reassign 194026 ftp.debian.org
retitle 194026 Please remove wn
thanks
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 15:37]:
> I just investigated the orphaned wn package:
>
> Can we please just remove this one? It needs complete repackaging
> anyway.
Sounds convincing enough.
RoQA; orphan
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 05:46]:
> Didier Dhollande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> One package ("pinball"). There's been a new upstream version for over a
> *year*, and bugs have been open asking for recompilation with gcc-3.3 for
> many months -- no maintainer comment. :-P N
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 04:44]:
> Mattia Monga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Three packages. Last upload in October (for tkrat). No uploads in
> recorded history for sleuthkit or autopsy; both are markedly out of
> date with respect to upstream, and sleuthkit has ignored RC
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 03:49]:
> Johann Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. One package (ldap2dns) with RC bug
> open since October -- hasn't responded to bug trail yet.
Thanks, I contacted him.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:48:45PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> what's the status of muffin in Debian? According to
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/muffin.html the last upload was in
> 2001, and the package seems to be dead upstream.
I haven't had much time to maintain it of late, and since the
Hi,
what's the status of muffin in Debian? According to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/muffin.html the last upload was in
2001, and the package seems to be dead upstream.
Is this right? If so, how useful is this package now? If it is not too
useful, I'd consider removing it from Debian.
Cheers
* Igor Genibel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 18:55]:
> Currently the ddpo backend uses keyserver.debian.net for gathering
> gpg keys for "non-debian-keyring" present developer. But this server is
> a round-robbin link to keyserver.fabbione.net and keyserver.noreply.org
> that currently do not have th
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 13:15:52 +0100]:
> PGP keys that are to be retrieved from some public keyserver are not
> found since a week or so.
>
> You can see that this URL has 'GPG key id not found':
> http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&comaint=yes
>
> and this
Hi.
I just investigated the orphaned wn package:
- It has a (easy fixable) RC bug
- It's packaged in the worst form I've ever seen. Some kind
of home-breed packaging system. Totally bloated and confusing.
- A new upstream version is available: 2.4.6 vs. 2.2.9, seems
there were a great num
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#121458: RFP: sgi-sysadm-base -- Application framework for configuring,
managing and monitoring hard- and software,
which was filed against the wnpp package.
It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Filip Van Raemdonck <[EMAIL
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor
PGP keys that are to be retrieved from some public keyserver are not
found since a week or so.
You can see that this URL has 'GPG key id not found':
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&comaint=yes
and this one does:
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 04:59:32AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Perhaps more urgently, the RC bug #203923 has been ignored for too long.
> (It might be downgradable, however.)
Seems we happened to look at this at roughly the same time ...
--
Colin Watson [EMA
Didier Dhollande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One package ("pinball"). There's been a new upstream version for over a
*year*, and bugs have been open asking for recompilation with gcc-3.3 for
many months -- no maintainer comment. :-P Now it doesn't even start
(bug #230053), and that's been ignored for o
Hakan Ardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Last upload in August. More worrisomely, last upload before that in June.
Maintainer of toolchain-source, which is supposed to include source for
GCC, binutils, etc., so that cross-compiler packages can build-depend on
them. But, being last uploaded in June, it's
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:44:53AM +0100, Igor Genibel wrote:
> developer.php uses the source package for the bugs, that's why it
> doesn't show the binary package related bugs. It's a bug.
> I'm currently fixing this one.
Great. Thanks for being on the case. I'll stop bothering you now.
- Matt
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:43:34PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Not quite sure what the basis for this is, but the bug summary has some
> interesting issues. For example, bugs for Dave Beckett's packages
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) aren't showing up in developer.php. As an
> example, bug #234246 (aga
Mattia Monga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Three packages. Last upload in October (for tkrat). No uploads in
recorded history for sleuthkit or autopsy; both are markedly out of date
with respect to upstream, and sleuthkit has ignored RC bugs plus other
quite-old bugs.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens:
* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 19:43:34 +1100]:
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: normal
>
> Not quite sure what the basis for this is, but the bug summary has some
> interesting issues. For example, bugs for Dave Beckett's packages
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) aren't showing up in
Johann Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. One package (ldap2dns) with RC bug open since
October -- hasn't responded to bug trail yet.
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://w
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
Not quite sure what the basis for this is, but the bug summary has some
interesting issues. For example, bugs for Dave Beckett's packages
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) aren't showing up in developer.php. As an
example, bug #234246 (against libraptor1-dev) doesn't sh
20 matches
Mail list logo
