On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>
>> where the second field is not a valid package name. Can someone please
>> tell me if this is expected or if I should inform someone of the
>> problem?
>
> Bug #833695 was already fi
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> where the second field is not a valid package name. Can someone please
> tell me if this is expected or if I should inform someone of the
> problem?
Bug #833695 was already filed about this issue.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.o
In http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst , I see some lines where the
package names do not make any sense. For example, in the latest file,
I see
105799 /gnomi®aD>p00rerD.hare/5pataE>/bbsd 1 0 0 0
1 (Not in sid)
where the second field is not a valid package name. Can someone please
tel
3 matches
Mail list logo