On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:32:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > My personal approach for getting rid of the already existing multiple
> > instances of the same mail is a simple procmail recipe [0]; and since
> > the problem of duplicate mails already exists anyway (and needs to be
> > handled anyway)
gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My personal approach for getting rid of the already existing multiple
> instances of the same mail is a simple procmail recipe [0]; and since
> the problem of duplicate mails already exists anyway (and needs to be
> handled anyway) I second Holger's su
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:45, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> (One could say that they should receive the mail nevertheless because
> they've put their name in the control file. That's a valid point of
> view, but that's not the "status quo", and it's debatable whether it
> should be that way, beca
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (30/11/2008):
> > Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the
> > maintainer is a mailing list.
>
> not always.
dpkg-reconfigure $user, then. Not a PTS bug, at least seen from here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Holger Levsen [Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:34:03 +0100]:
> Hi,
> On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:20, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the maintainer
> > is a mailing list.
> not always.
Then that uploader does not want to receive mail, period. Unless you
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:20:17 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> > listed in
> > maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be
> > send
> > to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
> Why? Uploa
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:20, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the maintainer
> is a mailing list.
not always.
regards,
Holger
pgpznir7eLIuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Holger Levsen [Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:27:19 +0100]:
> package: package.qa.debian.org
> severity: wishlist
> Hi,
> currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> listed in
> maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
> to the addresse
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:35:37 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I generally want
> > to get such mail only once, via the mailing list.
> I prefer duplicate mails over mails lost.
I agree with both of you: I don't like duplicate (or "triplicate", if
that word exists) mails but I want to receive mail
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 22:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This does the wrong thing if the maintainer is a mailing list and
> Uploaders are the people who do the uploads, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
> I generally want
> to get such mail only once, via the mailing list.
I prefer duplicate
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed
> in maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should
> be send to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
This does the wrong thing if the maintainer
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 20:27, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> listed in
> maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
> to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
+1
Cheers,
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 507288 qa.debian.org
Bug#507288: mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should also be send to Uploaders:
Warning: Unknown package 'package.qa.debian.org'
Bug reassigned from package `package.qa.debian.org' to `qa.debian.org'.
> --
Stopping processing her
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed
in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
regards,
Holger
pgpvqAD
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46:29PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> To be picky, the link behind 5.0.32-7etch6 actually leads to a page
> describing -etch8. While 5.0.32-7etch8 has no link. That seems
> illogical.
That's caused by the fact that packages.d.o maintains no
(user-visible) concept of a
Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:01:48 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line qa.debian.org bug fixed in revision 2057
has caused the Debian Bug report #507255,
regarding PTS: a link to qa.debian.org/madison.php would be nice
to be marked as done.
This means that you cla
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/packagename.html
would contain a link to
http://qa.debian.org/madison.php?package=packagename
Thanks in advance,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
>> I see two strange things on this page:
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mysql-dfsg-5.0.html
>
> Thanks for this bug report!
>
>> 1. it lists 5.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35
> tags 501814 confirmed
Bug#501814: qa.debian.org: igloo not working after move of people.debian.org
There were no tags set.
Tags added: confirmed
>
End of message, stopping processin
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> and on http://packages.debian.org/source/stable/mysql-dfsg-5.0
> There it is rightly etch8, but the link to the changelog is dead:
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/m/mysql-dfsg-5.0/mysql-dfsg-5.0_5.0.32-7etch8/change
Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:34:26 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line qa.debian.org bug fixed in revision 2052
has caused the Debian Bug report #506655,
regarding Strange things on QA page
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
21 matches
Mail list logo
