-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22-Apr-2001 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Hi Bas!
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> When building packages that are orphaned and have maintainer set to the
>> QA team, should I consider my uploads NMU's, or not?
>
> No, co
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Enrique, are you there? :) I sent one mail about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>being broken already, a couple of weeks ago, no reply...
>
>If anyone from QA would be so kind to NMU the acm package to change the
>maintainer to the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> address (which doe
tag 91065 + fixed
tag 91654 + 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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:14:59 -0300
Source: sharc
Binary: sharc
Architecture: source
Mapping frozen to unstable.
Installing:
sharc_2.1-1.1.dsc
to pool/main/s/sharc/sharc_2.1-1.1.dsc
sharc_2.1-1.1.diff.gz
to pool/main/s/sharc/sharc_2.1-1.1.diff.gz
sharc_2.1-1.1_all.deb
to pool/main/s/sharc/sharc_2.1-1.1_all.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Setting bugs
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
ifrench_1.4-7_i386.deb: priority is overridden from extra to optional.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wrong pl
Installing:
ifrench_1.4-7.dsc
to pool/main/i/ifrench/ifrench_1.4-7.dsc
ifrench_1.4-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/i/ifrench/ifrench_1.4-7_i386.deb
ifrench_1.4-7.diff.gz
to pool/main/i/ifrench/ifrench_1.4-7.diff.gz
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Setting bugs to severity fixed:
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
sharc_2.1-1.1_all.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 wrong ple
Hi Josip!
You wrote:
> If anyone from QA would be so kind to NMU the acm package to change the
> maintainer to the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> address (which doesn't bounce), I'd
> be most grateful. These bounces are repeating constantly and are starting to
> get on my nerves. :)
Done.
--
Kind regards
Hi Massimo!
> I'll prepare an upload for stable.
I just took a look at it. The problem seems to be that the dh_installxaw
that is supplied by debhelper, doesn't actually do anything.
Maybe somebody else of the QA team could take a look at this?
--
Kind regards,
+
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 94893 potato
Bug#94893: xxgdb uses own dh_installxaw instead of debhelper one
Tags added: potato
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
tags 94893 potato
thanks
Hi Massimo!
You wrote:
> xxgdb doesn't compile on potato because it uses a private dh_installxaw
> script instead of the standard script supplied by debhelper.
Weird. If it doesn't build, how can it be in potato?
Well, I'll prepare an upload for stable.
--
Kind regard
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010422 20:20]:
> When building packages that are orphaned and have maintainer set to the
> QA team, should I consider my uploads NMU's, or not?
No, because everyone is part of QA.
However, katie will consider your upload to be a NMU; thus,
Hi Bas!
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When building packages that are orphaned and have maintainer set to the
> QA team, should I consider my uploads NMU's, or not?
No, consider them as normal maintainer uploads.
yours,
Hi!
When building packages that are orphaned and have maintainer set to the
QA team, should I consider my uploads NMU's, or not?
--
Kind regards,
+---+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce |
|-
Package: xxgdb
Version: 1.12-9.3
Severity: serious
xxgdb doesn't compile on potato because it uses a private dh_installxaw
script instead of the standard script supplied by debhelper.
$ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
...
dh_installmenu
DH_AUTOSCRIPTDIR=debian perl debian/dh_installxaw
Can't locate
Hi,
Enrique, are you there? :) I sent one mail about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
being broken already, a couple of weeks ago, no reply...
If anyone from QA would be so kind to NMU the acm package to change the
maintainer to the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> address (which doesn't bounce), I'd
be most grateful. The
Package: libnewt-perl
Version: 1.08-3
Severity: serious
make[1]: Entering directory `/raid5/home/rkrusty/build/libnewt-perl-1.08'
mkdir blib
mkdir blib/lib
mkdir blib/arch
mkdir blib/arch/auto
mkdir blib/arch/auto/Newt
mkdir blib/lib/auto
mkdir blib/lib/auto/Newt
mkdir blib/man3
cp Newt.pm blib/l
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:36:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line dpkg-mountable removed from Debian unstable
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
Ivo Timmermans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I will be going over the list of bugs. It may take a while though
> > before I've had them all, I will keep you posted.
>
> Thanks to Jaakko, we have this list:
>
> 37 bugs can be closed, because they are not relevant to the current
>package, hav
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>With all the discussion lately about binaries not having man pages, I
>thought I'd jump in and volunteer to write some. Is there a formal
>procedure for this, or should I just file bug reports with man pages
>attached?
There should be bug reports about many of them alread
Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > If someone could do that, I'd appreciate it; just reply and say you're
> > working on it. Thanks for your help.
>
> I will be going over the list of bugs. It may take a while though
> before I've had them all, I will keep you posted.
Thanks to
Package: icqlib
Version: 1.0.0-3
Severity: normal
Two problems:
1) The config.guess and config.sub files in the source need to be updated
to the current ones (at http://subversions.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/config).
2) After doing that, we hit a gcc 3.0 issue:
/bin/sh ../libtool --silent --mode=comp
33 matches
Mail list logo
