Re: Bug#199468: Any plans to continue maintaining Stardict?

2004-03-08 Thread Roy Hiu-yeung Chan
在 二, 2004-02-24 15:59, Andreas Tille 寫道: > Hi, > > there was no upload of StarDict for a very long time. We currently hit > upstream version 2.4.3 which is much more powerfull and not only restricted > to Chinese-English so much more users could profit from an updated package. > > The maintainer

Brian Mays inactive/MIA?

2004-03-08 Thread Per Olofsson
Hi, I'm suspecting that Brian Mays might be MIA. What I've found: * It seems like there hasn't been any activity from him since his last upload of pcmcia-cs from 8th November. Joey Hess said that the upload was done only because he threatened to NMU it. * On February 1, I sent him a mail thr

Re: Developer.php: bugs status

2004-03-08 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 06:57:41PM +0100, Igor Genibel wrote: > I extract the information from /org/bugs.debian.org/spool/index.db on > master that is not a mirror. master is a mirror since this post: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/debian-devel-announce-200401/msg9.html

Re: Developer.php: bugs status

2004-03-08 Thread Igor Genibel
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-06 16:39:48 +0100]: [I don't know if you subscribed to the list so, don't blame me if you receive this mail twice ;)] > Hi, Hi Jeroen, > Two requests regarding proccess-index.pl: > - Igor, sometimes a lot of packages have no bugcount. This i

Re: Developer.php: show last upload

2004-03-08 Thread Martin Pitt
Hi *! On 2004-03-08 17:47 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 05:37:37PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > On 2004-03-08 16:46 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > IMHO the date of last upload is a very bad indicator of the current > > state of a package; the bug count be

Re: Developer.php: show last upload

2004-03-08 Thread Martin Pitt
Hi again! Just a little clarification: On 2004-03-08 17:37 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > last activity = MIN (last upload, last reply to bug, >last tag setting to bug) Of course all variables are counted in days and say 'n days ago'; with dates the MIN would be senseless

Re: Developer.php: show last upload

2004-03-08 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 05:37:37PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hi Jeroen! > > I looked at your script's output and have some ideas for it: > > On 2004-03-08 16:46 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > I patched developer.php to show how long ago that very versions was in > > that very distribut

Re: Developer.php: show last upload

2004-03-08 Thread Martin Pitt
Hi Jeroen! I looked at your script's output and have some ideas for it: On 2004-03-08 16:46 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > I patched developer.php to show how long ago that very versions was in > that very distribution. IMHO, this aids QA, as you can quickly see when > the last activity wa

Developer.php: show last upload

2004-03-08 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
I patched developer.php to show how long ago that very versions was in that very distribution. IMHO, this aids QA, as you can quickly see when the last activity was. See: http://jeroen.a-eskwadraat.nl/misc/qa/[EMAIL PROTECTED] It can be off by up to 30 days, but that will change (as the database

Re: Please remove rcconf

2004-03-08 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Michael Stone wrote: > >There is evidently a lot of confusion surrounding this issue. > >Something should be added to the Debian Reference about it. > > Luckily there's already something in debian policy: Unfortunately, it is totally useless. > By default update-rc.d will st

Re: [Fwd: Re: Please remove rcconf]

2004-03-08 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 09:16, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > In fact, currently invoke-rc.d will refuse > > to start/restart the service > > Actually this is not true. Indeed it is not. Answering such mails late at night is not wise, and I should

Re: Please remove rcconf

2004-03-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:28:05AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: The configuration is not interpreted to mean "no-op". As I said before, you said it, but it's wrong. There is evidently a lot of confusion surrounding this issue. Something should be added to the Debian Reference about it. Luckil

Re: [Fwd: Re: Please remove rcconf]

2004-03-08 Thread Thomas Hood
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 09:16, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > In fact, currently invoke-rc.d will refuse > to start/restart the service Actually this is not true. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc$ ls -l */*dummy* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root19 2004-03-08 09:30 init.d/dummy* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc$ #

Re: Please remove rcconf

2004-03-08 Thread Thomas Hood
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 22:55, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:14:11PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > >Argh! You're not supposed to delete _any_ links [...] > >If there is neither an S nor a K symlink for a service in a > >runlevel it [...] is a misconfiguration. > > no, it's a no-o

Re: [Fwd: Re: Please remove rcconf]

2004-03-08 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Thomas Hood wrote: > Hi. The question of how to switch services on an off in the > System V init system has come up again, this time on debian-qa. > I could use some support. // Thomas > > -Forwarded Message- > From: Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > T