Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322391: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
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
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#226386: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
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
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#296667: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
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
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:32:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#248861: fixed in rxvt 1:2.6.4-9
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
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:13:29 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332175: fixed in zope-lockablefolder 0.1.0-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:10:55 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332172: fixed in zope-dtmlcalendar 1.0.15-6
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 i
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:09:40 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332167: fixed in zope-callprofiler 1.4-4
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 i
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:08:09 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332166: fixed in zope-backtalk 0.3-7
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
Package: zope-lockablefolder
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and
Package: zope-kinterbasdbda
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and
Package: zope-dtmlcalendar
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and v
Package: zope-cmfpgforum
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and ver
Package: zope-cmf
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard
Package: zope-callprofiler
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and v
Package: zope-backtalk
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very
Package: xfs-xtt
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard t
Package: tripwire
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 331775 wontfix
Bug#331775: chastity-list depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate;
blocks cdebconf transition
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistan
Package: eco5000
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard t
Package: chastity-list
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very
Package: cgiemail
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard
Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:37:36 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#315710: remains active
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 respons
Accepted:
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb
Announcin
Accepted:
xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz
to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz
xmcpustate_3-12.dsc
to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12.dsc
xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xmcpustate/xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs:
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.dsc
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2.diff.gz
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-2_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xmcpustate_3-12_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xmcpustate_3-12.dsc
xmcpustate_3-12.diff.gz
xmcpustate_3-12_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Accepted:
xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz
to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz
xwit_3.4-7.dsc
to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7.dsc
xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xwit/xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 263209
Thank you for your contribution to Deb
xwit_3.4-7_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xwit_3.4-7.dsc
xwit_3.4-7.diff.gz
xwit_3.4-7_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
Accepted:
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gbatnav/gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb
gbatnav_1
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.dsc
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004.orig.tar.gz
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1.diff.gz
gbatnav_1.0.4cvs20051004-1_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To
Your message dated Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:32:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#330603: fixed in gbatnav 1.0.4cvs20051004-1
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 i
Package: sodipodi
Version: 0.34-0.1
Severity: important
I have the situation: file is in writable user directory but belongs to
root (rw-r--r--). Sodipodi seems to save changes but does not and do not
show any alerts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
Package: sodipodi
Version: 0.34-0.1
Severity: important
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was not corrected! If one select some file in open dialog and
presses Cancel sodipodi still opens that file!..
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
Package: dosemu
Version: 1.2.1-3.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
dosemu is the last Debian package that still depends on the old
libslang1 package. Could you please update it to depend on libslang2?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (100, 'u
34 matches
Mail list logo
