python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.dsc
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.diff.gz
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNS
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.dsc
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.diff.gz
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNS
xloadimage_4.1-19_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xloadimage_4.1-19.dsc
xloadimage_4.1-19.debian.tar.gz
xloadimage_4.1-19_amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa
Accepted:
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.diff.gz
to main/p/python-repoze.what/python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.diff.gz
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.dsc
to main/p/python-repoze.what/python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2.dsc
python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2_all.deb
to main/p/python-repoze.what/python-repoze.what_1.0.9-2
Accepted:
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.diff.gz
to main/p/python-repoze.who/python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.diff.gz
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.dsc
to main/p/python-repoze.who/python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2.dsc
python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2_all.deb
to main/p/python-repoze.who/python-repoze.who_1.0.18-2_al
Accepted:
xloadimage_4.1-19.debian.tar.gz
to main/x/xloadimage/xloadimage_4.1-19.debian.tar.gz
xloadimage_4.1-19.dsc
to main/x/xloadimage/xloadimage_4.1-19.dsc
xloadimage_4.1-19_amd64.deb
to main/x/xloadimage/xloadimage_4.1-19_amd64.deb
Changes:
xloadimage (4.1-19) unstable; urgency=low
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 10:05:00 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#670819: fixed in xloadimage 4.1-19
has caused the Debian Bug report #670819,
regarding xloadimage: Hardening flags missing
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Package: xplc
Severity: important
Tags: upstream patch
Dear Maintainer,
xplc currently FTBFS on hurd-i386 because it uses the PATH_MAX macro, which is
not defined on GNU/Hurd. The attached patch should fix this issue. Since
PATH_MAX is not needed any more, it also removes the check for limits.h
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #126314,
regarding defoma crash during package install?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #145963,
regarding dfontmgr: some bugs on adding font
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #143818,
regarding gs-common: VERY slow with many truetype fonts
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has b
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #134593,
regarding Handling of spaces in font names
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #143818,
regarding defoma-font memory leak
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #145970,
regarding dfontmgr: recommended answer is 'NO', but default choice is 'YES'
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim t
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #157801,
regarding defoma: Can't find in docs: How to un-fail fonts, how to set up
XF86Config
to be marked as done.
This means that yo
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #158668,
regarding defoma: defoma-hints doesn't allow multiple aliases
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #157899,
regarding defoma-user: missing manpage
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #157899,
regarding "I have no idea what defoma-user does"
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #179099,
regarding defoma-font memory leak
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #159719,
regarding defoma - adding fonts is too complex
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #179099,
regarding gs-common: VERY slow with many truetype fonts
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has b
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #217260,
regarding defoma: Font alias in Chinese accepted, but causes fontconfig runtime
error
to be marked as done.
This means that y
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #170557,
regarding defoma-hints and truetype
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #221887,
regarding better error reporting from application scripts
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #217651,
regarding defoma does not register Type1 fonts to X server or font server
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #224362,
regarding Errors on msttcorefonts uninstall about defoma and other
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pr
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #239482,
regarding msttcorefonts: Cannot purge msttcorefonts
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #231616,
regarding defoma-hints error in libperl-hint.pl
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #269264,
regarding defoma: Unlabelled dialog box is confusing
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #315682,
regarding defoma-ps should generate Location and FontName hints
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the probl
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #256500,
regarding "Phantom" helvetica font with invisible letters
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #283659,
regarding defoma-hints: add back button
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #328596,
regarding apache2-mpm-prefork: cgi with /usr/bin/dot keep 100% CPU for 30 sec
but from shell - less than second
to be marked a
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #360823,
regarding "I have no idea what defoma-user does"
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #360823,
regarding defoma-user: missing manpage
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #365833,
regarding defoma: Uninitialized value in IdCache.pm
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #368607,
regarding defoma: Only first shape in hint generation is outputed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pro
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #379432,
regarding defoma: Please add Thai location info
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #380491,
regarding dfontmgr ships no .desktop
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #390393,
regarding defoma: Warnings from defoma's gs.defoma script
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #397849,
regarding Option '-t' to defoma-font does not seem to work
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #400461,
regarding defoma-doc: typo in Defoma developer's guide
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #422763,
regarding defoma: Please add OpenType category
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #448991,
regarding defoma integration issues breaks wormux
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #464237,
regarding family chooser output from defoma-hints is truncated
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the proble
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #475228,
regarding defoma: defoma-font tries to update cache in my homedir
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pro
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #487454,
regarding defoma's state management isn't robust
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #487459,
regarding defoma's state management isn't robust
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #487459,
regarding defoma's state management isn't robust
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #518604,
regarding Don't put generated/non-config files not in /etc
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #487454,
regarding defoma's state management isn't robust
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dea
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #558105,
regarding defoma-doc: defoma-hints docs should mention that opentype is not
supported
to be marked as done.
This means that y
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #542575,
regarding defoma: please provide a debhelper sequence addon
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem h
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #551515,
regarding defoma: Do not register non-existant fonts from .hints
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the prob
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 18:37:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#651494: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #655770,
regarding /etc/defoma not cleaned up on purge (fontconfig.subst-rule)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
defoma |0.11.12 | source, all
defoma-doc |0.11.12 | all
psfontmgr |0.11.12 | all
--- Reason ---
RoQA; Debian-specific, unmaintained, obsole
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.dsc
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.tar.gz
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2_amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Accepted:
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.dsc
to main/a/adept/adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.dsc
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.tar.gz
to main/a/adept/adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2.tar.gz
adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2_amd64.deb
to main/a/adept/adept_3.0~beta7.2+qa2_amd64.deb
Changes:
adept (3.0~beta7.2+qa2) unstable; urgency=low
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 21:05:06 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#655512: fixed in adept 3.0~beta7.2+qa2
has caused the Debian Bug report #655512,
regarding adept: FTBFS: /usr/include/xapian/keymaker.h:125:7: error: expected
primary-expression before '.' token
to be marked a
Your message dated Thu, 03 May 2012 21:05:06 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#667095: fixed in adept 3.0~beta7.2+qa2
has caused the Debian Bug report #667095,
regarding adept: ftbfs with GCC-4.7
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
60 matches
Mail list logo
