Re: Raising /usr/doc bugs to serious (policy 3.5.6.0)

2001-08-03 Thread Edward Betts
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it really worth the effort? I'd rather wait until the BTS offers > some standardized way to get this information (see the discussion on > -project). Also, the FTP admins are usually very fast with removing > stuff. I was just thinking that it migh

Bug#91577: marked as done (Package metrics still has at least one file in /usr/doc)

2001-08-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:29:23 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line metrics bugs fixed by QA upload 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 now your res

Bug#91211: marked as done (man page in /usr/man should move to /usr/share/man)

2001-08-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:29:23 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line metrics bugs fixed by QA upload 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 now your res

Re: Raising /usr/doc bugs to serious (policy 3.5.6.0)

2001-08-03 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010803 05:26]: > > > Could this be shown on http://qa.debian.org/fhs.html in some way? > > > > I'll see what I can do. > > Is it really worth t

Re: Raising /usr/doc bugs to serious (policy 3.5.6.0)

2001-08-03 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010803 05:26]: > > > to be removed (bugs filed). > > > > Could this be shown on http://qa.debian.org/fhs.html in some way? > > I'll see what I can do. Is it really worth the effort? I'd rather wait until the B

Re: Raising /usr/doc bugs to serious (policy 3.5.6.0)

2001-08-03 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 07:45:02AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010731 13:09]: > > > # gs-aladdin-manual > > > # gs-aladdin-manual-de > > > # idled > > > # ncurses3.0 > > > # ncurses3.4 > > > # sml-nj > > > > to

Re: sml-nj package

2001-08-03 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Hi Martin! You wrote: > This package is about to be removed. If you want it, please reassign > #107086 to 'wnpp' and retitle it 'O: sml-nj - foobar'. See #107086 > for more information on what's going on. No, I don't want it, I was just trying to get rid of some FHS bugs. -- Kind regards, +

Re: sml-nj package

2001-08-03 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010803 11:36]: > Are you still the maintainer of the sml-nj package? Its last update > was in november 1998, and the package still uses very old policy. > Also, there are a grave (building this package removes files in > /usr/lib) an

sml-nj package

2001-08-03 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Hi Brain! Are you still the maintainer of the sml-nj package? Its last update was in november 1998, and the package still uses very old policy. Also, there are a grave (building this package removes files in /usr/lib) and two serious (FHS transition) bugs open against it for quite a long time. I

Re: Raising /usr/doc bugs to serious (policy 3.5.6.0)

2001-08-03 Thread Edward Betts
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010731 13:09]: > > # gs-aladdin-manual > > # gs-aladdin-manual-de > > # idled > > # ncurses3.0 > > # ncurses3.4 > > # sml-nj > > to be removed (bugs filed). Could this be shown on http://qa.debian.org/fhs.html in