On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 05:16:06PM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> On (16/09/06 21:34), Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote:
> > > * The debian/copyright file is lacking. There is no copyright
> > > information, what is referred to as Copyright is in fact a Li
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote:
> printbill seems to be dead upstream, RFA-bug (#282561) open more than
> one year ago, last maintainer upload 3 years ago (1 NMU to fix 1 RC-bug
> since this upload), only 1 popcon vote.
>
> Any objections for its removal from unstab
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 12:13:31PM +1100, skaller wrote:
> This is how Wikipedia works and why it is successful. With minimal
> fuss I have contributed some comments and a couple of changes.
How easy is it for a Wikipedia comment to contain a rootkit, though?
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:52:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the package is improperly maintained, someone else will take it over
> > sooner or later and give it the love it needs, regardless of what is in t
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:05:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Again, what material effect does that have? Does it prevent the person who
> > has primary interest in the package (whom we commonly term "the main
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 04:02:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:36:44PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Debian maintainers are required to provide a valid email address in
&g
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:36:44PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Debian maintainers are required to provide a valid email address in
> the maintainer field for package uploads. Some maintainers have
> adopted the policy of various arbitrary filtering rules of their own
> invention, under whi
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:05:21PM +0100, Tommaso Moroni wrote:
> In the wnpp I noticed some RFP + ITP about the same package.
> Should I rename the RFP to ITP and merge them or simply
> close the RFP?
Definitely don't close the RFP, because whoever opened it will probably like
to know when the pa
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:26:39PM +0200, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
> While brouwing through some icmake-related stuff I saw that the Debian QA
> Group is icmake's current maintainer. Maybe you're (in time or actually)
> looking for a maintainer by name: in that case I'm perfectly willing to take
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:35:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> See http://bugs.debian.org/264172.
>
> So I don't know what is the standard way to force an upload of a new
> .orig.tar.gz file.
I don't believe it is possible to upload a new orig.tar.gz for the same
upstream version of a p
I'm helping tbm clean up old NM applications, and it's this one's turn.
You put Kenneth on hold in November 2002 due to lack of time. His only
package, framerd, was NMU'd in December 2002 and hasn't been touched since.
In fact, he appears to have gone completely AWOL as at November 2002, as I
ca
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:18:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> distributed-net-pproxy should be deleted from Debian; see Bug 241112.
> Can we make this happen? (I'm a little hesitant about the right
> procedure for these kinds of cases; is it ok for me to simply queue
> the appropriate bug
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:12:23PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Anyway, I think the scenario is not very likely. I was more thinking
> about new upstream released which is normally a bad idea for NMUs but
> a good idea for QA uploads (if nobody uploads the new upstream
> version, we lag behind
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 03:41:26PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > * It's also important to ensure that the maintainer address is set
> > correctly.
> > The address has changed in the past, and some packages haven't had their
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 02:06:22PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-18 19:59]:
> > what's going on. Setting the owner of the bug to you (not the submitter!)
>
> "Setting the owner of the bug (not the submitter!) to you&
I've incorporated the excellent suggestions from Pierre Machard, Andreas
Metzler, and Frank Lichtenheld, to produce this new draft. Further comments
appreciated.
-8<-
QA UPLOAD BEST PRACTICES
When making an upload on a package maintained by the QA team, it is
important to keep some basi
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:42:59PM +0200, Pierre Machard wrote:
> Don't forget to set maintainer to "Debian QA Packages <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
D'oh! I even thought about putting that in before I started writing.
Thanks for reminding me.
> > * After you make your upload, subscribe to the package's
I was just working through QA procedures with my NM applicant, and I
realised that it's not immediately obvious what the standards are for making
a QA upload. A quick flick through the list archives with google didn't
reveal anything particularly enlightening, and none of the links at
qa.debian.or
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:36:50AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:42:32PM +0200, Adeodato Sim? wrote:
> > then do not many orphaned packages (if not most) fit into one of the
> > proposed resons and should be removed from testing?
> >
> > I think many packages coul
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:42:32PM +0200, Adeodato Sim? wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer [Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:12:22 +1000]:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:28:04PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> > > I wish more people had an attitude like this. Maybe it would make
> > >
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:15:18AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Second suggestion -- add another 'not of release quality' status, so the
> release team and QA can find packages to remove.
And then I go poking, and find I can do it myself. Ignore this one.
- Matt
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:13:25PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> I built this really small page :
> http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/diogenes/site/qa_debian/
Schaweet!
> listing all _source_ package that are atm in sarge and not in sarge
> (with a little diff on the Sources.gz files of the two dis
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:28:04PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-20 11:44]:
> > I'll volunteer to check my own packages, with a couple of recommendations:
>
> I wish more people had an attitude like this. Maybe it would
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:20:38PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> In any case, I'd really like volunteers for something else: check
> which packages are going to ship new with sarge (i.e. which have not
> been in woody or another stable release) and take a closer look at
> them to see if we reall
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:43:57PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> I don't understand why you need an overrides file. Why not just submit
> wishlist bugs, with a link to a QA page that explains why a watch file
> is a Good Thing[TM] even if it is of no use for the individual
> maintainer?
Because ma
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:29:00PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> It's got RC bugs. I know someone was trying to get a sponsor for an upload
> recently on -devel.
I thought that was raidtools2. Or did I miss a message somewhere?
Either way, I vote 'yes' on getting rid of the raidtools package.
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:20:22AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Not sure if anyone else is going to find this of massive use, but I find I'm
> often looking at changelogs for packages that aren't necessarily installed
> locally, or I'm out and about and all I have is my email and a web browser,
>
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:00:23AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I will be out of the office from 20/05/2004 until 25/05/2004.
>
> I will respond to your message when I return. If you require an urgent
> reply please resend the message to Dr Graham Trout
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who will contact
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
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
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:41:45AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-26 10:40]:
> > If someone who actually knows this new policy between ftpmasters and
> > QA could actually make the removal request, I'd be grateful, since I
Upstream's dead, Maintainer dropped it through despair, long standing grave
bugs. In keeping with our new policy of "remove early, remove often" I say
this one is a prime candidate.
If someone who actually knows this new policy between ftpmasters and QA
could actually make the removal request, I'
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:13:14AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> having a package upstream up-to-date is important and this is why we have
> debian/watch files used by uupdate. Fortunately the PTS checks and reports if
> a
That, of course, presupposes you can get watch files working. I've ne
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:52:07PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:26:13PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [snip]
> > http://www.debian-kde.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/DebianAtLCA (put yours on
> > there too!).
>
> $ ping www.debian-kde.org
> ping: unkn
I'm working on fixing all of the RC bugs in libming - even better now that
someone else has worked out the patch for the php4-ming grave bugs...
Expect upload soon.
Also, if anyone else is keen on doing an impromptu BSP (esp. QA BSP) here at
LCA, my mobile number is on
http://www.debian-kde.org/t
Dan Jacobson said:
> Grass is in a sorry state in Debian.
> For instance, on the latest upgrade,
> 557 man pages became just empty files.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220293
Yes, that does look pretty unpleasant. I don't know what's going on with
Federico, there are other ma
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:47:53PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > Maybe we should remove request tracker?
> >
> > Does it have a sensible upg
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> request tracker has several important and grave bugs - open for over
> half a year. If I trust John Goerzen in #191165 the "Command-line
> utilities totally inoperable as shipped".
>
> Maybe we should remove request tracker?
Does
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:29:42PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> I thought I'd try and help out. I've just uploaded emelfm with the
> Maintainer set to the QA group. If I've done a bad thing, please let me
> know, otherwise I intend to work through the list in my spare time.
For my part, I thin
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 08:24:33PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> sysklogd: #199989 -- 1/500 chance of hang on diskless systems
> Sounds effectively unreproducible, should probably be closed.
This bug is probably caused by a slightly slow network mount of /var. If
so, it has the same cause as
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:06:23PM -0500, sftower5 wrote:
> take [EMAIL PROTECTED] of your mailing list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is free to take himself off the mailing list. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/ for instructions.
- Matt
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:39:41PM -0300, Aaron Small wrote:
> The reason no one's bothered fixing these bugs may not be that no one
> uses the package, but that no one runs into these. The last two at least
> deal with improperly dealing with files that are corrupt anyway.
So you feel that the bu
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> i fixed the xtrojka bugs (trivial), set the maintainer field to qa
> and updated the policy version. i am not a dd so i would be happy if
Did you test the patches to ensure that they fix the problems adequately?
If so, I'll apply th
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 06:51:32PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
[improperly orphaned list]
> do you guys think it makes sense to go through that list, take packages
> with open bugs, fix them and num them (and set the Maintainer field to
> qa, of course)?
If they're genuinely useful, yes. But th
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:37:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Funnily I'm the one who added that "rule" for the NMU in the
> developers-reference ... because I think it's useful for NMU :
> - the developer NMUed has no time otherwise he wouldn't be NMUed
> - the maintainer will get angry if ha
tag 202416 +patch
thanks
I've worked up a patch (attached) which asks developers to check
qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, and change the Maintainer if appropriate on an
NMU. Any improvements to wording gratefully accepted.
I intend on making a larger patch which builds on this one, talking about
th
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 11:14:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:31:17PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ?crivait:
> > I want to supply a patch to #202416 (developers-reference: mention QA in NMU
> > section). So I hunted around to find the list of best p
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > section). So I hunted around to find the list of best practices for QA
> > > uploads that I could base my update on. But I can't find any. So, I'm
> > > going to make some up.
>
> > Cool, I thought about doing something simila
I want to supply a patch to #202416 (developers-reference: mention QA in NMU
section). So I hunted around to find the list of best practices for QA
uploads that I could base my update on. But I can't find any. So, I'm
going to make some up.
Firstly, if this stuff is anywhere I've missed, that h
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
>
> They all look good; make it so, I think. This one in particular:
Bugs sent
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> While searching through the RC bug list I found the package bnc
> wich has an RC bug ("no Build-Depends"), maintainer is
> Brian Ristuccia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He has three packages,
> all have the same bug (but at the other pac
OK, I'm doing a bit of bug reviewing here, and have found a few packages I
think should probably be removed. Just looking for some feedback from
others with probably more experience than me as to whether I'm being
overzealous or not.
As to criteria: I only looked through the oldest of the imprope
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:35:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> The RC-bugs (and the packages they belong to) can IMHO be qualified
> into different categories (together with the IMHO appropriate action):
[...]
> 2. RC-bug has an easy-to-use patch for some time, but there was no
> upload in the
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I've prepared a QA Upload for dotfile, that fixes the RC bug against
> this package.
>
> You can find the new source at http://www.lichtenheld.de/debian/
> and I would be happy if someone would upload it.
Any chance of getting t
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:53:49PM +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> is ready a qa upload for gmail which closes the serious bug against it
> (FTBFS); the package is lintian and linda clean and it's available here:
> http://members.xoom.it/debian01
>
> I'm not a DD, so I'm looking for a sponsor.
Pat
Package: libevas0-dev
Version: 0.6.0-4
Severity: minor
[As reported by ftp-installer when I uploaded 0.6.0-4]
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libevas0-dev_0.6.0-4_i386.deb: package says section is devel, override says
56 matches
Mail list logo
