On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:10 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (2) the way we deal with bugs affecting two (or more) packages.
> That's a tricky problem. On one hand, the correct way to solve that
> would be to have a separate "affected_packages" table, with (id,
> package) columns, and also an "affec
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package qa.debian.org
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #462470
# * https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/188955
forwarded 462470 https://bugs.launchpad.net/merge-o-
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package qa.debian.org
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status re
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hello,
since one can subscribe to packages he does not maintain via the DDPO bot,
it'd be useful to patch the DDPO page, since it actually lists the subscribed
packages in separate sections, but *keeps* packages in main/contrib/non-free in
thei
Your message dated Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:21:50 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line qa.debian.org bug fixed in revision 1994
has caused the Debian Bug report #500505,
regarding DDPO: please add a "Sections" sorting order
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
5 matches
Mail list logo