Bug#446665: mercury: should this package be removed?

Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Package: mercury Version: 0.11.0.rotd.20040511-5 Severity: serious User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usertags: proposed-removal Hi, Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian, because: * 4 RC bugs opened for a long time Of the bugs: * #281369: Dummy RC bug

Bug#446691: defrag: should this package be removed?

Package: defrag Version: 0.73pjm1-8 Severity: serious User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usertags: proposed-removal Hi, While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible candidate for removal from Debian, because: * 4 RC bugs, opened for a long time, with no resolution path in sight. *

Bug#446692: twin: should this package be orphaned?

Package: twin Version: 0.5.1-3 Severity: serious User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usertags: proposed-orphan Hi, While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a package that should maybe be orphaned by its maintainer, because: * 3 RC bugs, 2 of them opened for a long time, all of them

Bug#422822: libgstreamer-perl: FTBFS: Failed 3/31 test scripts, 34/492 subtests failed

Hi Marc, On 08/05/07 at 12:16 +0200, Michael Ablassmeier wrote: Package: libgstreamer-perl Severity: serious Version: 0.09-1 Justification: policy violation hi, Lucas has rebuild the archive on i386 and your package Failed to Build from Source with the following error(s): dubious

Bug#446693: uclibc: should this package be orphaned?

Package: uclibc Version: 0.9.27-1 Severity: serious User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usertags: proposed-orphan Hi, While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a package that should maybe be orphaned by its maintainer, because: * 4 RC bugs opened for a long time, with no action from the

Bug#428186: Consider offering only a dev version.

You might want to consider only offering a dev version of guichan, and require that packages using guichan link statically. This is recommended by the debian policy manual in certain cases, such as for libraries whose interfaces are in flux or under development.

Bug#446665: mercury: should this package be removed?

Hi Roy, On 15/10/07 at 11:03 +1300, Roy Ward wrote: * New upstream release available for a long time now I'm working on packaging that - it's still going to take some time (in the order of weeks). If you think that it should be orphaned instead of being removed from Debian, please

Bug#428186: Consider offering only a dev version.

Severity: normal Brandon wrotes: You might want to consider only offering a dev version of guichan, and require that packages using guichan link statically. This is recommended by the debian policy manual in certain cases, such as for libraries whose interfaces are in flux or under development.

Bug#432414: marked as done (vcdimager is GPLv2 or later, debian/copyright says GPLv2 only)

Your message dated Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:47:02 + with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#432414: fixed in vcdimager 0.7.23-4 has caused the attached Bug report 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

Processed: Severity

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity #428186 normal Bug#428186: libguichan0: symbols dropped without soname bump Severity set to `normal' from `serious' End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator

Processed: your mail

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 445720 pending Bug#445720: segmentation fault There were no tags set. Tags added: pending thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Processed: Setting back to serious

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity #428186 serious Bug#428186: libguichan0: symbols dropped without soname bump Severity set to `serious' from `normal' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator

Bug#446710: ntpd won't start up due to upgraded libssl

Package: ntp Version: 1:4.2.4p3+dfsg-1 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Recently libssl0.9.8 was upgraded to 0.9.8f-1 When this happenned the following occured in the logs: Oct 15 14:03:28 jandi3 ntpd[3848]: ntpd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 16:20:18 UTC 2007 (1) Oct 15

Bug#444715: skippy: should this package be removed?

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 16:13 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, While reviewing packages that were not included in Etch, your package came up as a possible candidate for removal from Debian, because: * 1 RC bug opened for a long time. This bug is tagged help for a while and nobody has

Processed: your mail

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 446711 grave Bug#446711: ntp: Please build against OpenSSL 908070 Severity set to `grave' from `important' merge 446711 446710 Bug#446710: ntpd won't start up due to upgraded libssl Bug#446711: ntp: Please build against OpenSSL 908070 Merged

Processed: Re: package 'vncserver' should be removed from amd64

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 276948 grave Bug#276948: vncserver: Segmentation fault on amd64 Severity set to `grave' from `normal' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian

Processed: Severity

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity #428186 normal Bug#428186: libguichan0: symbols dropped without soname bump Severity set to `normal' from `serious' -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator

Bug#446524: marked as done (linhdd: Execute error: /usr/bin/linHDD line 411)

Your message dated Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:26:28 +0530 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line linHDD: Please check.. has caused the attached Bug report 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

<    1   2