emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#24026: closed (librecad and dealii depend on reloc


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#24026: closed (librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:27:01 +0000

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:26:16 -0400
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated 
muparser source code repo
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #24026,
regarding librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
24026: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24026
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:42:57 -0400
The dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad packages are now failing
due to a missing dependency:

  svn: E160013: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 
'http://muparser.googlecode.com/svn/trunk'
  svn: E160013: '/svn/trunk' path not found

It seems that the muparser developers have switched to github.

      Mark



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:26:16 -0400 User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:52:00PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:39:45 -0400
> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 07:07:25AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> > > Hmm.  It would be good to see the diff between the two "versions" of
> > > 2.2.5.  If there's anything substantive in there, then we might want to
> > > bump the version on our behalf.  Otherwise it probably doesn't matter.  
> > 
> > The difference seem trivial to me. There are fixed typos in comments,
> > and code changes in 'example1.cpp'. I assume that 'example1.cpp' is
> > unimportant, but I don't know.
> > 
> > What do you think about the attached patch?
> 
> LGTM.

Thanks for the review!

Pushed as d7cff656d.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]