Installing:
wbd_1.00a-2_sparc.deb
to pool/main/w/wbd/wbd_1.00a-2_sparc.deb
wbd_1.00a-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/w/wbd/wbd_1.00a-2.diff.gz
wbd_1.00a-2.dsc
to pool/main/w/wbd/wbd_1.00a-2.dsc
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Setting bugs to severity fixed:
If the override file
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 92674 + fixed
Bug#92674: build-depends on obsolete package
Tags added: fixed
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Rejected: GPG signature check failed on `osh_1.7-7.1.dsc'.
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: processing message failed: eof
===
If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this email.
Your rejected files are in incoming/REJECT/.
tag 92674 + 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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:47:15 +0200
Source: pclock
Binary: pclock
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.13.1-1
Dist
Installing:
pclock_0.13.1-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/p/pclock/pclock_0.13.1-1.diff.gz
pclock_0.13.1-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/p/pclock/pclock_0.13.1-1_i386.deb
pclock_0.13.1.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/p/pclock/pclock_0.13.1.orig.tar.gz
pclock_0.13.1-1.dsc
to pool/main/p/pclock/pclock_0.13.1-1.dsc
BTW we need to ensure the documentation in Debian explains the orphaning
procedure and the correct email address to use.
On 04-Apr-2001 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Currently the signal/noise ratio on this list is really bad (if you
> consider bug reports and dinstall messages as noise).
>
> Maybe we should stop using <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as a Maintainer:
> address for packages maintained by QA and use somthing like
> <
Hi Matej!
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Matej Vela wrote:
> I see your point, but there's no need to make extra work for ourselves.
> It would be better to create something like debian-qa-discuss and move
> to it right away...
This would be a solution but somehow I like debian-qa as a list for
discussion
Hi Malcolm!
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Malcolm Parsons wrote:
> Several of those packages have Depends: mpg321 | mpg123
>
> mpg321 is in main, mpg123 is not.
>
> I think that should be allowed, because the dependency can be satisfied with
> stuff in main.
It is now.
Hi Petr!
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Petr Cech wrote:
> > Anyone going to stop me?
>
> no. But it seems to have problems with (libungif | giflib). This is/should be
> allowed, no?
Yes, this should be ok Thanks for pointing this out Petr, Joy and David.
After fixing this bug the following packages stil
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Peter Palfrader wrote:
: > Packages in main may not depend or recommend
: > stuff outside of main.
:
: I intent to file bugs with severity serious against the packages listed on
: this site (after verifying that they still exists in the latest vers
Hi Josip!
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 05:06:17PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > Packages in main may not depend or recommend
> > > stuff outside of main.
> > >
> > > See http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?list=withinmain&arch
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 05:06:17PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Packages in main may not depend or recommend
> > stuff outside of main.
> >
> > See http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?list=withinmain&arch=ANY for the
> > list of packages that violate this.
>
> I in
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 05:06:17PM +0200 , Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Packages in main may not depend or recommend
> > stuff outside of main.
> >
> > See http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?list=withinmain&arch=ANY for the
> > list of packages that violate this.
cool
>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 05:06:17PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Packages in main may not depend or recommend
> > stuff outside of main.
> >
> > See http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?list=withinmain&arch=ANY for the
> > list of packages that violate this.
>
> I in
> Packages in main may not depend or recommend
> stuff outside of main.
>
> See http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?list=withinmain&arch=ANY for the
> list of packages that violate this.
I intent to file bugs with severity serious against the packages listed on
this sit
On 01-04-04 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Maybe we should stop using <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as a Maintainer:
> address for packages maintained by QA and use somthing like
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> For now this should be setup to forward all mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> but when enough packages use the ne
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 03:19:30AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Currently the signal/noise ratio on this list is really bad (if you
> consider bug reports and dinstall messages as noise).
>
> Maybe we should stop using <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as a Maintainer:
> address for packages maintained by QA
18 matches
Mail list logo
