Bug#58771: marked as done (packaging-manual: Error in section 4.2.9)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#56692: marked as done (Missing entity in debian-policy documents.)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#56407: marked as done (debian-policy: broken links)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#54777: marked as done (debian-policy: registers doc under Apps/Programming, not Debian)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53763: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] policy for X font packages)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53762: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] applying the FHS to packages that use X)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53761: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] revision of the Motif/LessTif policy)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53760: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] revision of X application-defaults policy)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53758: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] policy for "x-window-manager" virtual package and alternative)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53757: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] policy for "x-terminal-emulator" virtual package and alternative)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53756: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] additions to virtual package list)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53755: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 02/01/2000] policy for usage of "xserver" alternative)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#53405: marked as done (packaging-manual: dpkg 1.6.5 will reorder symlinks for you)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#52225: marked as done (policy typo)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#51091: marked as done (Packaging-manual: there is not a )

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#43787: marked as done ([AMENDED 07/09/1999] policy on -g, a proposal)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#40934: marked as done ([ACCEPTED 10/26/99] changelog.html.gz sanitization)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#39398: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL] debian-policy has an unclear statement on dependancies and priorities)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#29522: marked as done ([PROPOSED]: clarification needed about diversions)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#22935: marked as done ([REJECTED] Do not make hardlinks to conffiles)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#17369: marked as done (Additional info to packaging 8.3.)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Bug#15709: marked as done (packaging-manual dwww entry)

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:17:16 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closed in debian-policy 3.2.0.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your res

Processed: Fixed in NMU debian-policy 3.2.0.0

2000-08-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 15709 fixed Bug#15709: packaging-manual dwww entry Severity set to `fixed'. > severity 17369 fixed Bug#17369: Additional info to packaging 8.3. Severity set to `fixed'. > severity 22935 fixed Bug#22935: [REJECTED] Do not make hardlinks to con

Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults

2000-08-02 Thread Taketoshi Sano
Can I ask a question ? In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:21:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says these > can't be conffiles, so they go in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults. > > Well, upstream has c