lative luxury right now…
> > >
> > > This is important for apt-listbugs, which takes into account RC bugs by
> > > default
> > Which too is not ideal: for example, I don't think users should care about
> > such RC bugs as FTBFS
>
> See /etc/apt/apt.
arer to release, but
> > > we live in a time of relative luxury right now…
> >
> > This is important for apt-listbugs, which takes into account RC bugs by
> > default
> Which too is not ideal: for example, I don't think users should care about
> such RC bugs as
Le 18/10/2011 18:45, Alexey Salmin a écrit :
There're some ideas coming into mind how to solve it:
* Add "Breaks: xserver-xorg-core (>= 2:1.10.99)" to nvidia-graphics-drivers
I won't work. As Andreas pointed out you can't add it to the package
which is in the archive already. Making a dummy comm
bug in
> nvidia-graphics-drivers.
Ah, OK.
I thought it was the other way around: I hadn't found the time to read
the whole log of bug #642757, sorry.
> If the issue was caused by an upgrade of
> nvidia stuff everything would be fine: there's a bug in the nvidia
> package an
Thank you, Francesco! Actually your mail convinced me that this should
be discussed more widely. It's probably too early for a bugreport on
the apt-listbugs because my original idea with using the "affects"
field will not work as is (see below).
This is why I'd like to hear
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request assistance with maintaining the apt-listbugs package.
The other co-maintainer (Ryan Niebur) is currently almost MIA and
finally told me that he no longer wants to be involved in apt-listbugs
maintenance: see <http://bugs.debian.org/588636> and
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'd like to look for someone who can look after apt-listbugs.
Upstream maintenance is required; knowledge of ruby or the Debian BTS
is a plus.
Package: apt-listbugs
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 436
Maintainer: Junichi Uekawa
Architecture
etting this value "false", and do I need to support it
> in apt-listbugs?
This is probably due to an error that was present for some time in Debian
Installer:
apt-setup (1:0.15) unstable; urgency=low
* Fix broken proxy setting code in 90security. Closes: #378868
Some systems
Hi,
Today, I've received at least two reports about people who have set
Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "false"
From reading apt.conf manpage, the correct configuration is "DIRECT".
Why are people setting this value "false", and do I need to support it
in apt-
Hi,
Finally, I've prepared apt-listbugs with BTS versioning support. This
is a test scenario. You are installing apt-listbugs 0.0.55, and the
BTS says there's serious bugs applicable to apt-listbugs which are
fixed in 0.0.56; your reaction should be 'I'd wait until tomorrow
Hi,
> > RewriteRule ^/indices/(index\.db(.*\.gz)?)$
> > http://merkel.debian.org/~dancer/apt-listbugs/$1 [L,R]
> > RewriteRule ^/cgi-bin/soap.cgi
> > http://bugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/soap.cgi [L,R]
> >
> > in the apache.conf for b.d.o; I don't remem
Hi,
> > Currently they are downloaded from
> > http://osdn.debian.or.jp/~taru/apt-listbugs/
> > http://merkel.debian.org/~dancer/apt-listbugs/
> >
> > I envision something like
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/apt-listbugs/index.*.db
>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > I'm now waiting for the following two things to happen.
> > >
> > > 1. Ack on using bugs.donarmstrong.com for the time being for apt-listbugs.
> >
> > If it's possible to wait a bit, you can speci
Hi,
> > I'm now waiting for the following two things to happen.
> >
> > 1. Ack on using bugs.donarmstrong.com for the time being for apt-listbugs.
>
> If it's possible to wait a bit, you can specify b.d.o, and I'll put in
> an HTTP redirect to send
Hi,
I'm now waiting for the following two things to happen.
1. Ack on using bugs.donarmstrong.com for the time being for apt-listbugs.
2. Deployment of SOAP interface to bugs.debian.org
3. Deployment of index.*.db files on bugs.debian.org
> 1. Move over to merkel.debian.org for
Hi,
This mail is to hopefully notify all the affected parties on a plan to
move apt-listbugs server infrastructure to merkel.debian.org, then to
bugs.debian.org.
The transition plan is as follows:
1. Move over to merkel.debian.org for the time being, with the upload
of apt-listbugs 0.0.53
2
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I'm now waiting for the following two things to happen.
>
> 1. Ack on using bugs.donarmstrong.com for the time being for apt-listbugs.
If it's possible to wait a bit, you can specify b.d.o, and I'll put in
an HTTP re
Hi,
Currently, it sounds unrealistic to move the apt-listbugs
infrastructure back to Debian.org infrastructure. Which of the Debian
servers have almost-unlimited bandwidth for serving ? I'm seeking
information from those who are knowledgeable about Debian hosts.
Currently osdl.debian.
Masato Taruishi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > > On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to
> > > use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject.
> > >
> > > apt-listbu
2003$BG/(B08$B7n(B28$BF|(B(?)$B$N(B01$B;~(B58$BJ,$K(B Adam Heath
(Bwrote:
(B
(B> > On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to
(B> > use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject.
(B> >
(B> > apt-lis
On 27 Aug 2003, Masato Taruishi wrote:
> On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to
> use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject.
>
> apt-listbugs fetches just few static files from web server, two index
> files and .st
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:54:07PM +0900, Masato Taruishi wrote:
> On IRC, I was suggested that apt-listbugs should use index.db. I had to
> use debbugs .status file too because index.db doesn't have subject.
I suggest that you generate your own index.db file containing the
subjec
> I was looking at the various stats programs(http://master/mrtg/), and noticed
> that for the last week, master's incoming bw, outgoing bw, and load, have been
> unusually high.
>
> After some digging, I found 2 main causes.
>
> 1: The apt-listbugs author has seemed i
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:07:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well, correction, cgi.d.o does almost nothing these days. But lists.d.o
> > requires resources pretty much continuously, what with all the mhonarc,
> > glimpse, stats updates and users accessing web pages and its CGI scripts.
> >
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:58:24AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Well, correction, cgi.d.o does almost nothing these days. But lists.d.o
> requires resources pretty much continuously, what with all the mhonarc,
> glimpse, stats updates and users accessing web pages and its CGI scripts.
>
> And again
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:38:22PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> master runs the bugs.debian.org, cgi.debian.org, and lists.debian.org(the
> web archive, not the mail software). The former are cpu intensive. The
> latter sometimes is, when a search is done.
Well, correction, cgi.d.o does almost not
I was looking at the various stats programs(http://master/mrtg/), and noticed
that for the last week, master's incoming bw, outgoing bw, and load, have been
unusually high.
After some digging, I found 2 main causes.
1: The apt-listbugs author has seemed it nescessary to export all de
Package: apt-listbugs
Severity: critical
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Adam Heath wrote:
> I was noticing increased load on master. While trying to track that down, I
> noticed a large percentage of requests(48k of 116k) from something called
> apt-listbugs.
>
> It appears the maintain
I've uploaded a test version of the tool at:
deb http://people.debian.org/~taru/deb/apt-listbugs/ ./
I'd like you to check it.
Currently, it retrieves bug reports from not bugs.debian.org,
but hanzubon.debian.gr.jp, which does proxy-caching of
bugs.debian.org temporary. This keeps
29 matches
Mail list logo
