On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 07:07:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must
> >> >> have
> >> >> been fixed in a previous change in the manual. closes:
> >> >> Bug#193903
> >>
> >> > Tsk, bad Manoj (or whoever). If you didn't make a
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:35:01 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:46:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must
>> >> have
>> >> been fixed in a previous change in the manual. closes:
>> >> Bug
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:20:42 +0100, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:46:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Obviously it's too late to do anything about it now, but I
>> > thought maybe if I brought it up, it might help discourage future
>> > occurrences.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:43:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Eh? Suppose I do echo "" > config file, you are going to blow my
> >> changes away and "recreate the configuration as the package deems
> >> fit"?
> >> Packages ought not to rely on the configuration file to provide
> >> sane
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:46:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Obviously it's too late to do anything about it now, but I thought
> > maybe if I brought it up, it might help discourage future
> > occurrences.
>
> If you don't like it, go start a GR to get my packages out of
> my cont
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:46:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must
> >> have
> >> been fixed in a previous change in the manual. closes: Bug#193903
>
> > Tsk, bad Manoj (or whoever). If you didn't make a change, there
> > sho
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:23:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must have
> >been fixed in a previous change in the manual.closes: Bug#193903
>
> Tsk, bad Manoj (or whoever). If you didn't make a change, there
> shouldn't
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:50:07 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:27:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:08:38 -0700, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:29:33PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> >
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:23:14 -0700, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj (or somebody) wrote in policy changelog:
>> * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must
>> have
>> been fixed in a previous change in the manual. closes: Bug#193903
> Tsk, bad Manoj (or whoe
Manoj (or somebody) wrote in policy changelog:
> * Could no longer find the misspelling "seciton", thus this must have
>been fixed in a previous change in the manual.closes: Bug#193903
Tsk, bad Manoj (or whoever). If you didn't make a change, there
shouldn't be an entry or closer in
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194972: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#193903: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#191411: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#189306: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#191369: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#178809: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#169744: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#187615: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#174982: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#183195: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:33 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194974: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#189516: fixed in debian-policy 3.6.0
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 no
Accepted:
debian-policy_3.6.0.dsc
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.6.0.dsc
debian-policy_3.6.0.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.6.0.tar.gz
debian-policy_3.6.0_all.deb
to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.6.0_all.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@li
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: joy Wed Jul 9 10:17:13 MDT 2003
Modified files:
. : debian-policy.desc
Log message:
added PS and PDF (doh)
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: joy Wed Jul 9 10:08:41 MDT 2003
Modified files:
debian : control changelog
Log message:
administrivia
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:27:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:08:38 -0700, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 06:29:33PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> >> Second, propose a change to policy such that it explicitly forbid
> >> the recreati
26 matches
Mail list logo
