Re: does /var/games have to be deleted on purge? (if it's empty..)

On 2009-04-06 19:59 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote: > Holger Levsen writes: > >> while testing the archive with piuparts I found a failure reported by >> piuparts, that after purge /var/games existed on the system while it >> wasnt there before installing+purging the package. >> >> See http://piuparts

Re: status of this bug

merge 454694 538429 thanks On 2009-08-05 14:15 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > this bug in dpkg makes the piuparts test for 99 packages in squeeze and 116 > in > sid fail, thus also causing several hundreds of packages not to be tested. > (As piuparts.d.o doesnt test a package, if it's d

Bug#944620: qa.debian.org: build log scanner reports stale data

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: bls The build log scanner reports stale data for ncurses from the 20190803-1 version[1]. The problems reported there have been fixed[2] in the 20191019-1 upload, yet the tracker keeps complaining. Either th

Re: Getting rid of 1.0 with dpatch/quilt/direct changes

On 2021-04-08 18:02 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:53:06PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> > 166 1.0, quilt >> >> I don't see what's wrong with these. > > Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that

Re: Getting rid of 1.0 with dpatch/quilt/direct changes

On 2021-04-09 21:02 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 09/04/21 at 19:49 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: >> The X Strike Force is still sticking to format 1.0, with one of the main >> reasons being that it makes it easier to cherry-pick one or several >> upstream commits. In the 3

Re: Bugs against package 'timeout'

On 2013-05-16 14:42 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > While triaging bugs that don't belong to any package I have found these: > > $ querybts --buglist timeout > Querying Debian BTS for reports on timeout... > #585745 Please drop timeout binary package > #531787 timeout move to coreutils? These ca

Re: Strange testing migration excuse for xzgv

On 2014-01-02 16:55 +0100, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > For the debian.qa.debian.org page[1], it states: > > excuses: >Too young, only 0 of 5 days old >Ignoring high urgency setting for NEW package >Not considered > > [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xzgv.html > > What's confusing me is t

Re: Strange testing migration excuse for xzgv

On 2014-01-02 18:01 +0100, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. (BTW, it was a typo in my original > message; I had meant to say that the version in _sid_ was 0.9.1-3.) > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 04:58:12PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> Urgencies for new packages are ignored iff

Bug#816450: debcheck: Lists packages depending on libraries with lower priority

On 2016-03-01 23:14 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Package: qa.debian.org > Severity: wishlist > User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: debcheck > > Hi! > > The debcheck script is listing packages depending on libraries with > lower priority. But the archive overrides were recently upd

Bug#902438: tracker.debian.org: broken links in VCS field

Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: normal In the VCS field on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/$package there are three new links labeled changelog_distribution, changelog_version and package_version. Unfortunately they are all 404 compliant.