On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:35:07PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > most of the bugs got no response at all from maintainer and are almost a
> > year
> > old, is it a NMU in order?
>
> 'most' is an interesting choice of word
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> most of the bugs got no response at all from maintainer and are almost a year
> old, is it a NMU in order?
'most' is an interesting choice of word given that 7 bugs got a response
and 7 didn't...
Anyway, NMUs are probably a good
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:02:46PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > just annoyed by repeated cron files output from removed packages I
> > implemented a
> > new test for packages: no output from cron files of removed packages.
> >
> > The interesting bit is here:
> >
Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> Hi,
> just annoyed by repeated cron files output from removed packages I
> implemented a
> new test for packages: no output from cron files of removed packages.
>
> The interesting bit is here:
> http://qa.debian.org/~filippo/crontest/20070801-crontest.log
>
> the log
heya,
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 11:09:48AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> indeed, when the next piuparts run is scheduled anyway? It might help to
> file/discuss bugs as the recent update-inetd "breakage" (see d-d at [0])
i was doing a piuparts test on a spare machine 2 weeks ago, .. resulted in
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Really nice work :-)
>
> Regarding the list format, you got it right. You don't need to add a
> fake build time: when needed, I'll change mergeresults.rb so that it
> works even with a different number of fields (I wanted t
On 04/08/07 at 12:52 +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > Lucas does some magic with his ruby scripts to merge old logs with new ones
> > and
> > does so mark new failures with NEWFAIL etc.. im not sure if they would work
> > with
> > your list, .. if you want to run this check on a regular basis
hello Michael,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:11:47AM +0200, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> great stuff! The Format looks right to me, even tho some of those entries
> appear twice? The usual way would be to commit this logfile into the collab-qa
> repository and write a small Notes file which explains
hi Filippo,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:31:29PM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> just annoyed by repeated cron files output from removed packages I
> implemented a
> new test for packages: no output from cron files of removed packages.
>
> The interesting bit is here:
> http://qa.debian.org/~fil
* Filippo Giunchedi [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:31:29 +0200]:
> Another idea would be to turn this into a piuparts test: whether a package
> installs cron files test them with the package removed.
I'm afraid I don't know much about piuparts nor ever used it, but if it
does a two-stage remove+purge remov
Hi,
just annoyed by repeated cron files output from removed packages I implemented a
new test for packages: no output from cron files of removed packages.
The interesting bit is here:
http://qa.debian.org/~filippo/crontest/20070801-crontest.log
the log format resembles Lucas logs so it would be e
11 matches
Mail list logo
