Bug#163531: marked as done (ubit_2.6.0-1(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: g++ 3.0 errors)

Your message dated Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:17:11 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#163531: fixed in ubit 2.6.0-2 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

ubit_2.6.0-2_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: libubit-dev_2.6.0-2_i386.deb to pool/main/u/ubit/libubit-dev_2.6.0-2_i386.deb libubit2.6.0_2.6.0-2_i386.deb to pool/main/u/ubit/libubit2.6.0_2.6.0-2_i386.deb ubit_2.6.0-2.diff.gz to pool/main/u/ubit/ubit_2.6.0-2.diff.gz ubit_2.6.0-2.dsc to pool/main/u/ubit/ubit_2.6.0-2.dsc Announ

Bug#168976: marked as done (kde dependencies trouble - removed kdeinit)

Your message dated Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:55:15 -0600 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line kde 3.x is not in the debian archive yet 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 no

Processed: Fixed in NMU of linuxconf 1.26r4-2.1

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 158637 + fixed Bug#158637: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: iDEFENSE Security Advisory: Linuxconf locally exploitable buffer overflow] Tags added: fixed > tag 160172 + fixed Bug#160172: FTBFS: Build failure of linuxconf on i386 Tags added: fixed > quit Stoppin

Bug#106982: marked as done (apt should have a linuxconf module :))

Your message dated Sat, 23 Nov 2002 01:38:20 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line apt should have a linuxconf module :) 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 y

Processed: merging 167067 168024

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 167067 168024 Bug#167067: FTBFS: Build failure of geas on i386 Bug#168024: geas_0.0.6-8(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: missing include file Merged 167067 168024. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debi

Bug#164522: marked as done (xmms-nas: Shouldn't it depend on xmms?)

Your message dated Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:08:41 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#164522: fixed in xmms-nas 0.2-3 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 you

xmms-nas_0.2-3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: xmms-nas_0.2-3.diff.gz to pool/main/x/xmms-nas/xmms-nas_0.2-3.diff.gz xmms-nas_0.2-3.dsc to pool/main/x/xmms-nas/xmms-nas_0.2-3.dsc xmms-nas_0.2-3_i386.deb to pool/main/x/xmms-nas/xmms-nas_0.2-3_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 164522 Th

Bug#169559: marked as done (blt_2.4z-0.1(unstable/ia64): FTBFS: `START_LOGSIZE' undeclared)

Your message dated Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:02:40 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#169559: fixed in blt 2.4z-0.2 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

blt_2.4z-0.2_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: blt-common_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb to pool/main/b/blt/blt-common_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb blt-demo_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb to pool/main/b/blt/blt-demo_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb blt-dev_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb to pool/main/b/blt/blt-dev_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb blt_2.4z-0.2.diff.gz to pool/main/b/blt/blt_2.4z-0.2.diff.g

blt override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): blt-dev_2.4z-0.2_i386.deb: priority is overridden from optional to extra. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong

Bug#158637: [dendler@idefense.com: iDEFENSE Security Advisory: Linuxconf locally exploitable buffer overflow]

severity 158637 important thanks On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 02:38:55PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > tags 158637 + patch > thanks > > As I stated, debian's linuxconf package should not be vulnerable, as it > is not installed setuid root. > > Nevertheless, I've backported the patch from the latest u

Bug#165294: marked as done (FTBFS: Build failure of langdrill on i386)

Your message dated Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:21:28 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line FTBFS: Build failure of langdrill on i386 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 n

Processed: Re: [dendler@idefense.com: iDEFENSE Security Advisory: Linuxconf locally exploitable buffer overflow]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 158637 important Bug#158637: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: iDEFENSE Security Advisory: Linuxconf locally exploitable buffer overflow] Severity set to `important'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug

Bug#170067: tux-aqfh: It doesn't run

severity 170067 important thanks On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:35:28PM -0200, Raphael Derosso Pereira - DephiNit wrote: > Package: tux-aqfh > Version: 1.0.13-6 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > Hi. When I try to run it, the following message shows up: > > slDSP: write

Processed: Re: Bug#170067: tux-aqfh: It doesn't run

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 170067 important Bug#170067: tux-aqfh: It doesn't run Severity set to `important'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Fwd: Re: elm on linux.cactus.org

This is from an elm user on one of many systems which I administer. Can you work from this description, or do we need to submit a 'formal' report? Package: elm-me+ Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: mail Installed-Size: 2164 Maintainer: Debian QA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ve