Re: DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* GCS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 20:10]: > I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the > already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can > see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it > normal, ie why I can't see the same with

Re: DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:59:10PM +0200, GCS wrote: > Hi, > > I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the > already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can > see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it > normal, ie why I can'

Re: DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* GCS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040423 20:10]: > I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the > already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can > see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it > normal, ie why I can't see the same with

DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread GCS
Hi, I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it normal, ie why I can't see the same with cvs2svn, where I also have closed bugs going

Re: DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:59:10PM +0200, GCS wrote: > Hi, > > I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the > already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can > see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it > normal, ie why I can'

DD packages overview vs bugs

2004-04-23 Thread GCS
Hi, I have just noticed, that on the summary page of my packages[1] the already closed bugs still shown in xmms-blursk. On the PTS page I can see that the bugs are closed, and will be archived in 26 days. Is it normal, ie why I can't see the same with cvs2svn, where I also have closed bugs going

Re: Question on License

2004-04-23 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-04-23 04:42:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Overall, looks to me like another cut-n-paste licence which wasn't > even > proofread by the author, let alone anyone with legal qualifications. > But I > can't see anything that makes it non-free. We can comply with all

Re: Becoming the upstream maintainer of a package

2004-04-23 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Fr, den 23.04.2004 schrieb Chris Anderson um 5:32: > My assumption > is that I should note the change in the changelog and upgrade the > version from 2.0-9 to 2.01. Don't do that. 2.01 is a version number for a debian native package, that is a package that is only useful on debian. From th

Re: Question on License

2004-04-23 Thread MJ Ray
On 2004-04-23 04:42:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Overall, looks to me like another cut-n-paste licence which wasn't > even > proofread by the author, let alone anyone with legal qualifications. > But I > can't see anything that makes it non-free. We can comply with all

Re: Becoming the upstream maintainer of a package

2004-04-23 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Fr, den 23.04.2004 schrieb Chris Anderson um 5:32: > My assumption > is that I should note the change in the changelog and upgrade the > version from 2.0-9 to 2.01. Don't do that. 2.01 is a version number for a debian native package, that is a package that is only useful on debian. From th