Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> owner 235138 !
Bug#235138: Strange abilities messages displayed during backup/restore process
Owner recorded as Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> severity 235138 wishlist
Bug#235138: Strange abilities messages displayed during backup/restore process
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> owner 235875 !!
Bug#235875: rdiff-backup: AttributeError occurs when backup target is subdir of
source
Owner recorded as !!.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(admin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 253057
Bug#253057: rdiff-backup: reports unchanged files as changed
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> thanks
Stopping processing
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> owner 235875 !
Bug#235875: rdiff-backup: AttributeError occurs when backup target is subdir of
source
Owner changed from !! to Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
D
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> owner 260018 !
Bug#260018: rdiff-backup: target hard-link test is incorrect for AFS
Owner recorded as Alec Berryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> tags 260018 +confirmed
Bug#260018: rdiff-backup: target hard-link test is incorrect for AFS
There were no tags se
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 253057
Bug#253057: rdiff-backup: reports unchanged files as changed
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Deb
Hi,
sorry for not answering earlier; your questions were only sent to the
bug which doesn't forward by default to the submitter.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:54:06PM -0400, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Two questions for you. First, have the timestamps or permissions on
> these files changed?
I am prett
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:52:54 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gbuffy 0.2.6-8
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 responsibi
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:52:54 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gbuffy 0.2.6-8
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 responsibi
begin quotation of Marc Haber on 2004-08-30 10:35:08 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for not answering earlier; your questions were only sent to the
> bug which doesn't forward by default to the submitter.
I apologize; my oversight.
> I will try to reproduce this in the next days and will answer the
>
Confirmed that this link bug is still present in 13.4-3.
The funny thing is, the test is done with .isdir() (Main.py:312),
which should return true if the symlink points to a directory. I'll
have to look into this further.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:20:55 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing this old bug
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 responsibilit
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:55:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed
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 responsibility to reopen t
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:49:33 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed from the archive
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 responsib
Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:55:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed
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 responsibility to reopen t
noteedit_2.7.1-2_sparc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
noteedit_2.7.1-2_sparc.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
Accepted:
noteedit_2.7.1-2_sparc.deb
to pool/main/n/noteedit/noteedit_2.7.1-2_sparc.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
> this bug is fixed in gbuffy 0.2.6-8, currently in incoming.
Do not close bugs this way. It is incorrect to close a bug until the
fixed package is actually installed in the archive.
Instead, you can tag the bug "pending", and then put "Closes: #"
in debian/changelog, which will make su
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:48:11 -0700]:
> > this bug is fixed in gbuffy 0.2.6-8, currently in incoming.
> Do not close bugs this way. It is incorrect to close a bug until the
> fixed package is actually installed in the archive.
> Instead, you can tag the bug "pending", and
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> that bug was supposed to be closed by katie, but my sponsor forgot to
> pass the appropriate -v option to debuild (or whatever).
Whoops! Ah well, such mistakes happen.
> actually, bugs closed via the changelog get closed when they enter
> inco
Your message dated 30 Aug 2004 15:35:08 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line presumably transient
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 responsibility to
Package: libguppi16
Version: 0.40.3-10
Severity: important
Tags: patch l10n
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=ru_RU.KOI8-R, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.KOI8-R
Versions of packages libgup
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:48:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Do not close bugs this way.
There was no need to tell [EMAIL PROTECTED] this. :-)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28 matches
Mail list logo
