Package: tracker.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if tracker.debian.org could parse wnpp bug reports and
display pages for ITP/RFP packages not yet in Debian. This would be an
easier alternative to wnpp.debian.net. The Homepage could be extracted from the
initial submission and the
ed, 30 Jul 2003 06:57:49 -0500
Received: by solsikke (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id EAC0EF34DF; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:57:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:57:47 +0200
From: Lars Bahner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: closing itp/rfp
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTE
>> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just do not do mass modifications without reading contents. Some ITP
> are dated but recently 'adopted' by others. I recently
> closed/renamed some ITPs which are really dated (some years or so)
Well, to boot I wouldn't mind a few fal
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:51:50AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> [ I'm still catching up with email, apologies if this has
> been discussed already ]
>
> >> Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> > 100 days
[ I'm still catching up with email, apologies if this has
been discussed already ]
>> Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
Cool. Can we have something similar for ITA's? Just p
led: 1169, changed 1169
I did not do ITP for it, but I know this package well. And I know ptl
does not work current gcc and glibc. If someone want to work threading
with ptl on novel linux environment, it needs a lot of hacks. In this
case, I think it should be withdrawn and to be changed with wis
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, this would indeed be a better solution, the only problem being that
> it's not very easily automated. Maybe the bug should also be tagged
> appropriately (unactive or something) when sending the QA question. Then
> my script can easily determine whi
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > For each apparently stale ITP:
> >
> > 1) If the last thing that happened in the bug is a QA question "Do
> > you really still intend to upload this?" and there has been no
> > response for thirty days, then either convert it to RFP or clos
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 04:27:48PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > The following ITP's will be renamed to RFP's
> >
> > squeak#68122, filed: 1168, changed 1168
>
> You can get the newest Debian packages from
> ftp://f
Good idea!
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
including or excluding SPAM? :)
> The bugs that will be renamed are approximately (my local bts mirror is
> a few days out of date) the following: (the fi
tag 111560 + wontfix
thanks
Hi Torsten!
You wrote:
> > mosml#111560, filed: 129, changed 129
>
> I can't believe it. This was the software I ITP'ed when I joined Debian.
> It is actually quite nice but it uses GPL parts and links non-free
> parts to it. Theref
> timestamp, and I'd appreciate it if it could be left out of this round
> of ITP->RFP changes.
OK.
--
Kind regards,
+---+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce |
|-
Hi Thomas!
You wrote:
> For each apparently stale ITP:
>
> 1) If the last thing that happened in the bug is a QA question "Do
> you really still intend to upload this?" and there has been no
> response for thirty days, then either convert it to RFP or close
> it, depending on th
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:35:11PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> > 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
>
> No objections, a couple of suggestions that you're
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:35:11PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
No objections, a couple of suggestions that you're welcome to ignore:
* consider tagging packages with legal issues
#91883, filed: 293, changed 293
Legal issues ... I haven't had time to contact upstream about them yet.
I'll send a mail to this bug to record this and incidentally update the
timestamp, and I'd appreciate it if it could be left out of this round
Hi Martin!
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020114 20:01]:
> > Hmm... it appears I did NOT receive a lot of the email in that bug.
> > Argh, I hate when the BTS does that!
>
> Of course you didn't. The owner of the wnpp pseudo pa
Hi Bas,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:35:11PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> mosml#111560, filed: 129, changed 129
I can't believe it. This was the software I ITP'ed when I joined Debian.
It is actually quite nice but it uses GPL parts and links non-free
parts to i
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
> 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
I would propose the two-stage method in use for ITAs:
For each apparently stale ITP:
1) If the last thing that happened in the bug is a QA qu
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This problem with WNPP should be solved when people can subscribe to
> individual bugs.
Well, except that it really would be solved when that feature exists
*and* the "relevant" people are auto-subbed to particular wnpp bugs.
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020114 20:01]:
> Hmm... it appears I did NOT receive a lot of the email in that bug.
> Argh, I hate when the BTS does that!
Of course you didn't. The owner of the wnpp pseudo package is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the bug submitter (i.e. you) was not
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020114 22:36]:
> The bugs that will be renamed are approximately (my local bts mirror is
> a few days out of date) the following: (the filed and changed numbers
> are the dates of opening and last change of the bug, in days before today)
>
> The following ITP'
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> 100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
[...]
> cyrus2-imapd #108942, filed: 151, changed 151
Don't touch this one, it is not dead yet :-)
I have been packaging beta versions, and the bug tells the users where to
get them. Currentl
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apache2 #103471, filed: 194, changed 194
Not this one. Daniel and Thom are working on this.
> gnue-common #104417, filed: 186, changed 186
> gnue-designer#104418, filed
Hi guys!
I intend to rename all ITP's that haven't had any activity in the last
100 days to RFP's. Any objections?
The bugs that will be renamed are approximately (my local bts mirror is
a few days out of date) the following: (the filed and changed numbers
are the dates of opening and last change
25 matches
Mail list logo
