How to upload a package with maintainer debian-qa?

Hi Anthony, On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:14:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >Package: tkman >Maintainer: Debian QA Group >[ADOPT] Adopted by Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >2884 tkman doesn't use /var/catman Sorry, you got me wrong there. As I do not use the package

Uploaded xanim 2.80 (source i386) to master

An emergency recompile, as this new version is needed to play the Star Wars Trailer C in its MJPEG-A form. The maintainer was changed from Igor Grobman to debian-QA. netgod

Re: How to upload a package with maintainer debian-qa?

On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 10:49:52PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:14:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >Package: tkman > >Maintainer: Debian QA Group > >[ADOPT] Adopted by Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >2884 tkman doesn't use /var/catman >

Re: Bugs older than two years

On Tuesday 30 March 1999, at 9 h 19, the keyboard of Damon Buckwalter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe Debian needs to appoint an official 'Bug Czar' in charge of > stamping out all of these old bugs. 'Just say no to bugs!(tm)' > > Or, does something like this already exist? The QA group, ma

Re: Intent to adopt: ispell

Hi! On Tue, 30 Mar at 19:41 +, Mika Fischer wrote: > I'd like to adopt ispell if noone has already. > Or are there any problems with that. > > Most of the bugs (also those not older that 2 years :-) can be fixed and I > need some packages to start with, as I'm a new developer. Well, perhaps

Re: Bugs older than two years

* AT => Anthony Towns AT> Package: itimer AT> Maintainer: AT> 8049 itimer edits /etc/site-start.el IIRC we decided a while ago we didn't need itimer any more (i.e., the itimer package should have gone); it's probably safe to close this bug. Regards, -- Davide G. M. Salvetti -- IW5DZC

Signature for QA?

Hi, as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact maintainers, they would know, who where are and why we are contacting them. I think, that this would make the QA-work easier than now. Opinions? Ciao

Re: Signature for QA?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, > which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact > maintainers, they would know, who where are and why we are contacting > them. I think, th

Re: Signature for QA?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, > which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact > maintainers, they would know, who where are and why we are contacting > them. I think, th

Re: Signature for QA?

Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > > as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, > > which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact > > maintainers, they would know, who where ar

Re: Signature for QA?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:49:18PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > > Unique PGP/GPG signature? That would mean we'd all have to share > > the ring files for PGP/GPG... Anyhow, I don't need a signed message > > to ask someone to do a NMU. > > No, I don't thought of PGP/GPG for this Phew... :) > on

Re: Signature for QA?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, > which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact > maintainers, they would know, who where are and why we are contacting > them. I think, th

is the cfs package orphaned?

Can anyone tell me if the package cfs is officially orphaned? One of the bug reports that has been filed automatically says it is orphaned, but there is no evidence of that in the package or the WNPP. There are some bugs that are over 500 days old and the most recent upload of this package was in

RE: Signature for QA?

Josip Rodin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 4:28 PM > > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:49:18PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > > only about a signature, that > > tells the maintainer, that the person, who contaced him works in the > > QA-Team and contacts him, because there's

Re: Signature for QA?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 04:42:39PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, I am , Debian developer, and member of Debian > > Quality Assurance (QA) Group. We have noticed some errors in your > how about 'there are open bug reports' That does not imply that there are errors in the package. Okay,

Re: is the cfs package orphaned?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:44:12PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > If not, I will fix some bugs and change the maintainer to debian-qa. Actually, I'm not expert enough in RPC to fix it. It references members of the RPC structures which don't exist, and don't existing the the libc5 either. I've fix

Re: is the cfs package orphaned?

On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 00:28:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:44:12PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > If not, I will fix some bugs and change the maintainer to debian-qa. > > Actually, I'm not expert enough in RPC to fix it. It references > members of the RPC structur

Re: is the cfs package orphaned?

"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hamish> Can anyone tell me if the package cfs is officially orphaned? Hamish> One of the bug reports that has been filed automatically says Hamish> it is orphaned, but there is no evidence of that in the Hamish> package or the WNPP. Yup it's

Bug#35352: missing dependency

Package: mozilla Version: 19990325-1 $ mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla/apprunner: error in loading shared libraries: libplds3.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory $ dpkg --status mozilla Package: mozilla Version: 19990325-1 Status: install ok installed Depends: libc6, libglib1.

Bug#35352: marked as done (missing dependency)

Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:07:56 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#35352: missing dependency has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your resp

Re: Signature for QA?

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > > as a member of the QA-Team I had the idea about a unique signature, > > which is only be used by the members of the QA-Team. So when we contact > > maintainers, they would know, who where are and why we are

Bug#16614: marked as done (menu entry is wrong)

Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:34:58 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closing fixed dotfile bugs. has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your respon

Bug#18542: marked as done (dotfile-procmail not cleaning up on purge)

Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:34:58 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closing fixed dotfile bugs. has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your respon

Bug#35099: marked as done (dotfile: Copying file can't be found)

Your message dated Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:34:58 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Closing fixed dotfile bugs. has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your respon

Re: is the cfs package orphaned?

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 10:12:17AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote: > Also, it installs the wrong binary as "cmkdir". Apparently no one > has used this package in 3 years besides me, and I'm powerless to fix > it. :-( That's the main reason I'm trying to work on it -- a friend told me about this bug,