Re: [pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] Bug#652376: Removed package(s) from unstable

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:35:30AM +0100, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hello Moritz, > > CC debian-qa, as the removal was RoQA. > > yes, eucalyptus is in bad shape, but its packaging team is not inactive, and > the reason for not working on version 1.6 is that we focus on 2.0, which we > can > not up

Bug#868079: Security issues marked as no-dsa are shown as "ignored"

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:08:18PM +1000, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 10:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > may "non-critical" or "non-urgent" ? > > I think I would go with non-urgent. > > Perhaps it should also mention point releases? Yeah, it should point to the general proce

Re: mass-removing packages that missed both jessie and stretch?

Lucas Nussbaum schrieb: > Hi, > > I propose the following process: > - I would file a bug against each of those packages, asking whether it > should be removed, and stating that the bug should be closed if the > package should stay in Debian. > - after a month, I would reassign/retitle the bug