Your message dated Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:50:25 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#208606: qa.debian.org: PTS shows wrong number of bugs
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Sep 2003 22:26:46 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 03 17:26:43 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19ug5L-00015P-00; Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:26:43 -0500
Received: from pd9e39226.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.227.146.38] helo=djpigpb)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35)
id 19ug5G-0006q1-00; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:26:38 +0200
Received: from djpig by djpigpb with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19ugHw-00018L-00; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:39:44 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: qa.debian.org: PTS shows wrong number of bugs
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.26.1
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:39:43 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_30,HAS_PACKAGE,RCVD_IN_NJABL
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: qa.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-04
Severity: normal
See http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tetex-base.html
The number of rc bugs is displayed as 0 where it should be 1 (as the update
excuses in the right column correctly state)
Perhaphs the script is confused by the fact that the bug is assigned to
two packages? *wild guess*
Gruesse,
Frank Lichtenheld
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux djpigpb 2.4.21-ben2 #1 Thu Aug 21 14:35:26 CEST 2003 ppc
Locale: LANG=de_DE, LC_CTYPE=de_DE
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 208606-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Sep 2003 09:50:29 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 06 04:50:26 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from a1-2.ppp10.hrnet.fr (buxy.ouaza.com) [212.94.201.10]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19vZi6-0000V0-00; Sat, 06 Sep 2003 04:50:26 -0500
Received: by buxy.ouaza.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 8DDB2EB29E; Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:50:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:50:25 +0200
From: Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#208606: qa.debian.org: PTS shows wrong number of bugs
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.0 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Le Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 12:39:43AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld écrivait:
> The number of rc bugs is displayed as 0 where it should be 1 (as the update
> excuses in the right column correctly state)
Ok, now it displays 4 (or rather it will on the next update) ... :-) I
don't handle merged bugs (and I wonder if I really should) but I do
understand multiple assignations.
> Perhaphs the script is confused by the fact that the bug is assigned to
> two packages? *wild guess*
That was right.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
