On 28 February 2012 18:12, Kenneth Loafman <
address@hidden> wrote:
> That did not work. Something is weird about the build environment it seems.
> I don't think your change would make any difference in the test cases. My
> version only really has an effect on long strings of incrementals.
>
> ...Ken
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Kenneth Loafman <
address@hidden>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, it was looking for /etc/motd to use as a plain text file. I just
>> changed it to use __file__ so it will always be there.
>>
>> ...Ken
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Michael Terry <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ken, let me look at this GnuPGInterface thing. I changed the
>>> packaging recently to use your upstream version instead of how the
>>> Debian packaging normally drops yours in favor of the system one. I
>>> probably broke something.
>>> -mt
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2012 17:10, Michael Terry <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>> > On 28 February 2012 17:07, Kenneth Loafman <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>> >> If we can't solve the problem of spamming the list (I don't care,
>>> >> filters
>>> >> work well), then maybe we need a duplicity-developers list.
>>> >
>>> > The build failures already go to duplicity-team, which is basically
>>> > that, eh?
>>> > -mt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>
address@hidden
>>>
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>
address@hidden
>
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>
_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk