Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Robert Edmonds
On 2008-02-11, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:21PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: >> Luk Claes wrote: >> > It was rejected with the following message: > >> > Rejected: ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes: Missing mandatory field `description'. > >> Hm, looks like merg

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The gpg signature is related to a key, which is related to one or more > email addresses. Whether dak has that information available to it is > another story, though. Assuming the e-mail address on keys is mailable is also a bit dodgy, an

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:21PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Luk Claes wrote: > > > It was rejected with the following message: > > > > Rejected: ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes: Missing mandatory field > > > `description'. > > > Hm, looks like merge

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:21PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Luk Claes wrote: > > It was rejected with the following message: > > Rejected: ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes: Missing mandatory field `description'. > Hm, looks like mergechanges is to blame. > > You should have got a REJECTED mail te

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Robert Edmonds
Luk Claes wrote: > It was rejected with the following message: > > Rejected: ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes: Missing mandatory field `description'. Hm, looks like mergechanges is to blame. > You should have got a REJECTED mail telling you btw. I never got a REJECTED mail. -- Robert Edmonds [EMAIL

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Luk Claes
Robert Edmonds wrote: > I uploaded these[0] files last week and expected to see a corresponding > "ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes is NEW" mail (due to the new binary package > postgresql-8.3-ip4r), but one never came, nor do I see the package in > NEW or incoming. Where did it go? > > I uploaded the p

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 15:52:30 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > I uploaded these[0] files last week and expected to see a corresponding > "ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes is NEW" mail (due to the new binary package > postgresql-8.3-ip4r), but one never came, nor do I see the package in > NEW or incoming

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Processing of ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes]

2008-02-11 Thread Robert Edmonds
I uploaded these[0] files last week and expected to see a corresponding "ip4r_1.03-1_multi.changes is NEW" mail (due to the new binary package postgresql-8.3-ip4r), but one never came, nor do I see the package in NEW or incoming. Where did it go? I uploaded the package again last night but it sim