yвaжaeмыe кoллeги!
Пpиглaшaeм Вac пpинять yчacтиe в oбщepoccийcкoм нayчнo-пpaктичecкoм ceминape
"peпpoдyктивный пoтeнциaл poccии: вepcии и кoнтpaвepcии", кoтopый - yжe в
тpeтий paз - cocтoитcя в coчи 9-11 ceнтябpя. Этo знaкoвoe мepoпpиятиe c кaждым
гoдoм coбиpaeт вcё бoльшe дoктopoв co вceй cтp
http://www.мото.su
купить мотоцикл, продать мотоцикл.
частные объявления о продаже мотоциклов.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100805092302.c
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # Thu Aug 5 08:03:52 UTC 2010
> # Tagging as pending bugs that are closed by packages in NEW
> # http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> #
> # Source package in NEW: doc-rfc
> tags 209491 + pending
Bug #209491 [doc-rfc-3000-3999] The package desc
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # not affecting/relevant for stable
> tags 541562 + squeeze sid
Bug #541562 {Done: Stefano Zacchiroli } [serpentine]
serpentine: uses python-gnome2-desktop which is going away
Added tag(s) sid and squeeze.
> tags 541709 + squeeze sid
Bug #541709
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#200828: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #200828,
regarding /usr/lib/doc-rfc/register-doc-rfc-docs: not found
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#209491: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #209491,
regarding The package description does not follow Debian policy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#201618: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #201618,
regarding doc-rfc-std: can't purge
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#209471: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #209471,
regarding The package description does not follow Debian policy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#209456: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #209456,
regarding The package description does not follow Debian policy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#209631: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #209631,
regarding The package description does not follow Debian policy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#215068: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #215068,
regarding doc-rfc-0001-0999: postinst script fails (no such file as
/usr/lib/doc-rfc/register-doc-rfc-docs)
to be marked as done.
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#223504: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #223504,
regarding rfc1918 missing
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#210587: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #210587,
regarding doc-rfc-std: doc-base files refer to non-existant HTML and text docs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#287224: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #287224,
regarding doc-rfc-3000-3999: RFC packages are missing hundreds of RFCs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pro
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#366118: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #366118,
regarding doc-rfc: Warnings during install
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:52 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#366673: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #366673,
regarding doc-rfc-3000-3999: RFC3550 is missing
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:52 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#377602: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #377602,
regarding doc-rfc: a lot of RFCs are missing
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:33:52 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#380689: fixed in doc-rfc 20100731-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #380689,
regarding doc-rfc-std: Warning at install and purge of most doc-rfc-* package
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
smarty_2.6.26-0.2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
smarty_2.6.26-0.2.dsc
smarty_2.6.26-0.2.diff.gz
smarty_2.6.26-0.2_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages
Accepted:
smarty_2.6.26-0.2.diff.gz
to main/s/smarty/smarty_2.6.26-0.2.diff.gz
smarty_2.6.26-0.2.dsc
to main/s/smarty/smarty_2.6.26-0.2.dsc
smarty_2.6.26-0.2_all.deb
to main/s/smarty/smarty_2.6.26-0.2_all.deb
Override entries for your package:
smarty_2.6.26-0.2.dsc - source web
smarty_2.
Source: sqlrelay
Version: 1:0.39.4-10
Severity: serious
> sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.60.0 (23 Feb 2010) on porpora.debian.org
>
> ╔══╗
> ║ sqlrelay 1:0.39.4-10 (powerpc) 03 Aug 2010
> 21:53 ║
>
Package: calendarserver
Version: 1.2.dfsg-9
Severity: grave
User: trei...@debian.org
Usertags: edos-uninstallable
Hi,
calendarserver is not installable in sid on any architecture, at least
since June 21. The reason for that is
Package: calendarserver
Version: 1.2.dfsg-9
Depends: [...], python-vo
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> merge 591651 591788
Bug#591651: sqlrelay: FTBFS: mv: cannot stat `debian/tmp/usr/java/*.jar': No
such file or directory
Bug#591788: sqlrelay: FTBFS: mv: cannot stat `debian/tmp/usr/java/*.jar': No
such file or directory
Merged 591651 591788.
>
Accepted:
fbiterm_0.5-8_i386.deb
to main/i/iterm/fbiterm_0.5-8_i386.deb
iterm_0.5-8.diff.gz
to main/i/iterm/iterm_0.5-8.diff.gz
iterm_0.5-8.dsc
to main/i/iterm/iterm_0.5-8.dsc
libiterm-dev_0.5-8_i386.deb
to main/i/iterm/libiterm-dev_0.5-8_i386.deb
libiterm1_0.5-8_i386.deb
to main/i/ite
Your message dated Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:32:36 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#583539: fixed in iterm 0.5-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #583539,
regarding [INTL:es] Spanish debconf template translation for iterm
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
tags 546659 patch
thanks
Nicolas's patch assumes python 2.6. That's fine for Debian, but maybe
not for upstream. This one seems to work.
Peter
--- imaplibutil.py
+++ imaplibutil.py
@@ -169,7 +169,10 @@
if last_error != 0:
# FIXME
raise socket.error(last_err
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 546659 patch
Bug #546659 [offlineimap] DeprecationWarning: socket.ssl() is deprecated
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
546659: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b
Hi all,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:24, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> tags 546659 patch
> thanks
>
> Nicolas's patch assumes python 2.6. That's fine for Debian, but maybe
> not for upstream. This one seems to work.
>
> Peter
>
>
> --- imaplibutil.py
> +++ imaplibutil.py
> @@ -169,7 +169,10 @@
>
[Sandro Tosi]
> A nicer way to do that is via tuple comparison (not correctly indented
> only mocking):
>
> if sys.version_info[0:2] < (2,6)
> self.sslobj = socket.ssl(self.sock, self.keyfile, self.certfile)
> else:
> self.sslobj = ssl.wrap_socket(self.sock, self.keyfile, self.certfile)
29 matches
Mail list logo
