There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libg++27-altdev_2.7.2.1-18_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 pac
Accepted:
libg++27-altdev_2.7.2.1-18_i386.deb
to pool/main/libg/libg++27/libg++27-altdev_2.7.2.1-18_i386.deb
libg++27_2.7.2.1-18.diff.gz
to pool/main/libg/libg++27/libg++27_2.7.2.1-18.diff.gz
libg++27_2.7.2.1-18.dsc
to pool/main/libg/libg++27/libg++27_2.7.2.1-18.dsc
libg++27_2.7.2.1-18_i386.
Your message dated Tue, 08 Oct 2002 02:47:22 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#162375: fixed in libg++27 2.7.2.1-18
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
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
flick-doc_2.1-3_all.deb: section is overridden from doc to devel.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wrong please f
Accepted:
flick-dev_2.1-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/f/flick/flick-dev_2.1-3_i386.deb
flick-doc_2.1-3_all.deb
to pool/main/f/flick/flick-doc_2.1-3_all.deb
flick_2.1-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/f/flick/flick_2.1-3.diff.gz
flick_2.1-3.dsc
to pool/main/f/flick/flick_2.1-3.dsc
flick_2.1-3_i386.deb
to
Your message dated Tue, 08 Oct 2002 03:17:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#163438: fixed in flick 2.1-3
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 your r
Your message dated Tue, 08 Oct 2002 03:17:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#163458: fixed in flick 2.1-3
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 your r
Helge Kreutzmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pressing "Set mixer" from main screen of xwavr yields an error message
> saying that "xmix" is required. But there is neither a depends or
> suggests in the package information regarding xmix. A quick apt-cache
> search did not find it either. Nor is
Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been talking to Jeff about what the priorities should be. Jeff has
> pointed out that the mailutils replacements of these tools integrate
> well with the rest of the mailutils package: all of these apps use a
> variable that makes them look/write ma
tkmail_4.0beta9-8.1_arm.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
tkmail_4.0beta9-8.1_arm.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
Mapping stable-security to proposed-updates.
Rejected: tkmail_4.0beta9-8.1_arm.deb: old version (4.0beta9-8) in unstable <=
new version (4.0beta9-8.1) targeted at proposed-updates.
===
If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Matej Vela wrote:
> Hmm, elm-me+ utilities (and mailutils doesn't provide them all) use an
> elaborate .elmrc, the equivalent variable being `incoming-mailbox',
> with IMAP and POP support as well. I think it would be even more
> confusing for elm-me+ user
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Matej Vela wrote:
> > Hmm, elm-me+ utilities (and mailutils doesn't provide them all) use an
> > elaborate .elmrc, the equivalent variable being `incoming-mailbox',
> > with IMAP and POP suppo
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:04:51PM +0200, Matej Vela wrote:
> Great. If Jeff agrees, I'll do elm-me+ on Sunday. Please add
> `Conflicts: elm-me+ (<< 2.4pl25ME+99c-3)' to your next upload for
> smooth upgrades; I'll add `Conflicts: mailutils (<= 20020904-2)',
> right?
Ok. Note that I won't be abl
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:27:21 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of wmppxp 0.51.0-2.1
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 it is now your r
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:27:09 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of bug 3.3.10
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 responsi
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:27:39 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of nase-a60 0.20a-1.1
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 it is now your
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:27:47 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of moxftp 2.2-17.2
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 res
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:28:12 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of bug 3.3.10.1
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 it is now your respon
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:28:20 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of bug 3.3.10.1
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 it is now your respon
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:28:05 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of bug 3.3.10.1
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 it is now your respon
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:28:26 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of bug 3.3.10.1
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 it is now your respon
Your message dated Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:39:00 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in NMU of langdrill 0.2.1-4
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 is now your r
23 matches
Mail list logo
