Hi,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:06:49AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:23:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 151461 [ ] device3dfx-source: fails to build
>
> Guillem Jover downgraded this to important (correctly, I think), and
> observed that there's a patch in
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:18:50AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > 80888 followup: work out what to do about this package
> This is the dnrd security bug. I still don't know what to do about it.
> I don't have time nor do I want to rewrite a piece of software I don't
> use. The upstream m
* Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-21 08:18]:
> > 119851 followup: NMU needed; should package be marked as orphaned?
>
> I did an NMU. It looks like someone is going to take over gap4. Should
> I still orphan it?
I orphaned it a few days ago.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECT
> Neil Schemenauer
> 56472 followup: has patch been accepted? is NMU useful?
The maintainer applied my patch, uploaded and closed the bug.
> 80888 followup: work out what to do about this package
This is the dnrd security bug. I still don't know what to do about it.
I don't have time
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:06:49AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:23:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 150411 [P ] xshipwars-server: POSIX shell incompatibilities
>
> I sponsor the maintainer; I've prodded him. Currently the upload of
> xshipwars is pending the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:59:12AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > astrolog
> Non-free package that needed rebuilt for other archs. New bug filed
> about the issue, no response yet from maintainer. I recommend removal
> from testing if still no response after another week.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 07:24:28PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > New bug filed about the arch-specific build failure. No response yet
> > from maintainer. Will NMU with an explicit gcc 2.95 build dep if no
> > response this week.
> Be careful if you do this, gcc-2.95 was never used on ia64 and
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 03:46:44AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-14 11:59]:
> > > 92810 [ ] doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free
> > > 144841 [ ] doesn't build on arm
> > No meaningful progress to report on the above two.
> What about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Langasek) writes:
>> hamfax
>
> New bug filed about the arch-specific build failure. No response yet
> from maintainer. Will NMU with an explicit gcc 2.95 build dep if no
> response this week.
Be careful if you do this, gcc-2.95 was never used on ia64 and hppa so you'll
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-14 11:59]:
> > 92810 [ ] doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free
> > 144841 [ ] doesn't build on arm
> No meaningful progress to report on the above two.
What about the new doc-rfc packages done by Martin Quinson which he
told you about a while
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:23:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 133563 [ + ] FTBFS: Build failure of doc-rfc on i386
This NMU has hit the archive. No screaming yet.
> 143547 [ H] perl segfaults during configure stage
Already fixed in the archive, per my comments last week.
> 184302
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 12:23:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Colin Watson
>84493 followup: has fix introduced any new bugs?
The NMU has built everywhere, is now in testing, and looks fine.
> 104835 followup: has maintainer noticed the patch?
Nope. I've uploaded an NMU.
>
[Not cc'ed to "herrn" release assistants]
So, continuing on.
Your second assignments, should you choose to accept them, come in
three parts: followup of last week's bugs, a new set of bugs to solve,
and finding and filing some unreported bugs.
Followup basically means making sure that the "solut
13 matches
Mail list logo
