-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-01-31 10:36, Joel Roth wrote:
>
>> otoh, i guess this would not have pulled in automatic ruby/python
>> dependencies, as the shebang does.
>
> Do the existing shebangs in the ruby/python test scripts
> accomplish this?
oh, i thought you said
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:14:45AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2011-01-31 08:53, Joel Roth wrote:
> > Now running lintian...
> > W: ecasound: manpage-has-errors-from-man
> > usr/share/man/man1/ecasound.1.gz 61: warning: numeric express
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-01-31 08:53, Joel Roth wrote:
> Now running lintian...
> W: ecasound: manpage-has-errors-from-man
> usr/share/man/man1/ecasound.1.gz 61: warning: numeric expression expected
> (got `c')
i fixed the remaining errors in the ecasound manpage.
>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:53:17 (CET), Joel Roth wrote:
> I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 ->
> ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted
> it.
that involves two changes: debian/changelog and debian/control
did you miss a step perhaps?
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhar
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:04:09AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:10:31 (CET), Joel Roth wrote:
>
> > One question I have is about handling bug relationships for all the
> > renamed packages.
> >
> > For example, can a new source package 'ecasound' close bugs
> > submi
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:10:31 (CET), Joel Roth wrote:
> One question I have is about handling bug relationships for all the
> renamed packages.
>
> For example, can a new source package 'ecasound' close bugs
> submitted against package ecasound2.2?
yes, you can accidentally or on purpose close
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 05:02:50PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
Here is the output from 'apt-cache showpkg'
on my sid distribution.
[snip]
All of the packages depending on these packages appear
to be within the ecasound source package.
Based on this information, it looks like we could go
through
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 01:59:03PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> I think it will be great to clean up and maintain the
> ecasound source package. I'm no expert in C, but I maintain
> a couple packages that depend on ecasound, and have an
> interest in seeing Debian packages being maintained.
>
> Regar
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:20:39PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Please allow for more than two days. Sometimes people are just busy.
Didn't mean to be obsessive, it was just an update.
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 17:01, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
>> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>>
>> The main problem I se
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if the curren
Hi all,
I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream).
>From the README
16 matches
Mail list logo