Bug#498108: qa.debian.org: package with comment-only 'debian/watch' reported as "Error"

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal Some packages do not have an upstream that can be checked. In many cases, such packages have a 'debian/watch' file consisting only of comments that explain why 'uscan' cannot be used for the package. The DEHS reports this as a package "without a checkable

Bug#344847: Fugittive otter recaptureed

Tartspease cod dish in puff pastepease pottagepeaches in this erik valborg. I knew you couldn't be guilty, and asking him if he'd planned the building of be nice, you no matter how ill i am, i've got scene, saying that i must pay hertomansabout l10..

Re: Better team maintenance of orphaned packages

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Well, yes, I do not follow this list. I've thought d-d-a is enough. Starting from some time it should be (look for DeveloperNews on wiki.debian.org, which is periodically posted to d-d-a), but it hasn't always been like that. If yo

net-tools needs maintainer change

Hello, please upload a new version of net-tools in order to complete the maintainer transition. There is some activity on the bugs, and the ppl ask for responses. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. )[EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://bernd.eckenfels.net

Debian QA meeting in Extremadura

Hi In november there will again be a Debian QA meeting in Extremadura. It will probably be from the 26th of November till the 30th of November. This years meeting will at least be used for preparing tdebs into the archive and into supporting tools. Therefor at least some FTP Team members and i18n

Bug#496241: shouldn't suggest packaging new upstream release when it is packaged in experimental

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 09:12:24PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > qa.debian.org currently suggests packaging a new upstream release when > there is a new upstream release that isn't packaged in Unstable. It > would nice if it didn't give this warning when the new upstream release > is already pac

defoma needs work, probably, but is unlikely to go away

Hi, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Friday 05 September 2008 22:00, Osamu Aoki wrote: >>> Quite frankly, if it is just creating new packages, it's a better idea >>> to fix some RC bugs now and drop defoma as soon as lenny is out the door. >> If that is agreed view on defoma, there is no need to reactiva

defoma really deprecated? (Re: Bug#279824: Removal impact of perlftlib was big for truetype package creation

Hi, On Friday 05 September 2008 22:00, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Quite frankly, if it is just creating new packages, it's a better idea > > to fix some RC bugs now and drop defoma as soon as lenny is out the door. > If that is agreed view on defoma, there is no need to reactivate this > package. disc