Bug#388141: Progress in relicensing agreements: 167 ok out of 216 alioth

2012-10-31 Thread Noritada Kobayashi
Hi Simon and members, 2012/10/21 Simon Paillard : > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:18:02PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >> > We sent the first batch to the Alioth users, and are quite happy that, >> > among the 213 members of the Alioth webwml group we contacted, 104 >> > members already sent

Bug#508485: fop: executable does not work; binary package dependency needs updating

2008-12-12 Thread Noritada Kobayashi
Hi, On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:52:04 +0100 Vincent Fourmond wrote: > Hmmm... I had started to fix these dependencies ages ago in the SVN, > but for some reason I didn't upload them. Funny. But I hadn't spotted > all of them, so thanks for you report. > > I didn't actually use your patch as such,

Bug#490305: remove kazehakase?

2008-09-17 Thread Noritada Kobayashi
reassign 490305 libglib2-ruby1.8 0.17.0~rc1-5 tag 490305 + patch thanks Hi Lucas, 2008/9/17 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 09/09/08 at 08:39 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> > 2008/9/7 Thomas Viehmann: >> > > Noritada Kobayashi wrote: >> > >>

Bug#490305: remove kazehakase?

2008-09-08 Thread Noritada Kobayashi
s not appropriate. Still investigating the bug in the upstream mailing list of Kazehakase[2]. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456816 [2] http://lists.sourceforge.jp/mailman/archives/kazehakase-devel/2008-September/thread.html#2838 (in Japanese) 2008/9/7 Thomas Viehmann: > Noritada K

Bug#490305: remove kazehakase?

2008-09-06 Thread Noritada Kobayashi
Hi, 2008/9/7 Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > at almost two months #490305 (segfault on startup) isn't exactly a brand > new bug, yet there has been no maintainer response. It has no reverse > dependencies and only 95 "votes" in popcon. > > As such it appears that kazehakase is a removal can