Your message dated Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:56:40 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Status of packages.debian.org - new scripts installed
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; 27 Jan 2001 01:34:59 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 26 19:34:59 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from snoopy.apana.org.au [::ffff:202.12.87.129]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14MKGV-0001l7-00; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:34:58 -0600
Received: by snoopy.apana.org.au (Postfix, from userid 1003)
id 66631345DB; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:34:44 +1100 (EST)
From: Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: should be possible to tell what platforms have been compiled
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.54
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.54
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:34:44 +1100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-01-27
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
(this is similar but different to bug #21620 in that I don't
require download support).
I think that now package pools are available, it is going to be more and
more important to be able to find out answers to questions like:
Has the latest version of libssl096 been compiled for sparc?
or even better:
What is the latest version of libssl096 available for sparc?
This is important to know as package X, which build-depends on
libssl096-dev, can't get installed in testing until it has been
compiled on all platforms. This means libssl096 has been
compiled for all platforms.
update_excuses does not help, it was designed to answer the
question "can libssl096 be installed in testing?", not "can
package X use libssl096-dev from unstable for its build-depends
on all platforms?".
yes, I could download the entire Packages file for sparc to find out,
but this file is huge, and my bandwidth is limited.
(of course this means stable, as testing is guaranteed to
have the same version available for all platforms)
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux snoopy 2.4.0 #1 Sun Jan 14 15:45:35 EST 2001 i686
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 83701-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jan 2004 19:06:31 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 12 13:06:06 2004
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 1AfKXZ-000319-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:56:41 -0600
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=webmail.sorgfalt.net)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1AfKXY-0007UF-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:56:40 +0100
Received: from 217.234.62.246
(SquirrelMail authenticated user djpig.frank)
by webmail.sorgfalt.net with HTTP;
Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:56:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:56:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Status of packages.debian.org - new scripts installed
From: "Frank Lichtenheld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-www@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
References:
In-Reply-To:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=4.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2004_1_5
X-Spam-Level:
Yesterday the new packages.d.o scripts were installed. They include many
improvements and fix a few bugs (BCCed XXX-done@ with this mail):
* Contain information about non-i386 packages
Closes: #21620: packages.debian.org: download.pl: package download pages
should support multiple architectures
Closes: #23350 merged bug
Closes: #83701: packages.debian.org: pages should say on what platforms
has a package been compiled
Closes: #131631: packages.debian.org: pages for non-i386 packages are
missing
Closes: #141618, #146675, #220218 merged bugs
Closes: #215999: packages.debian.org: source not found if i386 is
outdated
* Include DDTP translations
* Better parsing/using of input data
Closes: #109338: packages.debian.org: display the installed size, too
Closes: #135220: packages.debian.org: non-US, non-US/contrib and
non-US/non-free mixed together
Closes: #202157: packages.debian.org: pages should list uploaders
Closes: #208513: gcc 2.95.4 source has disappeared
* Handle virtual packages
Closes: #155346: packages.debian.org: Please include virtual package
names when listing dependencies.
Closes: #204099: packages.debian.org: expanding virtual packages can lead
to doubled dependencies
* Create an alternative compressed text list of all packages
Closes: #177669: packages.debian.org: allpackages.html lists are too big
* Minor fixes:
Closes: #125976: packages.debian.org: it shouldn't print header for
related packages when none of them exist
Closes: #162588: packages.debian.org: please add a last-modified timezone
Closes: #219653: packages.d.o/experimental/ table formatting bug Closes:
#221114: packages.debian.org: Spelling error in packages overview
I will leave "#224143: www.debian.org: Packages.debian.org still not
restored" open until search_packages is back, too.
Special thanks to Joey for his work to get this done and to Joy for his
feedback while writing the scripts.
Gruesse,
Frank Lichtenheld
