* Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010326 21:17]:
> You can file a RFP (request for packaging) bug against wnpp, and maybe
> someone will pick it up. In that case, you need not be a developer.
see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp for more information on RFPs.
--
Martin Mich
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Ethan J. Sommer wrote:
> Hi, I am one of the core developers for Althea
> (http://althea.sourceforge.net) and I was trying to figgure out how to get
> it included in Debian. As far as I could tell from the web page, I would
There are two ways: the first one, is to become a dev
Hi, I am one of the core developers for Althea
(http://althea.sourceforge.net) and I was trying to figgure out how to get
it included in Debian. As far as I could tell from the web page, I would
have to become a Debian developer, which is fine... I guess, but as far as
I know, I don't know a devel
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 53716 + fixed
Bug#53716: Fails on machines where chars are unsigned.
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Installing:
xpuzzles_5.5.2-4.dsc
to pool/main/x/xpuzzles/xpuzzles_5.5.2-4.dsc
xpuzzles_5.5.2-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/x/xpuzzles/xpuzzles_5.5.2-4.diff.gz
xpuzzles_5.5.2-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xpuzzles/xpuzzles_5.5.2-4_i386.deb
xmpuzzles_5.5.2-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xpuzzles/xmpuzzles_5
tag 53716 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:47:50 +0200
Source: xpuzzles
Binary: xmpuzzles xpuzzles
Architecture: source i386
Version:
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
xmpuzzles_5.5.2-4_i386.deb: priority is overridden from optional to extra.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wron
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 90298 + fixed
Bug#90298: Extraneous menu file
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
tag 90298 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 02:30:00 -0700
Source: koffice
Binary: killustrator kword kspread kpresenter krayo
Installing:
amor_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdetoys/amor_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
kdetoys_2.1.1-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/k/kdetoys/kdetoys_2.1.1-1.diff.gz
kscore_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdetoys/kscore_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
kdetoys_2.1.1.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/k/kdetoys/kdetoys_2.1.1.orig.t
Installing:
kasteroids_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdegames/kasteroids_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
ksokoban_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdegames/ksokoban_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
kmahjongg_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdegames/kmahjongg_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
kpat_2.1.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kdegame
Installing:
koffice-dev_2.1-cvs20010323-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/koffice/koffice-dev_2.1-cvs20010323-1_i386.deb
koffice_2.1-cvs20010323.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/k/koffice/koffice_2.1-cvs20010323.orig.tar.gz
kivio_2.1-cvs20010323-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/koffice/kivio_2.1-cvs20010323-1_i386
Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:37:24 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#91072: man page in /usr/man should move to /usr/share/man
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
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Please remove bigbrother from unstable. It's non-free, has three
unmerged open critical security bugs, one open grave bug, and a host of
other bugs, is Standards-Version: 2.4.0.0 and doesn't conform to the
FHS, and has good substitutes (e.g. netsaint). It's
Previously Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> If the general sentiment is what I think it is, then I agree: LAY IT TO REST
> ALREADY. Linux 2.0 and 2.2 are both obsolete. There's very, very little sense
> in keeping either around. I can imagine some people screaming bloody murder if
> support for 2.2 was r
Package: knews
Version: 1.0b.1-4
Severity: Serious
I just tried to recompile knews for m68k, but it failed with:
> /usr/bin/sudo debian/rules clean DEB_BUILD_ARCH=m68k DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU=m68k
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM=linux DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=m68k-linux DEB_HOST_ARCH=m68k
> DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU=m68k D
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 11:13:54AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> We've already lost the ability to manage modular 2.0 kernels, though,
> and I don't think most of the rest impact your ability to keep an old
> machine running. Perhaps we should remove most of the old packages
> containing sources and
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 01:45:08AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
>> This is, however, my _personal_opinion_ and there will probably be
>> very good reasons against it. Let the debate begin!
>
>One reason against it is that there are probably machines r
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Found another one:
>
>update - daemon to periodically flush filesystem buffers
>The description says:
> This package is not needed with Linux 2.2.8 and above. If you do not
> plan to run a 2.0.x series kernel on this system, you can safely
> remove this pac
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In that case I suggest that we remove bridge, and make it official that the
> >next release of Debian will only versions of Linux supported are 2.2 and 2.4.
> >
> >Are there any other packages that only support Linux 2.0?
>
> At least the following binary
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 01:45:08AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> This is, however, my _personal_opinion_ and there will probably be very good
> reasons against it. Let the debate begin!
One reason against it is that there are probably machines running Debian
that were last rebooted before linu
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:15:10 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote:
> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Another thought, bridge contains the userspace tools for operating an
> >> >ethernet br
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Another thought, bridge contains the userspace tools for operating an
>> >ethernet bridge on Linux 2.0, we have have not supported the 1.x
>> >versions of the Linux kernel
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case I suggest that we remove bridge, and make it official that the
> next release of Debian will only versions of Linux supported are 2.2 and 2.4.
>
> Are there any other packages that only support Linux 2.0?
To answer my own question, here is a
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Another thought, bridge contains the userspace tools for operating an
> >ethernet bridge on Linux 2.0, we have have not supported the 1.x
> >versions of the Linux kernel for some time, is it about time that we
> >d
Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:53:39 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#91629: Package saml still has at least one file in /usr/doc
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 i
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Another thought, bridge contains the userspace tools for operating an
>ethernet bridge on Linux 2.0, we have have not supported the 1.x
>versions of the Linux kernel for some time, is it about time that we
>dropped the support for version 2.0?
Hmm, the modu
Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:23:38 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#91609: Package mserver still has at least one file in
/usr/doc
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:25:13 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#91421: Package dotfile-doc still has at least one file in
/usr/doc
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Package: saml
Version: 970418-6, as in unstable on March 24
According to the Contents file for unstable, saml contains at least one
file in /usr/doc/. That directory is deprecated, and policy section 13.3
says that packages should place documentation in /usr/share/doc/ instead.
Please update you
Package: mserver
Version: 0.23a-1, as in unstable on March 24
According to the Contents file for unstable, mserver contains at least one
file in /usr/doc/. That directory is deprecated, and policy section 13.3
says that packages should place documentation in /usr/share/doc/ instead.
Please updat
Package: netenv
Version: 0.82-11, as in unstable on March 24
According to the Contents file for unstable, netenv contains at least one
file in /usr/doc/. That directory is deprecated, and policy section 13.3
says that packages should place documentation in /usr/share/doc/ instead.
Please update
Package: dotfile-doc
Version: 20010324-1, as in unstable on March 24
According to the Contents file for unstable, dotfile-doc contains at least
one file in /usr/doc/. That directory is deprecated, and policy section
13.3 says that packages should place documentation in /usr/share/doc/
instead.
P
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to NMU some orphaned packages soon to fix up their FHS status
> and set their maintainer to QA if necessary. In particular, if no-one
> else has done them already, I'll do bezerk, bridge, echo-linux,
> freefont, nasm-mode, python-pmw, sharefont, s
34 matches
Mail list logo
