Re: QA maintained packages and NMUs

On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 01:37:08PM +0100, Amaya wrote: > As you can see at: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=amaya > the package beep-media-player still appears as NMUed by me, even though, > I think it should not: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/beep-media-player/news/20061201T001703Z.ht

Re: No reasonable solution

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:31:37PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > Regarding conflicts like that between "slang-slirp" and "slirp". > (see recent bugs filed by Michael Ablassmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ). > I feel that this a currently an ar

Re: No reasonable solution

Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > Regarding conflicts like that between "slang-slirp" and "slirp". > (see recent bugs filed by Michael Ablassmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ). > > I feel that this a currently an area not addressed by policy > sufficiently

QA maintained packages and NMUs

As you can see at: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=amaya the package beep-media-player still appears as NMUed by me, even though, I think it should not: http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/beep-media-player/news/20061201T001703Z.html Changed-By: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Closes: 2582

Re: Debian QA meeting - planning talks

Hi, On Sunday 26 November 2006 21:18, Russ Allbery wrote: > Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But that shouldn't stop us from working. The first improvement (besides > > up2date lintian runs) I would like to see, is a smaller list of the > > severe problems, as there are some lintian e

Re: edos.debian.net

Hi, On Friday 22 December 2006 15:25, Bill Allombert wrote: > > m68k can be removed from testing and amd64 should be removed from > > stable... > Why ? etch-m68k is alive and kicking. Because it makes the statistics less useful: if you look at http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/ you will see t