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; 9 Jun 1998 17:18:17 +0000
Received: (qmail 23361 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1998 17:18:16 -0000
Received: from server.et-inf.fho-emden.de (192.129.16.1)
by debian.novare.net with SMTP; 9 Jun 1998 17:18:16 -0000
Received: from isis.pi.fho-emden.de (ppp005asc.fho-emden.de [193.174.117.5]) by
server.et-inf.fho-emden.de (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA11800 for <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:18:02 +0200
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by isis.pi.fho-emden.de (8.9.0/8.9.0/Debian/GNU) id RAA00775;
Tue, 9 Jun 1998 17:28:07 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 17:28:07 +0200
From: Hartmut Koptein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: www.debian.org: adding download support
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A
Severity: wishlist
Before or short after hamm is released, it should be possible to download
binaries
(deb packages) also for m68k and other arch-types.
This give us one problem: should all packages have the same release number?
If say alpha has foo_7.6-23 and i386 (or ia32) has foo_7.6-19, should both
packages are downloadable or only the newer one? What about packages, that
aren't released for one arch and not for the other (or it is only available
for one arch and not for all)?
This must be checked for each update of www.debian.org and if a package isn't
available the download-button must be disabled. And for an older release
the user should be warned.
Thanks,
Hartmut
--
Hartmut Koptein EMail:
Friedrich-van-Senden-Str. 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26603 Aurich
Tel.: +49-4941-10390 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 21620-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jan 2004 19:06:32 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 12 13:06:31 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
