Bug#456294: PTS: please make svnbuildstat link conditional

tags 456294 + confirmed thanks On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > The PTS has a link to svnbuildstat for every package now, which is quite > useful for the listed packages. However, the link does not provide useful > information for non-svnbuildstat-listed packages.

Processed: Re: Bug#456294: PTS: please make svnbuildstat link conditional

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 456294 + confirmed Bug#456294: PTS: please make svnbuildstat link conditional There were no tags set. Tags added: confirmed > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (ad

Hard coded package names in lintian

Dear QA and Lintian people, While observing the lintian sources, I observed that Dep.pm has hard coded package names for all the obsolete, essential packages etc. I was wondering, why are these lists not generated at runtime? One reason could be that I can't trust that the source of the data on th

Bug#456434: qa.debian.org/developer.php shows comanintained packages even on comaint=no

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal When I go to http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=manty&comaint=no I see not only my packages but also those for which I'm only listed as an uploader like those of the voip team. Seems that the comaint=no has stopped working. Regards... -- System Info

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While observing the lintian sources, I observed that Dep.pm has hard > coded package names for all the obsolete, essential packages etc. I was > wondering, why are these lists not generated at runtime? One reason > could be that I can't trust that the so

Bug#453705: marked as done (PTS says wrongly "package has new bugs")

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:59:50 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#453705: PTS says wrongly "package has new 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 ca

Bug#269493: marked as done (developer.php: fault in watch version comparison)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:23:16 -0600 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#269493 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 responsibility to reope

Bug#452905: marked as done (qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names.)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:08:32 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#452905: qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names. has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has bee

Bug#455214: marked as done (qa.debian.org: add a usercategory for svnbuildstat on the qa.debian.org BTS pseudo package)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:13:21 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#455214: qa.debian.org: add a usercategory for svnbuildstat on the qa.debian.org BTS pseudo package has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that th

Bug#376252: marked as done (DDPO: watch column has same version but is magenta)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:23:16 -0600 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#269493 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 responsibility to reope

Bug#452323: marked as done (developer.php DM-Upload-Allowed field)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:14:38 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#452323: developer.php DM-Upload-Allowed field 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

Processed: Re: Seems, the watch handler is not able to handle mangles in wath files

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 437675 pending Bug#437675: Seems, the watch handler is not able to handle mangles in wath files There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > severity 437675 wishlist Bug#437675: Seems, the watch handler is not able to handle mangles in wath files

Bug#261644: marked as done (developer.php: merge watch and wwiz columns)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:29:43 -0600 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line developer.php: merge watch and wwiz columns 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

Bug#437675: Seems, the watch handler is not able to handle mangles in wath files

tag 437675 pending severity 437675 wishlist retitle 437675 Compare versions using the mangled Debian version string thanks The code on developer.php/.wml has been updated so this feature can be integrated. What is left is update the DEHS backend including the database structure, afterwards an up

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Russ Allbery wrote: > Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In particular, if some package enters or leaves a black/whitelist, >> wouldn't a new lintian version be warranted in the current scheme of >> things? > > Yes. If there are significant packages that become obsolete and warrant a >

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Yes. If there are significant packages that become obsolete and >> warrant a lintian warning to aid in a transition, please file a >> wishlist bug against lintian and we'll include that check in the next >> release. >> debcheck is av

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Russ Allbery wrote: > Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> Yes. If there are significant packages that become obsolete and >>> warrant a lintian warning to aid in a transition, please file a >>> wishlist bug against lintian and we'll include that check in the next >>

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, libglib1.2ldbl, libgtk1.2 and maybe libgd2-xpm would qualify to be > included? > > Do you want me to file a bug to include them or is mentioning them over > here enough? Could you explain more why that would be? For the first two, do you think there ar

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, libglib1.2ldbl, libgtk1.2 and maybe libgd2-xpm would qualify to be > included? libgd2-xpm isn't even in oldlibs and there's no hint in the package description that it shouldn't be used. Is it really being phased out? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

On 16/12/2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > > So, libglib1.2ldbl, libgtk1.2 and maybe libgd2-xpm would qualify to be > > included? > > libgd2-xpm isn't even in oldlibs and there's no hint in the package > description that it shouldn't be used. Is it really being phased out? I am unsure about this, as th

Processed: Reopen: Bug#452905: qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names.)

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 452905 ! Bug#452905: qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names. Bug reopened, originator set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking

Bug#452905: Reopen: Bug#452905: qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names.)

reopen 452905 ! thanks On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:27:13 + Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Namely, that BTS pages for bogus names can be accessed: > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=Microsoft%20Windows%20Vista;dist=unstable > > I don't see a bug here.