Bugs done, but not closed?

2006-11-02 Thread Felipe Sateler
Hi. I was reviewing the bug page for checkinstall, which I maintain, and came across a few bugs[1] that are marked as fixed and done, but they are still listed as outstanding. I am a bit confused. All of these bugs were closed by another person by uploading another package. I think this must be

Re: Bugs done, but not closed?

2006-11-02 Thread Neil Williams
On 02/11/06 19:24:07, Felipe Sateler wrote: Hi. I was reviewing the bug page for checkinstall, which I maintain, and came across a few bugs[1] that are marked as fixed and done, but they are still listed as outstanding. Where? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=checkinstall

RFS: gexec

2006-11-02 Thread Johann Rudloff
Dear mentors, Since I have no experience in RFS, I'm simply posting the template I got from mentors.debian.net: I am looking for a sponsor for my package gexec. * Package name: gexec Version : 0.3-1 Upstream Author : Ferry Boender * URL :

Re: Bugs done, but not closed?

2006-11-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Felipe Sateler wrote: Hi. I was reviewing the bug page for checkinstall, which I maintain, and came across a few bugs[1] that are marked as fixed and done, but they are still listed as outstanding. I am a bit confused. All of these bugs were closed by another person by

Re: RFS: exaile

2006-11-02 Thread Rogério Brito
Hi there, people. On Oct 22 2006, Eric Evans wrote: Thanks François. I'll give it one last review and upload it shortly if there are no problems. Any news regarding exaile? I received an e-mail from François saying that it would hit the Debian servers, but did it meet any problems with the

Re: RFS: exaile

2006-11-02 Thread Tobias Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any news regarding exaile? It's waiting for ftpmaster approval in the NEW queue: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html tobias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: scuttle

2006-11-02 Thread metal
hi Thijs, On 11/1/06, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Marcelo, On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:39 -0300, metal wrote: hi all, the package with the corrections indicated for Sandro Tosi, is here [0]. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Could you take a look at

Re: RFS: exaile

2006-11-02 Thread Rogério Brito
Hi, Tobias. On Nov 03 2006, Tobias Richter wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any news regarding exaile? It's waiting for ftpmaster approval in the NEW queue: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Didn't know that it was taking that long, though. Thanks for the link. I'm including a copy

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: So, it has been repeated over and over that circular dependencies are bad form, maybe even bugs. Still, there are packages for which they seem to be the only reasonable choice, like liferea-gtkhtml, completely useless without liferea,

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Prasad Ramamurthy Kadambi
Hi,On 11/3/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There isn't such a rule. Broken circular dependencies are wrong, andneedless ones should be fixed, but needed ones are definetly not abug.But this is what Bill had to say for my package festival-te. Hello Prasad,There is a circular dependency

Re: RFS: urw-garamond-no8

2006-11-02 Thread Rogério Brito
Hi, Kevin and others. On Jun 19 2006, Kevin Bube wrote: Kevin Bube [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will put the files temporaily on my own homepage this evening. It is now on http://www.icbm.de/~bube/debian/ What is the status on your fonts (both this and mathdesign)? I have compiled them

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Prasad Ramamurthy Kadambi wrote: On 11/3/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There isn't such a rule. Broken circular dependencies are wrong, and needless ones should be fixed, but needed ones are definetly not a bug. But this is what Bill had to say for my

RFS: vrms (updated package)

2006-11-02 Thread Rogério Brito
Dear Mentors, I am currently the maintainer of vrms (along with Bdale Garbee and Stephen Moraco). I have tweaked the package with a lot of fixes and I think that the new package is ready to be uploaded. Unfortunately, Bdale Garbee told me that he was busy and could not sponsor my upload to the

Re: RFS: urw-garamond-no8

2006-11-02 Thread Kevin Bube
Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the status on your fonts (both this and mathdesign)? For the garamond fonts the license problems remain. Ralf Stubner claimed that he has fixed the issue [1], but it requires Walter Schmidt's action to upload it to CTAN which has not happened up

Re: RFS: vrms (updated package)

2006-11-02 Thread Daniel Baumann
Rogério Brito wrote: If you need more information, please, don't hesitate to ask. * README.debian should be README.Debian * in your changelog entry, the last line before the date which is an empty line, is wrongly indented with a tab. * remove the useless empty line at the end of copyright *

Re: RFS: vrms (updated package)

2006-11-02 Thread Daniel Baumann
Daniel Baumann wrote: rest is good. ...which means, if you fix above things, i'll upload it. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email