Processed: administrivia

1999-10-09 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 5409 wishlist Bug#5409: odd behavior from 9wm Severity set to `wishlist'. > retitle 6439 unreproducable core dump from 9wm Bug#6439: 9wm died Changed Bug title. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assist

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 03:26:53PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > And the /usr/doc/copyright issue: > > This is the Debian GNU/Linux prepackaged version of mawk, an > implementation of the AWK Programming Language. dome was written by > Richard J. Bono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > And the dome depends

Re: Bugs in packages maintained by Debian QA Group

1999-10-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 11:19:53PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/pa/l9wm.html Thanks. [Heh, it looks like I wrote all these bug reports. From what I recall these all felt like race conditions.. I'm going to need to set up a really slow machine to even have a chanc

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Edward Betts
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The binary-without-a-manpage issue is less clear cut. > > I was thinking about the binary-without-a-manpage issue. And the /usr/doc/copyright issue: This is the Debian GNU/Linux prepackaged version of mawk, an

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Edward Betts
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are not release-critical issues. > > Also, I've already got a bug report (#46904) filed against lintian for > its reporting on this issue. > > Personally, I don't think the qa team should migrate any packages from > fsstnd to fhs till after potato is

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 01:57:21PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > $ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/dome_4.60-1.2_i386.deb > E: dome: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > E: dome: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > E: dome: binary-without-manpage dome > E: dome: binary-without-manpage dxftopov > W:

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Edward Betts
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 01:57:21PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > > I would like to update it, would an NMU be appropriate? The last maintainer > > upload was 4 Nov 1996, the initial release. > > I have a NMU ready here, FWIW. What you just did one? Does it

Re: Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 01:57:21PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > $ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/dome_4.60-1.2_i386.deb > E: dome: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > E: dome: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > E: dome: binary-without-manpage dome > E: dome: binary-without-manpage dxftopov > W:

Re: Mandelspawn under GPL1

1999-10-09 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 12:40:32PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > The Mandelspawn package has a copyright of GPL version 1. What do I do? > Include a copy of the GPL1 in the debian/copyright file? ask the author to > change to GPL2? Yes, and yes. > or get a copy of GPL1 included in base-files? Ra

Is dome maintained?

1999-10-09 Thread Edward Betts
$ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/dome_4.60-1.2_i386.deb E: dome: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link E: dome: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link E: dome: binary-without-manpage dome E: dome: binary-without-manpage dxftopov W: dome: FSSTND-dir-in-usr usr/doc/ $ I would like to update it, would an N

mmm and ocamltk80 (Re: Debian sponsor)

1999-10-09 Thread Masayuki Hatta
Hi, From: Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Debian sponsor Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:29:14 +0200 schoepf> on http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/ I saw that you're schoepf> looking for a sponsor and maybe I can help you. Thanks! Sorry for late reply. schoepf> You wrot

Mandelspawn under GPL1

1999-10-09 Thread Edward Betts
The Mandelspawn package has a copyright of GPL version 1. What do I do? Include a copy of the GPL1 in the debian/copyright file? ask the author to change to GPL2? or get a copy of GPL1 included in base-files? -- I consume, therefore I am pgpx6hypylPc4.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian 2.1 updates on CD image?

1999-10-09 Thread Martin Schulze
Kim Sandström wrote: > Hello, > > I currently use Redhat. As I'd like to introduce my brother to Linux I > thought he could try Debian. It turned out to be more complicated than I > thought. > I burned the two official Debian CDs (2.1r3). As I understand they are based > on > kernel 2.0.x. - tha

Re: wnpp on qa.d.o?

1999-10-09 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Le Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 05:22:05PM -0400, Michael Stone écrivait: > Why doesn't the wnpp list at http://qa.debian.org/wnpp.html match the > one at http://www.debian.org/doc/prospective-packages.html? Why not just > link to the latter list rather than generating a new one? Because the former can be