Your message dated Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:05:09 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#730778: how-can-i-help: Claims RFA bugs are O bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #730778,
regarding how-can-i-help: Claims RFH bugs are O bugs
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 the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
730778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=730778
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: how-can-i-help
Version: 0.9
Severity: normal
Dear Lucas,
how-can-i-help claimed a bunch of new orphaned packages today on
multiple of my machines:
====== How can you help? (doc: http://wiki.debian.org/how-can-i-help ) ======
New orphaned packages:
- debtags - http://bugs.debian.org/567954 -
- libisoburn - http://bugs.debian.org/679265 -
- xml-core - http://bugs.debian.org/660687 -
- openssl - http://bugs.debian.org/332498 -
- cups - http://bugs.debian.org/532097 -
- libburn - http://bugs.debian.org/679249 -
- ppp - http://bugs.debian.org/589632 -
- gnokii - http://bugs.debian.org/677750 -
- grub2 - http://bugs.debian.org/248397 -
- irssi-scripts - http://bugs.debian.org/663577 -
- chromium-browser - http://bugs.debian.org/583826 -
- libcap2 - http://bugs.debian.org/534999 -
- openldap - http://bugs.debian.org/512360 -
- libisofs - http://bugs.debian.org/679254 -
- gnupg - http://bugs.debian.org/660685 -
- screen - http://bugs.debian.org/654116 -
- iproute - http://bugs.debian.org/705169 -
- libreoffice - http://bugs.debian.org/419523 -
------ Show all opportunities, not just new ones: how-can-i-help --all ------
As screen's package maintainer I'm sure that screen is not
orphaned. Looking at a few of these bug reports showed that they were
all "RFH", but not "O".
Not sure if this is related to the fixing of
http://bugs.debian.org/730293 -- but I still have 0.9 here, so maybe 0.9
is incompatible with server-side changes for 1? (In that case the bug
should be fixed with 1 anyway. :-)
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (900, 'testing'), (899,
'testing-proposed-updates'), (600, 'stable'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (200,
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.12-trunk-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages how-can-i-help depends on:
ii ruby 1:1.9.3
ii ruby-debian 0.3.8+b1
ii ruby-json 1.8.0-1
ii ruby1.8 [ruby-interpreter] 1.8.7.358-8
ii ruby1.9.1 [ruby-interpreter] 1.9.3.448-1
ii ruby2.0 [ruby-interpreter] 2.0.0.343-1
how-can-i-help recommends no packages.
how-can-i-help suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2
On 29/11/13 at 16:53 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi Axel,
>
> Yes, it's due to this change, and fixed in version 1.
>
> The problem is the client-side does not ignore wnpp types it doesn't
> know (RFH in that case).
>
> I've reverted the server-side change to avoid outputting RFH lines, and
> will re-enable it when how-can-i-help v1 reaches testing.
Which happened now. Closing.
Lucas
--- End Message ---
