NEW.
Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.
Packages are routinely
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3.dsc
qttools-opensource-src_5.11.3-3.debian.tar.xz
libqt5designer5-dbgsym_5.11.3-3_amd64.deb
libqt5designer5_5.11.3-3_amd64.deb
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:36:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > What do you think of splitting qdoc into a separate package?
> >
> > This way the packages that need it might explicitly build-depend on that
> > package and dep-wait instead of getting build failures on some
> >
Exactly that
Hi Ola!
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:35:00PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I started to look at excluding the uploaders and just include the
> maintainer but it turned out to be problematic. At least to make it a
> general thing. I can make a dirty hack but I do not think that would be
>
¡Hola Simon!
El 2019-01-02 a las 21:25 -0600, Simon Quigley escribió:
Package: breeze-gtk
Severity: normal
Version: 5.14.3-1
It was raised to my attention from LXQt users that the Breeze GTK theme
cannot be used under LXQt as packaged. This is because the theme exists
in
Hi
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:28:34AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> > Please don't re-use versions.
> I understand that by: "if you uploaded 1.2.3-1 don't reupload 1.2.3-1, bu
> better 1.2.3-2" Is that
Hi Bastian!
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 08:52:14 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:28:34AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
Meyer wrote:
> > El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> > > Please don't re-use versions.
> >
> > I
Hi Thorsten!
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 08:44:04 -03 Thorsten Alteholz escribió:
> Hi Lisandro,
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> >> po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
> >> so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
> >
> >
Hi Lisandro,
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
Fair, but does it *really* deserves a reject? The license is still dfsg
compliant and there is only one
Hi Bastien! This observations did create me some doubts, so:
El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 07:10:09 -03 Bastian Blank escribió:
> Please don't re-use versions.
I understand that by: "if you uploaded 1.2.3-1 don't reupload 1.2.3-1, bu
better 1.2.3-2" Is that right? If it is: what's the problem?
For me this behavior starts after upgrading to 4:18.08.1
Thanks for any help
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Please don't re-use versions.
Also you still did not provide the correct license of several files:
po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause,
so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect.
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your
15 matches
Mail list logo
