Title: Imporama, volume byers non food trade show
Hi Colin!
You wrote:
> This is because the lintian report it's based on hasn't been updated
> recently, partly because it's not clear if the automatic archive-wide
> lintian runs are working properly yet.
Aren't they? Why? It should be a matter of minutes to set this up on
auric.
--
Kind regar
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> You wrote:
> > This is because the lintian report it's based on hasn't been updated
> > recently, partly because it's not clear if the automatic archive-wide
> > lintian runs are working properly yet.
>
> Aren't they? Why? It should
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 11:30:23AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > This is because the lintian report it's based on hasn't been updated
> > > recently, partly because it's not clear if the automatic archive-wide
> > > lintian runs are working properly yet.
> >
> > Aren't they? Why? It should be a
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 08:35:48PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 11:30:23AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > They're already set up on master, but there are some outstanding buglets
> > in the lintian reporting code. I think I mailed Joy a while ago with
> > more details.
>
> I
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:40:16PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > They're already set up on master, but there are some outstanding buglets
> > > in the lintian reporting code. I think I mailed Joy a while ago with
> > > more details.
> >
> > It's still Broken(TM). Incremental runs are majorly br
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:49:44AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:40:16PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Sigh, I didn't realize full runs were broken too.
>
> Yeah. The current results on l.d.o show:
>
> Maintainers listed:728 (+0)
> Source packag
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:03:21AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Sigh, I didn't realize full runs were broken too.
> >
> > Yeah. The current results on l.d.o show:
> >
> > Maintainers listed:728 (+0)
> > Source packages listed:3358 (+0)
> > Binary pac
Does anyone have time to dig into bug #123015 a little? I've tried the
obvious fix (make sure the built-in CRASHES_ON_STARTUP workaround is
defined :)), but Mark Brown says that doesn't help. The only unstable
powerpc machine I can access is voltaire, and since that doesn't seem to
accept ssh X for
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 06:16:51PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> Does anyone have time to dig into bug #123015 a little? I've tried the
> obvious fix (make sure the built-in CRASHES_ON_STARTUP workaround is
> defined :)), but Mark Brown says that doesn't help. The only unstable
> powerpc machine I c
10 matches
Mail list logo
