Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Russ Allbery wrote: > 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? Th

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Russ Allbery wrote: > 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

Processed: closing 452905

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.11 > close 452905 Bug#452905: qa.debian.org: "Debian Bug report logs" is lax about bogus package names. 'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing. Bug close

Bug#377282: marked as done (mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] not delivered to maintainer by default)

Your message dated Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:07:07 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#377282: mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] not delivered to maintainer by default has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w

Re: Hard coded package names in lintian

Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm certainly ready to do a mass bug filing. There surely should be > documentation on how to transition from gtk1.2 to gtk2.0 by now... Yes, it says "rewrite the software to use the new APIs." I've not seen any simple transition, apart from some wide-rang

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

As per the closing 'bot message: You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly, in case you haven't already. If not, please contact them directly. But no "substantive response" in two closings. Perhaps the above disappointing boilerplate is a white lie, or j

Processed: mass change old submitter address on archived bugs

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # mass change old submitter address on archived bugs > # sorry for the noise, debbugs doesn't seem to have control-quiet@ > unarchive 230482 Unarchived Bug 230482 > submitter 230482 ! Bug#230482: reiserfsprogs: reiserfsck --rebuild-tree hangs in pass 2

Processed (with 2 errors): Re: mass change old submitter address on archived bugs

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # woops, fix some mistakes on merged bugs > unarchive 287831 Unarchived Bug 287831 Unarchived Bug 287166 Unarchived Bug 287167 Unarchived Bug 288563 > submitter 287831 Jaap Haitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bug#287831: meld: Meld does not want to compare dir