Your message dated Sun, 1 Aug 2004 02:08:51 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#260274:
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; 19 Jul 2004 18:07:45 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 19 11:07:45 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from imap.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20]
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BmcYD-00014t-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:07:45 -0700
Received: (qmail 16300 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Jul 2004 18:07:11 -0000
Received: from A4efe.a.pppool.de (EHLO a4efe.a.pppool.de) (213.6.78.254)
by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2004 20:07:11 +0200
X-Authenticated: #16353863
From: Erik Schanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html possibly outdated
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:05:16 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: www.debian.org
The site http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/no_watch.html pointed me on this bug.
There are 111 package pages
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/<section>/<packagename>,
where copyright links to
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/<first_letter>/<packagename>/packagename_version>/copyright
are broken, because the files doesn't exist.
The according sites to these unstable packages are involved:
9wm 1.2-5
aewm 1.2.3-2.1
alcovebook-sgml 0.1.2-5
aleph 0.9.0-1
am-utils 6.0.9-3
apcalc 2.11.9.3-1
auctex 11.14-3
bl 1.2-10
bozohttpd 20030313-1
bugzilla 2.16.5-2
bzip2 1.0.2-1
cursel 0.2.2-3
dante 1.1.14-2
dict-misc 1.5A-1
dnstracer 1.7-1
dropbear 0.42-1
e2fsprogs 1.35-6
emacs-goodies-el 24.5-1
epic4-script-hienoa 0.52-1
epplets 0.6.cvs.2003091001-1.1
erlang-slang 1.0-3
eruby 1.0.5-1
eterm 0.9.2-8
file 4.09-1
fonty 1.0-16
freetype1 1.4pre.20030402-1.1
freetype 2.1.7-2.1
gap-gdat 4r4p3-1
gnusim8085 1.2.88-1
gramofile 1.6-5
gri 2.12.7-1
gs-aladdin 7.04-2
gutenbook 0.1.10-4
gutenbrowser 0.6.8.3-2.3
httperf 0.8-1
ident2 1.04-2
if-transition 1-1
intlfonts 1.2.1-2
ipmenu 0.0.3-6
jed 0.99.16-3.2
kernel-source-2.2.25 2.2.25-3
keylookup 2.2-2
lacheck 1.26-7
libapache-mod-auth-curdir 1.3.27.0-2-1
libapache-mod-proxy-add-forward 0.20010201-3
libapache-mod-rpaf 0.4-1
libc 5.4.46-15
libcrypt-des-perl 2.03-2
libdvdplay 1.0.1-5
libglpng 1.45-3
libgtkimreg 0.1.3-1
libhdf4 4.1r4-18
links-ssl 0.98-2
linux86 0.16.14-1.1
linux-atm 2.4.1-15
logrotate 3.7-2
lyskom-server 2.1.2-2
mailcrypt 3.5.8-2
multimail 0.46-1
netcat 1.10-23
netperf 2.3-1
netsaint-nrpe 1.2.4-4
nis 3.11-3
oo2c 1.5.9-3
openjade1.3 1.3.2-4
openjade 1.4devel1-13
openoffice.org-dictionaries 20030813-3
opensp 1.5.1.0-2
openssh 3.8.1p1-5
openssh-krb5 3.6.1p2-5
paul 0.1.1-2
pccts 1.33MR33-2
pcd2html 0.3.2-2
perlindex 1.302-4
pgp5i 5.0-8
pgpgpg 0.13-3
php4 4.3.8-1
pine 4.58-1
pipsecd 19990511-25
poppassd 1.8.4-2
python-docutils 0.3.3-1
rc 1.7.1-1
readline4 4.3-11
rman 3.2-1
rsaref2 19940415-3
siege-ssl 2.55-1.1
smpeg-xmms 0.3.5-5
squashfs 2.0-ALPHA-1
ssh-askpass 1.2.0-2.1
svgalib 1.4.3-17
sysvinit 2.85-22
tcl-sql 20000621-1.2
tct 1.11-6.1
tripwire 2.3.1.2-6.1
trustees 2.8-2
tunnelv 1.00-11.1
tz-brasil 0.2-1
unzip 5.51-2
vtun 2.6-3
xchain 1.0.1-4
xfonts-biznet-iso-8859-2 3.0.0-15
xmountains 2.6-9
xmp 2.0.4d-6
xview 3.2p1.4-17
xvt 2.1-17
yafc 1.0-7.2
zip 2.30-6
zmailer-ssl 2.99.55-3
zope-cmfplone 1.0.5.20030909-3.1
zope-exuserfolder 0.20.0-2.1
zope-formulator 1.6.2-0.1
Please fix this.
Thank you.
Regards,
Erik
--
www.ErikSchanze.de *********************************************
Bitte keine HTML-Mails! No HTML mails, please! Maillimit: 1 MB *
* Linux-Info-Tag in Dresden, am 30. Oktober 2004 *
Info: http://www.linux-info-tag.de *
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 260274-done) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Aug 2004 00:09:34 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 31 17:09:34 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.sorgfalt.net [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Br3uw-00074X-00; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:09:34 -0700
Received: from p54808f24.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.128.143.36] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34 1)
id 1Br3uq-0005ux-8X
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:09:28 +0200
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1Br3uF-0003lt-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:08:51 +0200
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 02:08:51 +0200
From: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#260274:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[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_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:42:08AM +0200, Erik Schanze wrote:
> Yes, if we wouldn't touch the Policy, unpacking the binary would be fine for
> these cases.
> My suggestion is:
> If there is a copyright file in source package
> then unpack it from source package
> else unpack it from binary package
>
>
> Please switch to this, if there are no cons (that I cannot see from here).
> Thank you.
Done. The extract_changelogs script is still running, but should be
fixed tomorrow. There are at least to cases where this doesn't work yet:
- documentation directory is link to different source package, but this
is a bug (filed one against alsa-modules-i386, which is the only known
case so far)
- source package and binary package have different version numbers.
(Since there is no information in the source package which versions
of binary packages belong to it, this will require some trickery,
patches welcome, will note it in the TODO file)
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
