Your message dated Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:15:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line How often is packages.d.o updated?
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; 8 Feb 2004 01:06:56 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 07 17:06:56 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ApdPT-00039K-00; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:06:56 -0800
Received: from pd9e39d4e.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.227.157.78] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1ApdPR-0000uR-00; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:06:53 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1ApdPH-0002qt-00; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:06:43 +0100
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 02:06:42 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: How often is packages.d.o updated?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01
X-Spam-Level:
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: pending
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:40:16PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I wonder, how often packages.d.o is being
> updated.
>
> mozilla-locale-de-at 1.6-2 was uploaded 27 Jan.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=mozilla-locale-de-at
> lists this version for unstable and has been doing so for some days.
>
> But as of today,
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/mozilla-locale-de-at still
> lists version 1.5-1 which is no longer in unstable.
>
> Is this normal? Are the pages for individual packages regenerated only
> once a week or so?
The problem are outdated translations that are not removed. I have a
patch ready for this but it will have to wait another week until I
can test and apply it.
The English pages should be always up-to-date.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 231645-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Feb 2004 01:15:42 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 14 17:15:42 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AsAsn-0006uJ-00; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:15:42 -0800
Received: from pd9530eee.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.83.14.238] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1AsAsl-0008Fn-00; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:15:39 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1AsAse-00070g-00; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:15:32 +0100
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:15:31 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How often is packages.d.o updated?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
X-Spam-Level:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:06:42AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:40:16PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> > I wonder, how often packages.d.o is being
> > updated.
> >
> > mozilla-locale-de-at 1.6-2 was uploaded 27 Jan.
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=mozilla-locale-de-at
> > lists this version for unstable and has been doing so for some days.
> >
> > But as of today,
> > http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/mozilla-locale-de-at still
> > lists version 1.5-1 which is no longer in unstable.
> >
> > Is this normal? Are the pages for individual packages regenerated only
> > once a week or so?
>
> The problem are outdated translations that are not removed. I have a
> patch ready for this but it will have to wait another week until I
> can test and apply it.
This seems to be fixed as of tonight's run.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
