On Wed, 15 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Do you really consider Andreas' message a productive thing to be doing
> now? Let's recall some key phrases: "[...] it really seems that
> ftpmaster
> ([and the] release manager) are obviously overloaded. We have to find
> a solution".
>
> Do you really
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And, just to expound upon that before we drop further into the usual
> sort of self-righteousness these threads evoke, you do _not_ know
> what you're talking about at all.
Perhaps. But doing the very same thing on one package but refusing to
do it onto
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > What would you do if you would get more mail you'd have to reply to
> > than you can actually reply to?
>
> Make announcements. :p
As I tried to make clear (hopefully) carefully and politely tried to
show in a mail to debian-private it really seems that
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Ugh, smupsd is to be pulled from woody? *arg* I really need that package
> for our server and I am not sure if the package I built for potato
> will continue working. Perhaps I am taking this over but it is a bit
> complicated to test a package for
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> > My vote for archiving those software you decide to remove to
>
> All removed packages are kept in /org/ftp.debian.org/morgue/rhona/
> on auric (and a similar direct
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> Which -qa doesn't have the capacity to do. One of the zope-* packages in
> question sat with release-critical bugs for over a *year*; I finally
Well, as I said I fixed and tested those zope-* packages I was interested
in as -qa.
In general I agree with yo
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
(but my text is related to ajt who atempts to remove those packages
completely.)
> * #143005: zope-pythonmethod should not release with woody
A real reson would be the following quote from the URL mentioned in
the copyright file:
As of versi
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It takes, what, twenty minutes to upload a package with the Maintainer:
> field changed? A few hours every couple of months are enough to keep
> it fairly adequately maintained. If the packages aren't worth that much
> time from anyone, they're not worth
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Further, it's still not clear why these packages should be kept in sid,
> if they aren't suitable for woody and no one is interested in
> maintaining them.
I think it is no valit assumption that no one is interested in
maintaining them just because they
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 01:45:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just uploaded new GnuChess packages to incoming.
>
> * Switched to debhelper to
> closes: #102449
> (Sorry, I do not know how to close this long standing RC bug
> in t
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> You mean http://www.de.debian.org/devel/website/translating ?
Also
http://ddtp.debian.org/
would be interesting for translation work.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John Goerzen wrote:
> FYI: I uploaded a version of netmaze that fixed this. I had to redefine
> some cpp targets that imake used, but it seems to work now.
Thanks John!
> >> That's because there is no upstream. All changes since 0.81 have been
> >> made by me (and I've done
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Thanks for your proposal. I am aware of the long-standing bugs in my PLplot
> packages. I am participating to the upstream developement of PLplot at
> SourceForge and the Debian stuff is even at the CVS repository.
Thanks for you quick answer.
> T
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, BugScan reporter wrote:
> Bug stamp-out list for Feb 8 05:03 (CST)
>
> Total number of release-critical bugs: 408
> Number that will disappear after removing packages marked [REMOVE]: 0
> ...
>
> Package: plplot (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1 Feb 2002, John Goerzen wrote:
> Just s/ComplexProgramTarget/ComplexProgramTargetNoMan/ does not do the
> trick. In fact, it makes things break more. The manual says that it
> should only be used in Imakefiles tha tdescribe a single program --
> that is not the case here.
Hmm, that's sad.
>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> > I do not know anything about mico-2.3.5 but I would care about an
> > NMU if you would provide a patch for the problem. I just do not want
> > to guess what is the right solution and can't test it.
> >
> > Moreover I would like to fix the missing ups
Hi,
the open bugs of netmaze seem to be easy to fix. At least the RC bug
should be considered to be target to fix soon. Would you care about
it? Should someone step in?
Further problem of the package: There is no upstream URL in debian/copyright.
A quick search showed at least
ftp://sunsite.
Hello,
you gave a hint how to fix 104701 at
http://bugs.debian.org/104701
I do not know anything about mico-2.3.5 but I would care about an
NMU if you would provide a patch for the problem. I just do not want
to guess what is the right solution and can't test it.
Moreover I would like t
Hello,
quoting you from
http://bugs.debian.org/93814
Received: (at 93814) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Aug 2001 22:21:47 +
...
> This work is nearing completion, within a few weeks I'll have it finished.
I think some weeks were over now. What about this package?
Regarding
http://bug
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> http://qa.debian.org/bts-help.html57
> http://qa.debian.org/bts-security.html50
> http://qa.debian.org/bts-unreproducible.html 260
How to tag a bug right to get it listed here. I would like to
tag #66190 for help. I j
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> I just wanted to care about bug #66190 of treetool. I prepared a
> ...
Forgot to mention that I appended the testfile test.tre to the previous
mail and also uploaded it to the URL
http://auric.debian.org/~tille/treetool
as well
Hello,
I just wanted to care about bug #66190 of treetool. I prepared a
package (of the same source code but stripped off the binary stuff
in the upstream tarball) which I uploaded to
http://auric.debian.org/~tille/treetool
(Binaries for i386 and sparc). The bug is not reproducable. P
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> I could do it, but I believe aj (cc'ed on this mail) already does almost
> exactly what we need. Could the resulting data file be placed somewhere
> public?
Additional a statistic
/
would be interesting. I admit, that this could be misleading (for
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> No, it's triggered by people filing ITAs in separate bug reports rather
> than retitling the original. The wnpp script doesn't deal with merged
> bugs well at the moment.
So far to the explanation why the packages was listed twice. But what
about my sugge
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Report about packages that need work for Dec 7, 2001
>
> Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 54
> Number of packages offered up for adoption this week: 2
> Total number of orphaned packages: 78
> Number of packages orphaned this week: 2
>
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Both are fixed now (I hope). The output now becomes:
Thanks for your effort, Bas!
> The following packages are up for removal from the archive[1]:
How many days do we have until removal?
I would like at least the diff files archived because this could
p
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> Provides/Replaces/Conflicts? Dummy packages are only needed when there
> are versioned dependencies on the old package.
Quoting from Changelog:
tree-puzzle (5.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial Release (replaces puzzle).
* Wrote a manpage.
-- Dr.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I know this will sound like nitpicking (given the package in question)
> but AFAICS, there would be no upgrade path from puzzle to tree-puzzle
> (puzzle exists in stable).
I think it is not nitpicking.
> In general renaming packages is bad. Mo
Hello,
I suggest to remove package puzzle (and close #100256). I quote from
the Readme.debian of tree-puzzle:
tree-puzzle replaces the previous package puzzle, since the program was
renamed by upstream because of a name conflict with another program.
The command and manpage for tree-puzzle ar
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Debian Installer wrote:
> Rejected: freetds-jdbc_20010308.snapshot-1_all.deb Old version `pre0.3-1' >=
> new version `20010308.snapshot-1'.
> Rejected: freetds-jdbc_20010308.snapshot-1.dsc Old version `pre0.3-1' >= new
> version `20010308.snapshot-1'.
>
>
> ===
>
> If you do
30 matches
Mail list logo
