Bug#328534: Patch committed to svn, tagging pending
tags 328534 pending thanks Hi, I have committed the patch for this problem to svn. The fix will be included into the 2.6.12-7 upload of kernel packages. Best regards, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Patch committed to svn, tagging pending
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags 328534 pending Bug#328534: Kernel panic on Adaptec 2100S on boot 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) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328534: Patch committed to svn, tagging pending
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:50:58PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote: I have committed the patch for this problem to svn. The fix will be included into the 2.6.12-7 upload of kernel packages. I hope you pulled the patch from the git archive. Bastian -- We have the right to survive! Not by killing others. -- Deela and Kirk, Wink of An Eye, stardate 5710.5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#328741: asm: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'dpatch'
Package: asm Version: 1.5.3-1 Severity: serious Tags: patch When building 'asm' in a clean 'unstable' chroot, I get the following error: debian/rules clean debian/rules:13: /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make: No such file or directory make: *** No rule to make target `/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make'. Stop. Please add the missing Build-Depends on 'dpatch' to debian/control. Regards Andreas Jochens diff -urN ../tmp-orig/asm-1.5.3/debian/control ./debian/control --- ../tmp-orig/asm-1.5.3/debian/control2005-09-17 05:53:00.0 + +++ ./debian/control2005-09-17 05:52:57.0 + @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Priority: optional Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Uploaders: Marcus Crafter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Barry Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Build-Depends-Indep: debhelper (= 4.0.0), ant (= 1.6.5-1), kaffe (= 2:1.1.5-3), libow-util-ant-tasks-java (= 1.3-2) +Build-Depends-Indep: debhelper, dpatch, ant, kaffe (= 2:1.1.5-3), libow-util-ant-tasks-java (= 1.3-2) Standards-Version: 3.6.2.1 Package: libasm-java -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328742: libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'libclass-accessor-perl, libclass-data-inheritable-perl'
Package: libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl Version: 0.12-1 Severity: serious Tags: patch When building 'libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl' in a clean 'unstable' chroot, I get the following error: # BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/01use.t line 4. # Compilation failed in require at (eval 3) line 2. # BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at (eval 3) line 2. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 1 Failed 1/1 tests, 0.00% okay t/02podskipped all skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required t/03podcoverageskipped all skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/01use.t 1 256 11 100.00% 1 2 tests skipped. Failed 1/3 test scripts, 66.67% okay. 1/1 subtests failed, 0.00% okay. make[1]: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 make[1]: Leaving directory `/libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl-0.12' make: *** [install-stamp] Error 2 Please add the missing Build-Depends on 'libclass-accessor-perl, libclass-data-inheritable-perl' to debian/control. Regards Andreas Jochens diff -urN ../tmp-orig/libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl-0.12/debian/control ./debian/control --- ../tmp-orig/libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl-0.12/debian/control 2005-09-17 06:44:20.0 + +++ ./debian/control2005-09-17 06:44:18.0 + @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Source: libcatalyst-plugin-session-fastmmap-perl Section: perl Priority: optional -Build-Depends-Indep: perl (= 5.8.0-7), debhelper (= 4.0.2), libcache-fastmmap-perl, liburi-find-perl +Build-Depends-Indep: perl (= 5.8.0-7), debhelper, libclass-accessor-perl, libclass-data-inheritable-perl, libcache-fastmmap-perl, liburi-find-perl Maintainer: Debian Catalyst Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy) [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Ragwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Standards-Version: 3.6.2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328534: Patch committed to svn, tagging pending
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Bastian Blank wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:50:58PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote: I have committed the patch for this problem to svn. The fix will be included into the 2.6.12-7 upload of kernel packages. I hope you pulled the patch from the git archive. Bastian Yes, the patches come from git, rediffed against our tree (they applied with some offsets). The header of the patch file gives the details: # Based on the following commits to Linus' git tree: # [SCSI] Bug 4940 Repeatable Kernel Panic on Adaptec 2015S I20 device on bootup # author James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) # Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:51:38 + (11:51 -0500) # commit 9c472dd9197429a37691e91c938660a062bf20b0 # # [SCSI] dpt_i2o pci_request_regions fix # author Salyzyn, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:57:58 + (12:57 -0400) # commit 5bb8345db8f2aef367e0fddf99a42b7a6029b31f Best regards, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The NON COMMERCIAL-exception has been added to the cvs version and is reflected on the homepage also. The debian packaged version in unstable is from cvs where this restriction is added. It has to be removed from Debian. It seems that the authors are considering to find another license for future releases. They are looking to find ways to force companies making use of Linuxsampler in their products to participate in development of Linuxsampler or other open source audio project. [1] It also seems they are looking for an open source license or if they won't find one they'll write one themselves. I'm concerned that they might end up with a non free, non opensource license. If you work in the audio field and have the same concern about Linuxsampler, it might be wise to participate in the conversation on the Linuxsampler developer mailing list and express yourself. [1] To me it seems that the authors are afraid that companies will take advantage of the software without contributing anything to the community. They don't seem to feel that GPL is the best way to attract contributions from companies. With good arguments they might see that GPL is as good as it gets. Choosing another license for Linuxsampler will make it impossible to make use of GPL'd software as part of linuxsampler. Writing their own license will be difficult and error prone. And it will add up to the jungle of confusion in world of licenses. Choosing or writing a non opensource license will make them have to leave sourceforge and might lead into forking Linuxsampler into free (or opensource) and nonfree (proprietary/non opensource) versions. Yours, Harri Järvi [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8119452forum_id=12792 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328218: imp3: CAN-2005-1319: Cross-site scripting
Hello On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:39:06AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: Package: imp3 Version: 3.2.6-3 Severity: grave Tags: security Hi! Imp 3.2.8 brought a security fix, please see http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20050418/041912.html This also contains a patch. Thanks a lot. I have uploaded a fixed version now. Please mention the CAN number in the changelog when you fix this. imp4 is maybe already fixed, can you please check this? Imp4 is very different code so I do not think it will have the same problem. That have been the case all the time when I have asked about that on the imp development list. Regards, // Ola Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328695: sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin is uninstallable in Sid
Hi Steve, But there certainly is such a version of sylpheed-claws in unstable; you'll need to tell us why that package is not being installed. I see there is a conflict between both packages in unstable: Package sylpheed-claws * unstable (mail): Extended version of the Sylpheed mail client 1.0.5-1: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc and as I see in sylpheed-claws--maildir-plugin information for version 0.7-4: Conflicts: sylpheed-claws (= 1.0.5) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS _ Un amor, una aventura, compañía para un viaje. Regístrate gratis en MSN Amor Amistad. http://match.msn.es/match/mt.cfm?pg=channeltcid=162349 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328218: marked as done (imp3: CAN-2005-1319: Cross-site scripting)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:32:16 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#328218: fixed in imp3 3.2.8-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2005 07:39:42 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 14 00:39:42 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from box79162.elkhouse.de [213.9.79.162] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EFRrq-0007lQ-00; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:39:42 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [195.227.105.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN Martin Pitt (workstation), Issuer piware CA (verified OK)) by box79162.elkhouse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6502C1F9549 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:39:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C4C44503B; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:39:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:39:06 +0200 From: Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian BTS Submit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: imp3: CAN-2005-1319: Cross-site scripting Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Package: imp3 Version: 3.2.6-3 Severity: grave Tags: security Hi! Imp 3.2.8 brought a security fix, please see http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20050418/041912.html This also contains a patch. Please mention the CAN number in the changelog when you fix this. imp4 is maybe already fixed, can you please check this? Thanks, Martin --=20 Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJ9OaDecnbV4Fd/IRAgrxAJ4iwkVXLt+2Bxe5ia86ZXhb/HkqUACgtSC9 6as3qpmZPIcou9I2AXklNso= =/Hx0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc-- --- Received: (at 328218-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 07:38:10 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 00:38:10 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGXBI-0004Qo-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:32:16 -0700 From: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#328218: fixed in imp3 3.2.8-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:32:16 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: imp3 Source-Version: 3.2.8-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of imp3, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: imp3_3.2.8-1.diff.gz to pool/main/i/imp3/imp3_3.2.8-1.diff.gz imp3_3.2.8-1.dsc to pool/main/i/imp3/imp3_3.2.8-1.dsc imp3_3.2.8-1_all.deb to pool/main/i/imp3/imp3_3.2.8-1_all.deb imp3_3.2.8.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/i/imp3/imp3_3.2.8.orig.tar.gz A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] (supplier of updated imp3 package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
Processed: Re: Bug#328695: sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin is uninstallable in Sid
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 328695 sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin Bug#328695: sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin is uninstallable in Sid Bug reassigned from package `sylpheed-claws' to `sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328566: Fwd: Re: CAN request: insecure temp file in gtkdiskfree
Hi! I requested a CAN number; when you fix this, please mention the number in the changelog. Thanks! Martin - Forwarded message from Steven M. Christey [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:53:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven M. Christey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CAN request: insecure temp file in gtkdiskfree X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no version=3.0.3 == Candidate: CAN-2005-2918 URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-2918 Reference: VULNWATCH:20050915 gtkdiskfree insecure temporary file creation Reference: MISC:http://www.zataz.net/adviso/gtkdiskfree-09052005.txt Reference: CONFIRM:http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 The open_cmd_tube function in mount.c for gtkdiskfree 1.9.3 and earlier allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink attack on the gtkdiskfree temporary file. - End forwarded message - -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntulinux.org Debian Developerhttp://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#259894: wnn6-sdk: FTBFS with gcc-3.4: conflicting types for 'malloc'
Hi Keita,
Have you made any progress on this bug? Andreas's patch applies fine, but I
find upon rebuilding the package that as a result of a change in the
behavior of imake (probably related to the switch to xorg), the SONAME of
the library has changed and the package can no longer be named libwnn6
because it doesn't provide the same interface!
I don't have a problem with renaming the library package (libwnn6-1 seems
like a good name), but seeing that this package uses imake *in addition* to
including non-ANSI C code, I wonder whether it's worth the effort to fix
these bugs, or maybe the library should be removed and kinput should be
rebuilt without it?
Anyway, attached is a complete patch that fixes both issues. I'll probably
go ahead and upload it to unstable in a few days if I don't hear any
objections from you.
If this package is to be kept, it would probably be a good idea to fix it at
some point so that this is a non-native package instead of a native one. I
haven't tried to figure out which parts of the source package would properly
belong to the .orig.tar.gz.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/changelog
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/changelog
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/changelog 2004-10-08
06:48:51.0 -0700
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/changelog 2005-09-17
01:23:07.0 -0700
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+wnn6-sdk (1.0.0-12.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Medium-urgency upload for RC bugfix.
+ * Remove broken non-ANSI redefinitions of malloc/free. Closes: #259894.
+ * Rename libwnn6 to libwnn6-1, since new versions of imake have
+changed the SONAME for us.
+
+ -- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:43:08 -0700
+
wnn6-sdk (1.0.0-12) unstable; urgency=low
* Updated Standards-Version: to 3.6.1.
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/control
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/control
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/control 2004-10-08
17:29:11.0 -0700
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/control 2005-09-17
01:22:40.0 -0700
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
Package: libwnn6-dev
Section: libdevel
Architecture: any
-Depends: libwnn6 (= ${Source-Version}), libc6-dev
+Depends: libwnn6-1 (= ${Source-Version}), libc6-dev
Conflicts: wnn-dev, freewnn-jserver-dev, wnn6-dev, libwnn-dev
Replaces: wnn6-dev
Description: Header files and static library for Wnn6 client library
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
Wnn6 client library. Install this package if you wish to develop your
own Wnn6 client programs.
-Package: libwnn6
+Package: libwnn6-1
Section: libs
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.install
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.install
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.install 1969-12-31
16:00:00.0 -0800
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.install 2005-09-17
01:25:04.0 -0700
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+debian/tmp/usr/lib/libwnn6.so.1
+debian/tmp/usr/lib/libwnn6.so.1.0.0
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.shlibs
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.shlibs
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.shlibs 1969-12-31
16:00:00.0 -0800
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6-1.shlibs 2005-09-17
01:24:27.0 -0700
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+libwnn6 1 libwnn6-1
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.install
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.install
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.install 2004-10-08
07:51:09.0 -0700
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.install 1969-12-31
16:00:00.0 -0800
@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-debian/tmp/usr/lib/libwnn6.so.1.0
-debian/tmp/usr/lib/libwnn6.so.1.0.0
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.shlibs
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.shlibs
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.shlibs2001-03-31
01:05:12.0 -0800
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/debian/libwnn6.shlibs1969-12-31
16:00:00.0 -0800
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-libwnn6 1.0 libwnn6
diff -Nru /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/patch/malloc.patch
/tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/patch/malloc.patch
--- /tmp/CHtbgQ79aj/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/patch/malloc.patch 2001-03-31
00:18:55.0 -0800
+++ /tmp/UVcC0pi8Oh/wnn6-sdk-1.0.0/patch/malloc.patch 2005-09-17
00:42:54.0 -0700
@@ -1,16 +1,7 @@
diff -uNr src/contrib/im/Xsi.orig/Wnn/etc/bdic.c
src/contrib/im/Xsi/Wnn/etc/bdic.c
--- src/contrib/im/Xsi.orig/Wnn/etc/bdic.c Fri Sep 1 18:58:54 2000
+++ src/contrib/im/Xsi/Wnn/etc/bdic.c
Bug#268603: For i386, this issue could be clarified after release of sarge
Hi, On mer, oct 20, 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: I think we don't need to discuss about non-PIC for !i386 - this would be plainly broken. But, as you told us, on !i386 the bug is not existent (and looking at mips and alpha revealed no TEXTREL-section, so this matches). So, this is not an issue in this case (but I remarked it if a similar bugs happens to hit us, so that we remember in that case). For i386, using non-PIC in a shared lib is in general a RC bug. But, in this case the maintainers decision for not using it has reasons. Of course, we need to discuss whether there are better ways to achive it, without breaking policy. Implementing it as static lib comes to my mind for that. However, I'd like a broader discussion, including input from the security team, on using a static lib. Therefore, for the time scale of sarge, there is probably no better solution available, and I'm marking this bug as sarge-ignore. After discussion with upstream, PIC versus non-PIC is something like 10% difference in performance. Upstream wondered why it would an issue to use PIC under i386 only, so I will seek clarification on why the policy has such a requirement. If the requirement is only there to protect against the level of support of non-PIC under !i386, which would be strange, then I suppose it's ok to keep shipping the lib with non-PIC under i386. If the policy has some other justification, PIC will be used and static libs will always be available for end-user apps to build with so that full performance can be achieved. Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Fixed in NMU of mpeg2dec 0.4.0b-2.2
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 323134 + fixed Bug#323134: mpeg2dec: ftbfs [sparc] function 'arch_accel' can never be inlined because it uses setjmp Tags were: pending Tags added: fixed quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: #323134 is pending
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags #323134 + pending Bug#323134: mpeg2dec: ftbfs [sparc] function 'arch_accel' can never be inlined because it uses setjmp 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) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328566: Fwd: Re: CAN request: insecure temp file in gtkdiskfree
Hi, I won't have access to my key until sometime tomorrow. If you feel that an NMU is required before then, go right ahead. Otherwise I will fix it ASAP when I get back. On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:26:05AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: Hi! I requested a CAN number; when you fix this, please mention the number in the changelog. Thanks! Martin - Forwarded message from Steven M. Christey [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:53:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven M. Christey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CAN request: insecure temp file in gtkdiskfree X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no version=3.0.3 == Candidate: CAN-2005-2918 URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-2918 Reference: VULNWATCH:20050915 gtkdiskfree insecure temporary file creation Reference: MISC:http://www.zataz.net/adviso/gtkdiskfree-09052005.txt Reference: CONFIRM:http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 The open_cmd_tube function in mount.c for gtkdiskfree 1.9.3 and earlier allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink attack on the gtkdiskfree temporary file. - End forwarded message - -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntulinux.org Debian Developerhttp://www.debian.org -- Søren O. ,''`. : :' : GPG key id: 0x1EB2DE66`. `' GPG signed mail preferred. `-
Bug#327619: marked as done (python-gnome2: missing dependency, gnome.canvas not functional)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:57:31 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#327619: python-gnome2: missing dependency, gnome.canvas not functional 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Sep 2005 13:00:22 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 11 06:00:22 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from smtp1-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.27] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EERRW-0006Nx-00; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:00:22 -0700 Received: from nan92-1-81-57-214-146 (nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net [81.57.214.146]) by smtp1-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A1F2EDD4; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:00:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwitch by nan92-1-81-57-214-146 with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EERS5-0008Fd-O2; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:00:57 +0200 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:00:57 +0200 From: Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: python-gnome2: missing dependency, gnome.canvas not functional Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Reportbug-Version: 3.17 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: python2.3-gnome2 Version: 2.10.0-2 Severity: serious $ python Python 2.3.5 (#2, Aug 30 2005, 15:50:26) [GCC 4.0.2 20050821 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-6)] on linux2 Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information. import gnome.canvas /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gnome/canvas.py:4: DeprecationWarning: Module gnome.canvas is deprecated; please import gnomecanvas instead DeprecationWarning) Traceback (most recent call last): File stdin, line 1, in ? File /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gnome/canvas.py, line 7, in ? from gnomecanvas import * ImportError: could not import gtk._gtk Only python2.3-gtk2 seems to provide a shared lib with a similar name, but I suppose gnome.canvas is looking for a .py file, which does not exist. Feel free to reassign to python2.3-gtk2 if appropriate. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i586) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.4.31-k6 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=french (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages python2.3-gnome2 depends on: ii libart-2.0-2 2.3.17-1 Library of functions for 2D graphi ii libatk1.0-0 1.10.1-2 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libbonobo2-0 2.10.0-1 Bonobo CORBA interfaces library ii libbonoboui2-02.10.0-1 The Bonobo UI library ii libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgconf2-4 2.10.1-2 GNOME configuration database syste ii libglib2.0-0 2.8.0-1The GLib library of C routines ii libgnome2-0 2.10.1-1 The GNOME 2 library - runtime file ii libgnomecanvas2-0 2.10.2-2 A powerful object-oriented display ii libgnomeui-0 2.10.1-1 The GNOME 2 libraries (User Interf ii libgnomevfs2-02.10.1-5 The GNOME virtual file-system libr ii libgtk2.0-0 2.6.10-1 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 Inter-Client Exchange library ii liborbit2 1:2.12.2-3 libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB ii libpango1.0-0 1.8.2-1Layout and rendering of internatio ii libpopt0 1.7-5 lib for parsing cmdline parameters ii libsm66.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System Session Management ii libxml2 2.6.21-1 GNOME XML library ii python2.3 2.3.5-8An interactive high-level object-o ii python2.3-gtk22.6.2-1Python bindings for the GTK+ widge ii python2.3-pyorbit 2.0.1-2A Python language binding for the ii xlibs 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System client libraries m ii zlib1g
Bug#327619: python-gnome2: missing dependency, gnome.canvas not functional
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 12:57:31PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 20:38 +0200, Yann Dirson a écrit : On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Does a import gtk._gtk work? If not what does it say? Bingo. That module import fails when DISPLAY is not set or invalid, which means the configure test for gnome.canvas in gcompris will fail on buildd's. Now is there another way than import to check that gnome.canvas is available and works to some extent, or is it really a bug in gtk._gtk ? Use xvfb (you can use diacanvas2 as example). I'm closing the bug since it's not really one. The package should build-depend on xvfb just for this ? It looks like a bit overkill... And at the very least, import gnome.canvas should display a more informational message. It is a bit strange that the information is lost between the import gtk._gtk and the raise of the final exception... -- Yann Dirson[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian-related: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis http://ydirson.free.fr/| Check http://www.debian.org/
Bug#325651: Proposed NMU for imagemagick soname change.
[Redirecting discussion from ale bug to cloned imagemagick bug.] On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:35:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 04:19:39PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: Imagemagick upstream has released a new version with bumped soname this weekend. Should this version go in as soon as possible, or would KDE/libsnmp benefit from a few days' delay? I think it would be a good idea to wait until GNOME 2.10 makes it into testing before uploading; I haven't confirmed that it makes a difference, but the current transitions are already complicated enough that I believe the caution is warranted. Okay. Steve, now that most of Gnome appears to have made it, do we have a go for the imagemagick soname change? Ryuichi, I've prepared an NMU with the upstream version 6.2.4.5. It has to go through NEW processing becaused of the changed library names, so I'd like to get it up as soon as possible. Please let me know if you object or prefer to do a maintainer upload. The diff between your latest upload and my proposed NMU is quite noise because of lots of boring file renames, so I'm not including it here. Instead, I've tried to be verbose in the changelog. The new entries are attached below. (Version 6.2.4.4-0.1 was never uploaded.) The complete set of packages can be found on http://people.debian.org/~kobras/imagemagick/. Regards, Daniel. ---[snip]--- Changes: imagemagick (6:6.2.4.5-0.1) unstable; urgency=low . * Non-maintainer upload. * New upstream version. + Yet another bump of the soname version, this time going from 7 to 9. * debian/*: Cater for soname change and corresponding change of library packages names in multiple places. . imagemagick (6:6.2.4.4-0.1) experimental; urgency=low . * Non-maintainer upload. * New upstream version. + Version in library soname was increased from 6 to 7 due to changes in binary interface starting with 6.0.7. (Yes, this should have happened earlier.) Closes: #318176, #325651, #325720 * debian/*: Rename packages from libmagick6 to libmagick7, and similar. Adjust version in various places accordingly. Drop c2 suffix from C++ library package. * debian/control: Use shlibs information to generate Depends line for imagemagick binary package. * debian/control: Remove Pre-Depends on prehistoric version of dpkg. * debian/control: Package complies with policy version 3.6.2. Bump Standards-Version accordingly. * Patches to upstream sources: + [bin/Magick++-config.1.debdiff] Stray file that seems to have slipped into the previous Debian diffs by mistake. Removed now. + [magick/blob.c] Originally a patch from upstream, now mostly merged. Retaining a single hunk that upstream reverted later on, though it still looks correct. + [configure.ac, configure] Override location of documentation files to Debian's default /usr/share/doc/imagemagick. Patch to configure was present before. This release promotes it back to configure.ac as well. (No ill effects because AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is used.) + [coders/magick.c] Drop patch that exchanges upstream's logo for a DFSG-free version. This attempt to address #214623 (distribution of non-free logo) missed several other instances of the logo, must be applied to the orig.tar.gz rather than the Debian diff, and should have some input from upstream, so no point in carrying it around still. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#328656: very old package, should this be removed?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 328656 RM: umsdos -- RoM and RoQA; old, unused, broken Bug#328656: very old package, should this be removed? Changed Bug title. severity 328656 normal Bug#328656: RM: umsdos -- RoM and RoQA; old, unused, broken Severity set to `normal'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328566: Fwd: Re: CAN request: insecure temp file in gtkdiskfree
Hi Søren! Søren Boll Overgaard [2005-09-17 11:52 +0200]: I won't have access to my key until sometime tomorrow. If you feel that an NMU is required before then, go right ahead. Otherwise I will fix it ASAP when I get back. Oh, tomorrow is more than fine. Thanks for caring about it! Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntulinux.org Debian Developerhttp://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#328650: very old package, should this be removed?
retitle 328650 O: zorroutils -- Zorro bus utilities for Amigas running 2.1 and
later kernels
severity 328650 normal
reassign 328650 wnpp
thankskbye
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[... proposal to remove zorroutils ...]
AFAIK, there have been no new upstream releases, but this package is
useful on the m68k architecture (equivalent to lspci, etc.). If
someone wants to adopt it from me (I don't have an m68k box any more),
that's fine, but I don't think it should be removed.
OK, I've recycled this bug report to make a notice in the WNPP lists.
The interesting stuff for adopters:
Source: zorroutils
Section: admin
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Standards-Version: 3.1.0.0
Build-Depends: debhelper
Package: zorroutils
Architecture: m68k powerpc
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
Description: Zorro bus utilities for Amigas running 2.1 and later kernels
This package includes a program called lszorro that translates the
/proc/bus/zorro hierarchy into human-readable form; it replaces the
functionality from the /proc/zorro file provided under Linux 2.0 and
below.
.
This package is only useful on Amiga computers using AutoConfig
(however, it works on systems without the Zorro bus, despite the name).
Marc
--
BOFH #213:
Change your language to Finnish.
pgp20sdzNoSMt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#328650: very old package, should this be removed?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 328650 O: zorroutils -- Zorro bus utilities for Amigas running 2.1 and later kernels Bug#328650: very old package, should this be removed? Changed Bug title. severity 328650 normal Bug#328650: O: zorroutils -- Zorro bus utilities for Amigas running 2.1 and later kernels Severity set to `normal'. reassign 328650 wnpp Bug#328650: O: zorroutils -- Zorro bus utilities for Amigas running 2.1 and later kernels Bug reassigned from package `zorroutils' to `wnpp'. thankskbye Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328781: wmaker: FTBFS: `aclocal-1.4' is needed
Package: wmaker Version: 0.92.0-3 Severity: serious Hi, Your package is failing to build with the following error: make[1]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/wmaker-0.92.0/wmaker' cd /build/buildd/wmaker-0.92.0 /build/buildd/wmaker-0.92.0/missing aclocal-1 .4 WARNING: `aclocal-1.4' is needed, and you do not seem to have it handy on your system. You might have modified some files without having the proper tools for further handling them. Check the `README' file, it often tells you about the needed prerequirements for installing this package. You may also peek at any GNU archive site, in case some other package would contain this missing `aclocal-1.4' program. make[1]: *** [/build/buildd/wmaker-0.92.0/aclocal.m4] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/wmaker-0.92.0/wmaker' make: *** [build-wmaker-stamp] Error 2 This is probably caused by a timestamp skew issue by you patching the Makefile.in/am, but this really is just a guess and you should really look at what's causing it yourself. See /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz for more information on how to fix it. In short you have the following options: - Use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE - touch the files in the right order Do not add automake1.4 to the build dependencies unless you make sure all files are always regenerated. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328129: xine-ui: xine crashes on right click with similar error message
Package: xine-ui Version: 0.99.3-1.1 Followup-For: Bug #328129 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ xine This is xine (X11 gui) - a free video player v0.99.3. (c) 2000-2004 The xine Team. --player launched-- --right click-- *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x08126c89 *** Aborted -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.10 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages xine-ui depends on: ii libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libcurl3 7.14.0-5 Multi-protocol file transfer libra ii libfreetype6 2.1.10-1 FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libidn11 0.5.18-1 GNU libidn library, implementation ii libncurses5 5.4-9 Shared libraries for terminal hand ii libpng12-01.2.8rel-1 PNG library - runtime ii libreadline5 5.0-10 GNU readline and history libraries ii libslang2 2.0.4-5The S-Lang programming library - r ii libsm66.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System Session Management ii libssl0.9.7 0.9.7g-2 SSL shared libraries ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System protocol client li ii libxext6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System miscellaneous exte ii libxine1 1.0.1-1.3 the xine video/media player librar ii libxinerama1 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System multi-head display ii libxtst6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System event recording an ii libxv16.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System video extension li ii libxxf86vm1 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Video Mode selection library ii xlibs 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System client libraries m ii zlib1g1:1.2.3-4 compression library - runtime Versions of packages xine-ui recommends: ii libaa11.4p5-28 ascii art library -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328792: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: lexmark7000linux Version: 0.1999-03-28-2 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. Even the description says, that this package is obsolete - and it is. There are almost no users anymore. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328793: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: gcpegg Version: 5.1-7 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has almost no users and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328794: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: cwebx Version: 3.04-7 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are only a few users, it's quite out of date wrt Debian's policy and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328795: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: plum Version: 2.33.1-9 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, some bugs and seems to be quite dead in general. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328796: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: nonlock Version: 1.7-4 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has almost no users, is quite old and there are a lot of alternative tools to switch the keyboard layout. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328797: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: powstatd-crypt Version: 1.5.1-2 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has almost no users, is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies and there are some alternatives available. This package is also in the obsolete non-us section. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328798: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: xlispstat Version: 3.52.18-1.1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package is very out of date wrt Debian's policies, has not many users. There is a newer (== 2003) upstream version, but the development seems to be stalled nowadays. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328799: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: xtet42 Version: 2.21-9.1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package seems to be upstream-dead, has not many users, plenty of alternatives and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328800: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: lxtools Version: 1.1d-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users and seems to be quite upstream dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Mar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: cfe Version: 0.9-8 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, is quite out of date with regards to Debian's policies and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328802: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: esh Version: 0.8-7 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package seems to be upstream dead, has almost no users and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328803: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: scandetd Version: 1.2.0-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has only a few users, is rc-buggy and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328804: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: userlink Version: 1:0.99c-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, seems to be deprecated with newer kernels and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Mar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328805: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: ayuda Version: 0.1-4 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, some bugs and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328806: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: libcdb-file-perl Version: 0.84-2.1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package doesn't have many users, is upstream dead as far as I can see (though there is a newer upstream version available, but it's from 2003). There's also a CDB perl module available that had some releases in the last months. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328807: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: acidwarp Version: 1.0-5 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, is quite of date wrt Debian's policies and has a few bugs. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328808: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: zone-file-check Version: 1.01-3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It's very old, seems to have no upstream development anymore, has not many users and there are some alternatives. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Mar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328809: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: escm Version: 1.1-4 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has some bugs, is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies, has almost no users and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328810: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: xodo Version: 1.2-9.2 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It hasn't had a maintainer upload in a looong time, is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies, has not many users and at least one (kodo) alternative. Upstream development is also stalled. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328811: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: powstatd Version: 1.5.1-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has almost no users, is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies and there are some alternatives available. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328812: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: doc-linux-ko Version: 1:20010417-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package is quite old and isn't useful nowadays, as many things have changed in the last 4 years. Because of that, the package has almost no users. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328813: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: vmnet Version: 0.4-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package hasn't been updated in the last 4 years, has some bugs, very few users. You've already filed a bug to find a new maintainer for it, but as noone has stepped up, it's probably the best to remove the package from the archive. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328814: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: debian-history-ko Version: 0.1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. This package is very old and has almost no users. As long as it isn't kept up to date, it's useless. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328815: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: gmgaclock Version: 0.4.8-2 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has very few users and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policy. There are also some open bug reports. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328816: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: vgagamespack Version: 1.4-5 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package wasn't updated in the last years and there are many alternatives available. The number of users is also very small. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328817: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: bloksi Version: 0.0.2001.07.13-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has very few users and is only a Perl rewrite of the Glotski game. It also depends on the obsolete libgnome-perl. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328818: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: pcrd Version: 0.10-2 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has more or less no users, no upstream development and is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328819: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: math3d Version: 0.3.0-4 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are almost no users, some important bugs and no upstream development (at least I couldn't find it). This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Mar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328820: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: tik Version: 0.90-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It doesn't have many users, is quite out of date wrt Debian's policies and there alternatives available. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328821: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: emwin Version: 0.93-6 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It's old and has almost no users. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328727: xmms freezes on the desktop
severity 328727 important tags 328727 unreproducible stop On September 16, 2005 19:00, fb wrote: Package: xmms Version: 1.2.10+cvs20050209-2 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable xmms when opened as an application, immediately crashes and ceases to function. Clicking the play applet in xmms, causes xmms to freeze to the desktop after which xkill must be invoked to delete xmms from the desktop. I can't reproduce the problem here. Could you provide more information? The incoming maintainer will likely need more data to investigate properly. Did XMMS just cease functioning one day, or did you just install it? If you launch XMMS from a console, what errors appears on the console when it crashes? If you upgrade to the package in Sid, does the problem change? Cheers, Christopher Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#328727: xmms freezes on the desktop
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 328727 important Bug#328727: xmms freezes on the desktop Severity set to `important'. tags 328727 unreproducible Bug#328727: xmms freezes on the desktop There were no tags set. Tags added: unreproducible stop Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328817: very old package, should this be removed?
Hi Mark, I believe bloksi can be removed from debian archives w/ little prejudice for anyone. Thx for contributing to Debian, Etienne On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:16:20PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: # Package: bloksi # Version: 0.0.2001.07.13-1 # Severity: serious # # Hi, # # During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we # decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very # long time could cover up some QA problems. # # I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose # to remove it. # The package has very few users and is only a Perl rewrite of the Glotski # game. It also depends on the obsolete libgnome-perl. # # This usually means that your package matched some of the following # criteria: # # [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than # three years. # # [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) # # [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you # might be MIA # # [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than # 100 users with the package installed. # # [5] the package was not released with sarge # # and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. # # (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed # more than one month before the time the check was performed. # # After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign # this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or # ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). # # The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to # proceed. # # Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't # help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel # responsible for their packages without needing other people to force # them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing # the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. # # Thanks! # # Marc # # -- Etienne Grossmann -- http://www.cs.uky.edu/~etienne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#326851: marked as done (move beagle-build-index and beagle-manage-index in /usr/lib)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:02:07 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#326851: fixed in beagle 0.0.12-3 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Sep 2005 07:46:36 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 06 00:46:35 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from sockmel.bononia.it [194.242.226.39] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1ECYA7-00077k-00; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:46:35 -0700 Received: from answer.42.it (adsl-28-57.38-151.net24.it [151.38.57.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN answer.fortytwo.it, Issuer sockmel.bononia.it (verified OK)) by sockmel.bononia.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id B916356CD6; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:46:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by answer.42.it (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 1E5814B953; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Cosimo Alfarano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: move beagle-build-index and beagle-manage-index in /usr/lib X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15 Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:46:35 +0200 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: beagle Version: 0.0.12-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 9.1.1, FHS 4.4 Co. As manual pages (from CVS) of beagle-build-index and beagle-manage-index, and maybe others cmds, are not intended to be invoked by the standard user. They potentially purge a directories and they haven't a man page in current sid version (0.0.12-2). Please, move them to /usr/lib/beagle/bin, /usr/share/beagle/bin of /usr/sbin, depending the actual use they're intended for and if they're arch-dep or indep. Out of curiosity, are mono's DLL and EXE arch-idep? I see some .dll in /usr/share and .exe in /usr/lib. I do not know mono, so just do the best thing and move them if needed :) thanks, Cosimo. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-kazoo-1 Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Versions of packages beagle depends on: ii dbus-1-utils 0.23.4-3 simple interprocess messaging syst ii libatk1.0-0 1.10.1-2 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libevolution-cil 0.8-2 CLI bindings for Evolution ii libexif12 0.6.12-2 library to parse EXIF files ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-6 GCC support library ii libgconf-cil 1.0.10-2 CLI binding for GConf ii libgecko-cil 0.6-3 CLI binding for the GtkMozEmbed li ii libglade-cil 1.0.10-2 CLI binding for the Glade librarie ii libglib-cil 1.0.10-2 CLI binding for the GLib utility l ii libglib2.0-0 2.8.0-1The GLib library of C routines ii libgmime2.1-cil 2.1.15-5 CLI binding for the MIME library, ii libgnome-cil 1.0.10-2 CLI binding for GNOME ii libgnomeui-0 2.10.1-1 The GNOME 2 libraries (User Interf ii libgnomevfs2-02.10.1-5 The GNOME virtual file-system libr ii libgtk-cil1.0.10-2 CLI binding for the Gtk+ toolkit ii libgtk2.0-0 2.6.10-1 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libmono0 1.1.8.2-1 libraries for the Mono JIT ii libpango1.0-0 1.8.2-1Layout and rendering of internatio ii libsm66.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System Session Management ii libsqlite02.8.16-1 SQLite shared library ii libstdc++64.0.1-6The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System protocol client li ii libxss1
Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed?
# # I agree with the removal, # and I am reassigning this bug to ftp.debian.org # reassign 328801 ftp.debian.org thanks On 9/17/05, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: cfe Version: 0.9-8 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has very few users, is quite out of date with regards to Debian's policies and seems to be upstream-dead. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- LÉNÁRT, János [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # # I agree with the removal, # and I am reassigning this bug to ftp.debian.org # reassign 328801 ftp.debian.org Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed? Bug reassigned from package `cfe' to `ftp.debian.org'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327942: marked as done (kbarcode: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:32:07 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#327942: fixed in kbarcode 1.8.0-3 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Sep 2005 23:47:54 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 12 16:47:54 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from 84-120-66-144.onocable.ono.com (chistera.yi.org) [84.120.66.144] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EEy1i-0003TB-00; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:47:54 -0700 Received: from userid 1000 by chistera.yi.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EEy1a-0002S9-Be for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:47:46 +0200 From: Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: kbarcode: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:47:46 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: kbarcode Version: 1.8.0-2 Severity: grave Tags: sid Hello, This is a grave bug filed against your package because it depends on libqt3c102-mt, which no longer exists, thus rendering yor package uninstallable in unstable. As part of the C++ ABI transition, this library has moved to the libqt3-mt package. Simply recompiling and uploading your package should be enough to fix this; as per this mail [1], you need not bump your Qt, kdelibs or aRts build-dependencies. Beware, though, that that may not be the case for all the involved librares. Also, make sure that you build the package in an up to date and clean sid environment, so that final dependencies are correct. Please do this as soon as possible in order to accelerate the Qt/KDE transition to testing. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg0.html Perhaps you find that your package fails to compile with gcc4. If that's the case, there's probably a bug about it in the BTS, and it may include a patch. If not (or if you have doubts about the correctness of the patch), you may be able to find a fix in upstream's CVS, or in the Ubuntu distribution. If your package fails only in arm, m68k, and hppa, see instructions in the above mail. Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay their upload. Thanks for your cooperation, and happy hacking! P.S.: There may be an already reported bug against this package for this very same reason. I've checked for that, and will be merging the bugs soon. The reason for still filing this bug was to have the opportunity of including the small bits of information above. I apologize for the inconvenience. --- Received: (at 327942-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 15:48:32 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 08:48:32 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGeff-0001zc-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:32:07 -0700 From: Theodore Karkoulis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#327942: fixed in kbarcode 1.8.0-3 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:32:07 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: kbarcode Source-Version: 1.8.0-3 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of kbarcode, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: kbarcode_1.8.0-3.diff.gz to pool/main/k/kbarcode/kbarcode_1.8.0-3.diff.gz kbarcode_1.8.0-3.dsc to pool/main/k/kbarcode/kbarcode_1.8.0-3.dsc kbarcode_1.8.0-3_i386.deb to
Bug#319238: pwc: ftbfs [sparc] mv: cannot stat `modules/*.deb': No such file or directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I made my changes and uploaded -5 version. The buildd logs are ok? Is this bug closed? Thanks a lot - -- Victor Seva [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key ID: 0xDD12F253 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.torreviejawireless.org http://linuxmaniac.homeip.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDLD4oS/DSSd0S8lMRAtZ9AJ4te+IScRHUzK+lsu6vBfnvpRneyQCfd8FE 8KXwf/tVxKhDmxi14ogHsB8= =Qg6R -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328813: very old package, should this be removed?
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:57:05PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Package: vmnet Version: 0.4-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. This package is essentially obsolete with the TUN/TAP support in Linux 2.4+. Though I suspect it still has some users, I don't use it myself anymore and have no objection to removing it from Debian. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 328801 RM: cfe -- RoM and RoQA; old, unused Bug#328801: very old package, should this be removed? Changed Bug title. severity 328801 normal Bug#328801: RM: cfe -- RoM and RoQA; old, unused Severity set to `normal'. thankskbye Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328017: marked as done (kxdocker: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:05 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#328017: fixed in kxdocker 0.35-2 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Sep 2005 23:48:25 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 12 16:48:21 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from 84-120-66-144.onocable.ono.com (chistera.yi.org) [84.120.66.144] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EEy28-0003So-00; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:48:21 -0700 Received: from userid 1000 by chistera.yi.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EEy1d-0002T3-Ag for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:47:49 +0200 From: Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: kxdocker: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:47:49 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: kxdocker Version: 0.35-1 Severity: grave Tags: sid Hello, This is a grave bug filed against your package because it depends on libqt3c102-mt, which no longer exists, thus rendering yor package uninstallable in unstable. As part of the C++ ABI transition, this library has moved to the libqt3-mt package. Simply recompiling and uploading your package should be enough to fix this; as per this mail [1], you need not bump your Qt, kdelibs or aRts build-dependencies. Beware, though, that that may not be the case for all the involved librares. Also, make sure that you build the package in an up to date and clean sid environment, so that final dependencies are correct. Please do this as soon as possible in order to accelerate the Qt/KDE transition to testing. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg0.html Perhaps you find that your package fails to compile with gcc4. If that's the case, there's probably a bug about it in the BTS, and it may include a patch. If not (or if you have doubts about the correctness of the patch), you may be able to find a fix in upstream's CVS, or in the Ubuntu distribution. If your package fails only in arm, m68k, and hppa, see instructions in the above mail. Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay their upload. Thanks for your cooperation, and happy hacking! P.S.: There may be an already reported bug against this package for this very same reason. I've checked for that, and will be merging the bugs soon. The reason for still filing this bug was to have the opportunity of including the small bits of information above. I apologize for the inconvenience. --- Received: (at 328017-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 16:08:10 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 09:08:10 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGf8f-0002Ay-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:05 -0700 From: Theodore Karkoulis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#328017: fixed in kxdocker 0.35-2 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:02:05 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: kxdocker Source-Version: 0.35-2 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of kxdocker, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: kxdocker_0.35-2.diff.gz to pool/main/k/kxdocker/kxdocker_0.35-2.diff.gz kxdocker_0.35-2.dsc to pool/main/k/kxdocker/kxdocker_0.35-2.dsc kxdocker_0.35-2_i386.deb to
Bug#328837: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: titrax Version: 1.98.1-6 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has not many users and there are some alternatives (worklog, wmwork) available. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328838: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: camlp4-doc Version: 3.02-1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are only very few users and I have to admit that I don't understand which package contains camlp4... This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328839: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: regex Version: 0.12-15 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are very few users and the package FTBFSed at the moment. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328840: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: pc532down Version: 1.1-9 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has, according to popcon, no users at all. Do we really need it in etch? This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#326466: mesa: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'xutils, xlibmesa-gl-dev'
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 10:27 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: In file included from glcontextmodes.c:60: ../../../src/mesa/drivers/dri/common/glcontextmodes.h:39: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of '__GLXvisualConfig' Uhm... glxint.h is missing upstream. Please add the missing Build-Depends on 'xutils, xlibmesa-gl-dev' to debian/control. Just in case someone happens to develop an urge to fix this bug before I upload a fixed package, PLEASE DON'T ADD A DEPENDENCY ON xlibmesa-gl-dev. That's dumb, to put it mildly. Check out the svn repo. (if you are messing with the mesa source package you should know where the repo is) The current upstream plan seems to be to put glxint.h (along with a bunch of other GL headers) into the proto/GL module as of X.Org 7.0, in which case build-depending on xlibmesa-gl would be the correct interim solution. If you don't agree with that, you should take it up with upstream. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Bug#328695: sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin is uninstallable in Sid
Lo Steve, Horacio, On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:50:37 -0700 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reassign 328695 sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin thanks On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 09:35:23AM +0200, Horacio Spiders wrote: But there certainly is such a version of sylpheed-claws in unstable; you'll need to tell us why that package is not being installed. I see there is a conflict between both packages in unstable: Package sylpheed-claws * unstable (mail): Extended version of the Sylpheed mail client 1.0.5-1: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc and as I see in sylpheed-claws--maildir-plugin information for version 0.7-4: Conflicts: sylpheed-claws (= 1.0.5) Aha, so maildir-plugin needs to be updated for the new upstream version; reassigning back. All of this is, I believe, fully explained in package's README.Debian Is not the first time this kind of bug happens, and will not be the last as it seems not much people cares to read the README.Debian files :) regards, -- Ricardo Mones Lastra - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Centro de Inteligencia Artificial, Universidad de Oviedo en Gijon 33271 Asturias, SPAIN. - http://www.aic.uniovi.es/mones -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327291: marked as done (qt3-doc: overwrites file from qt3-designer 3:3.3.4-3 without appropriate replaces)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#327291: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Sep 2005 01:25:43 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 08 18:25:43 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from adsl-68-248-16-56.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net (shuttle.metzlers.org) [68.248.16.56] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EDXeA-00040h-00; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:25:43 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shuttle.metzlers.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599221AD0F for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:25:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Josh Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: qt3-doc: overwrites file from qt3-designer 3:3.3.4-3 without appropriate replaces Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:25:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE, RCVD_IN_DSBL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: qt3-doc Version: 3:3.3.4-8 Severity: normal I have not installed transitioned qt3 packages yet, so most of them are still at 3:3.3.4-3. I haven't been worrying about the -doc packages, though. The most recent install failed, however: Preparing to replace qt3-doc 3:3.3.4-7 (using .../qt3-doc_3%3a3.3.4-8_all.deb) ... Unpacking replacement qt3-doc ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/qt3-doc_3%3a3.3.4-8_all.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/qt3/doc/html/win-objexplor1.png', which is also in package qt3-designer dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/qt3-doc_3%3a3.3.4-8_all.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) # dpkg -s qt3-designer | grep Version Version: 3:3.3.4-3 So, qt3-doc needs to Replace qt3-designer (at least version 3:3.3.4-3). Note that qt3-doc 3:3.3.4-7 installs fine, so this file must have been added in the latest version. Josh --- Received: (at 327291-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 16:48:56 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 09:48:56 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from joerg by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGfkK-0006FW-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 From: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $ Subject: Bug#327291: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 3 Source: qt-x11-free Source-Version: 3:3.3.5-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of qt-x11-free, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: libqt3-compat-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-compat-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-i18n_3.3.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-i18n_3.3.5-1_all.deb libqt3-mt-dbg_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-dbg_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-dev_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-dev_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-ibase_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-ibase_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-mysql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-mysql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-odbc_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-odbc_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-psql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-psql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-sqlite_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-sqlite_3.3.5-1_i386.deb
Bug#327360: marked as done (python2.3-qt3: undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#327360: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Sep 2005 13:41:16 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 09 06:41:16 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dodger.whisperingvault.net (mail.whisperingvault.net) [82.66.64.70] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EDj80-g7-00; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:41:16 -0700 Received: from deus.whisperingvault.net (deus.whisperingvault.net [192.168.1.2]) by mail.whisperingvault.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C35E1D13327; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by deus.whisperingvault.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5625312EBAE; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Nicolas Raspail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: python2.3-qt3: undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17 Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:40:42 +0200 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: python2.3-qt3 Version: 3.15-3 Severity: important Hello, I want to start luma and it doesn't start with the following error message: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/luma, line 18, in ? from qt import * ImportError: /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/qt.so: undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle I submit this bug report to python2.3-qt3 instead of luma because it seems to be a qt/python problem. But if I'm wrong, I'll resubmit it against luma Thanks Nicolas -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-6-debian Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages python2.3-qt3 depends on: ii libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfontconfig12.3.2-1generic font configuration library ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-6 GCC support library ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libpng12-01.2.8rel-1 PNG library - runtime ii libqt3-mt 3:3.3.4-8 Qt GUI Library (Threaded runtime v ii libsm66.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System Session Management ii libstdc++64.0.1-6The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System protocol client li ii libxext6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System miscellaneous exte ii python2.3 2.3.5-8An interactive high-level object-o ii python2.3-sip4-qt34.3-1 Python/C++ bindings generator - Py ii xlibs 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 X Window System client libraries m ii zlib1g1:1.2.3-4 compression library - runtime python2.3-qt3 recommends no packages. -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 327360-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 16:48:24 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 09:48:24 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from joerg by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGfkK-0006FY-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 From: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $ Subject: Bug#327360: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: qt-x11-free Source-Version: 3:3.3.5-1 We believe that the bug you
Bug#328271: marked as done (eric: fail to start)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#327360: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2005 14:18:38 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 14 07:18:38 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from l192-117-110-185.cable.actcom.net.il (eli.freed.net) [192.117.110.185] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EFY5u-0003U4-00; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:18:38 -0700 Received: by eli.freed.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 385412FCAD; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:18:06 +0300 (IDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eliyahu Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: eric: fail to start X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:18:05 +0300 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: eric Version: 3.7.1+3.7.2-rc2-1 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable When I start eric I get the following error: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]1$ eric Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/share/eric/modules/eric3.py, line 15, in ? from qt import QTextCodec, SIGNAL, SLOT, qApp ImportError: /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/qt.so: undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle I tried apt-get dist-upgade, but it did not help. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages eric depends on: ii bicyclerepair 0.9-3 A refactoring tool for python ii python2.3.5-3An interactive high-level object-o ii python-qt33.15-3 Qt3 bindings for Python (default v ii python-qtext 3.15-3 Qt extensions for PyQt (default ve Versions of packages eric recommends: pn eric-api-filesnone (no description available) pn python-kde3 none (no description available) pn python-profiler none (no description available) pn python-xmlnone (no description available) -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 327360-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 16:48:24 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 09:48:24 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from joerg by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGfkK-0006FY-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 From: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $ Subject: Bug#327360: fixed in qt-x11-free 3:3.3.5-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:00 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: qt-x11-free Source-Version: 3:3.3.5-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of qt-x11-free, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: libqt3-compat-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-compat-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-headers_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-i18n_3.3.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-i18n_3.3.5-1_all.deb libqt3-mt-dbg_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-dbg_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-dev_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-dev_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-ibase_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-ibase_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-mysql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/libqt3-mt-mysql_3.3.5-1_i386.deb libqt3-mt-odbc_3.3.5-1_i386.deb to
Bug#174241: marked as done (ksetisaver: Can't open state.sah)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#174241: fixed in ksetisaver 0.3.4-1
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 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Dec 2002 01:29:06 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 24 19:29:06 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from adsl-209-233-16-176.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (gbr.newt.com)
[209.233.16.176] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18R0M5-00047t-00; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:29:05 -0600
Received: from newt.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by gbr.newt.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-6Woody) with ESMTP id
gBP1T4Rc031643
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:29:04 -0800
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ksetisaver: Can't open state.sah
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.0+cvs; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.2
X-Face: 5k'[EMAIL
PROTECTED]Uw3~UkuQ+b^{)ecyVaJlgKxZsT76xpl+W$/c9RtY/Y6szGg)!b}74-9nWJC[EMAIL
PROTECTED]?sQ6;P]M|[EMAIL
PROTECTED](A.u[0+]Ez|;`.biir|K7$UQS=8rxc)`O^~DJs-a7p7XENI_7c]lI
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:29:04 -0800
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_01_02
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: ksetisaver
Version: 0.2.7-1
Severity: grave
ksetisaver doesn't work for me.
I ran ksetisaver --setup and set the directory to
/home/wohler/.setiathome where I had run setiathome which deposited a
load of files there, including state.sah.
When I run ksetisaver, I get this error message:
Couldn't open state.sah in directory /home/wohler/.setiathome
This file does exist:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:513]$ head /home/wohler/.setiathome/state.sah
ncfft=493
cr=6.673155e-01
fl=131072
cpu=488.63
prog=0.04347783
potfreq=-1
potactivity=0
outfilepos=492
bs_power=154.617218
bs_score=0.587198
...
I am not running KDE, but rather GNOME with the enlightenment window
manager. This should not affect the way this program runs, though,
right?
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux gbr 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US
Versions of packages ksetisaver depends on:
ii kdelibs3 4:2.2.2-13 KDE core libraries (runtime files)
ii libc62.3.1-3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libfam0 2.6.8-3 client library to control the FAM
ii libjpeg626b-6The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG
ii libpng2 1.0.12-6PNG library - runtime
ii libqt2 3:2.3.1-22 Qt GUI Library (runtime version).
ii libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 1:2.95.4-11 The GNU stdc++ library
ii xlibs4.2.1-3 X Window System client libraries
ii zlib1g 1:1.1.4-6 compression library - runtime
--
Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
---
Received: (at 174241-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 17:10:06 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 10:10:06 2005
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EGg4z-00075O-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700
From: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#174241: fixed in ksetisaver 0.3.4-1
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 4
Source: ksetisaver
Source-Version: 0.3.4-1
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ksetisaver, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.diff.gz
to pool/contrib/k/ksetisaver/ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.diff.gz
ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.dsc
to
Bug#187052: marked as done (ksetisaver: needs new upstream and rebuild against KDE3/Qt3)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#187052: fixed in ksetisaver 0.3.4-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Mar 2003 19:59:10 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 31 13:59:09 2003 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from calc.cheney.cx [207.70.165.48] (mail) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 1905Qz-0001gg-00; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:09 -0600 Received: from ccheney by calc.cheney.cx with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1905Qy-Vu-00; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:08 -0600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ksetisaver: needs new upstream and rebuild against KDE3/Qt3 X-Mailer: reportbug 2.10.1 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:08 -0600 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.44 X-Spam-Level: Package: ksetisaver Version: 0.2.7-1 (not installed) Severity: grave Tags: sid Justification: renders package unusable ksetisaver is currently not installable. It needs the new version 0.3.3 that is available upstream to build against KDE3/Qt3. Also when built against Qt3 please insure that it is built against the libqt3-mt version. Thanks, Chris -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux calc 2.4.21-pre4-ac4 #1 Sun Feb 16 00:37:14 CST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US --- Received: (at 187052-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 17:10:07 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 10:10:07 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGg4z-00075Q-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700 From: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $ Subject: Bug#187052: fixed in ksetisaver 0.3.4-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:02:21 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 5 Source: ksetisaver Source-Version: 0.3.4-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of ksetisaver, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.diff.gz to pool/contrib/k/ksetisaver/ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.diff.gz ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.dsc to pool/contrib/k/ksetisaver/ksetisaver_0.3.4-1.dsc ksetisaver_0.3.4-1_i386.deb to pool/contrib/k/ksetisaver/ksetisaver_0.3.4-1_i386.deb ksetisaver_0.3.4.orig.tar.gz to pool/contrib/k/ksetisaver/ksetisaver_0.3.4.orig.tar.gz A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] (supplier of updated ksetisaver package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:48:45 +0200 Source: ksetisaver Binary: ksetisaver Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.3.4-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ksetisaver - SETI screensaver for KDE Closes: 168172 174241 187052 229625 313997 Changes: ksetisaver (0.3.4-1) unstable; urgency=low . * QA upload. * New upstream release. * Package is orphaned (see #283932); set maintainer to Debian QA Group. * ksetisaver/configdialogR2.ui: Downgrade UI version to fix compile errors. * po/de.po: Apply corrections from Jens Seidel. Closes: #313997. * Build only on architectures supported by
Bug#328846: xfce4-systray: Cannot use the Systray plugin
Package: xfce4-systray Version: 4.2.2-1 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Hi, When I try to add the System tray plugin to my XFCE panel, it simply displays a dialog box with « Impossible to create panel element Systemtray » (this message is a translation from french to english, as I'm running with a french locale. The real english message might be different). I think this is an upstream bug since I have the exact same problem on a Mandriva distribution. Sincerly, Thomas -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-rc1 Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages xfce4-systray depends on: ii libatk1.0-0 1.10.3-1 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libc6 2.3.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libglib2.0-0 2.8.0-1The GLib library of C routines ii libgtk2.0-0 2.6.10-1 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libpango1.0-0 1.8.2-1Layout and rendering of internatio ii libxfce4util-14.2.2-1Utility functions library for Xfce ii libxfcegui4-3 4.2.2-1Basic GUI C functions for Xfce4 ii libxml2 2.6.22-1 GNOME XML library ii xfce4-panel 4.2.2-1The Xfce4 desktop environment pane ii zlib1g1:1.2.3-4 compression library - runtime xfce4-systray recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328741: asm: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'dpatch'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jochens wrote: Package: asm Version: 1.5.3-1 Severity: serious Tags: patch When building 'asm' in a clean 'unstable' chroot, I get the following error: debian/rules clean debian/rules:13: /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make: No such file or directory make: *** No rule to make target `/usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make'. Stop. Please add the missing Build-Depends on 'dpatch' to debian/control. [...] Terribly sorry for the oversight; will have a new package ready for sponsorship today. Regards, - -- Barry Hawkins site: www.bytemason.org weblog: www.yepthatsme.com Registered Linux User #368650 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDLBucHuKcDICy0QoRAvP/AJ4vPzzLke/w8Gr1rtPShlgEgxqedgCdFGAU Pau435qcG5SZM2t2XzykD+g= =eMfw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328847: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: saxon-catalog Version: 2203-4 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has not many users, was NMUed twice and has 2 RC bugs at the moment. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328851: very old packages, should these be removed?
Package: sitescooper,sitescooper-sites Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your packages showed up on the list. I propose to remove them. There are some open bug reports, but not many users, upstream development seems to be dead and there are alternatives like plucker (plus the fact that mobile devices nowadays have full-blown browsers and/or special WPA content) This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#325128: kghostview: hangs and sucks CPU resouces up, when loading PS file with PDF extension
tag 325128 unreproducible thanks * Борисов Юрий Владимирович [Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:54:03 +0300]: Package: kghostview Version: 4:3.3.2-2 Severity: grave Justification: probably user security hole I can't reproduce this. Only, with gs-gpl, I can't display the document, but that's all. With gs-esp works. Please send the output of the following commands: apt-cache policy gs-gpl apt-cache policy gs-esp /usr/sbin/update-alternatives --display gs What happens if you run `gv file.pdf`? And if you use gs-esp instead of gs-gpl (or vice versa)? (You can configure it with update-alternatives --config gs.) -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Listening to: Carlos Cano - A París In my opinion, the most fruitful and natural play of the mind is in conversation. I find it sweeter than any other action in life; and if I were forced to choose, I think I would rather lose my sight than my hearing and voice. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#325128: kghostview: hangs and sucks CPU resouces up, when loading PS file with PDF extension
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 325128 unreproducible Bug#325128: kghostview: hangs and sucks CPU resouces up, when loading PS file with PDF extension There were no tags set. Tags added: unreproducible thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328846: xfce4-systray: Cannot use the Systray plugin
Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] (17/09/2005): Hi, Hi. When I try to add the System tray plugin to my XFCE panel, it simply displays a dialog box with « Impossible to create panel element Systemtray » (this message is a translation from french to english, as I'm running with a french locale. The real english message might be different). Got the same problem too, on Sid. To get the real english message: $ killall xfce4-panel $ export LANG=C $ xfce4-panel Here it is: Could not create panel item Systemtray. I think this is an upstream bug since I have the exact same problem on a Mandriva distribution. I'll try to have a look at it, I never used it till now. Sincerly, Sincerely ;-) -- Cyril Brulebois signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#327161: marked as done (FTBFS: NoClassDefFoundError exceptions)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:51:34 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#327161: fixed in ecj-bootstrap 3.0.93-1
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 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Sep 2005 03:47:17 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 07 20:47:17 2005
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from zoot.lafn.org [206.117.18.6]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EDDNd-0002Gt-00; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:47:17 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain
(pool-71-104-166-233.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.104.166.233])
(authenticated bits=0)
by zoot.lafn.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j883lGX8091379
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: from kraai by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1ED6yX-0006oC-NC
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:56:58 -0700
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 -0700
From: Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FTBFS: NoClassDefFoundError exceptions
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.86.2/1069/Wed Sep 7 08:08:51 2005 on zoot.lafn.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: ecj-bootstrap
Version: 3.0.1-5
Severity: serious
ecj-bootstrap fails to build because it raises some unhandled
NoClassDefFoundError exceptions:
for i in compiler batch antadapter; do \
mkdir build/bin/$i; \
cp -r src/org.eclipse.jdt.core/$i/* build/bin/$i; \
/usr/bin/gij-4.0 \
-classpath build/bootstrap/ecj.jar:/usr/share/ant1.6/lib/ant.jar \
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.Main \
-bootclasspath /usr/share/java/libgcj-4.0.jar \
build/bin/$i; \
done
Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org.eclipse.jd=
t.internal.compiler.batch.Main
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: org.eclipse.jdt.internal.com=
piler.problem.ProblemSeverities not found in gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoa=
der{urls=3D[file:build/bootstrap/ecj.jar,file:./,file:/usr/share/ant1.6/lib=
/ant.jar], parent=3Dgnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=3D[], parent=
=3Dnull}}
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(java.lang.String) (/usr/lib/libgc=
j.so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(java.lang.String, boolean) (/usr/li=
b/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(java.lang.String) (/usr/lib/libgcj.=
so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.VMClassLoader.defineClass(java.lang.ClassLoader, java.lan=
g.String, byte[], int, int, java.security.ProtectionDomain) (/usr/lib/libgc=
j.so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(java.lang.String, byte[], int, in=
t, java.security.ProtectionDomain) (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(java.lang.String, byte[=
], int, int, java.security.CodeSource) (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(java.lang.String) (/usr/lib/libgc=
j.so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(java.lang.String, boolean) (/usr/li=
b/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(java.lang.String) (/usr/lib/libgcj.=
so.6.0.0)
at java.lang.Class.forName(java.lang.String, boolean, java.lang.ClassL=
oader) (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org.eclipse.jd=
t.internal.compiler.batch.Main
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: org.eclipse.jdt.internal.com=
piler.problem.ProblemSeverities not found in gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoa=
Bug#328854: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: nwutil Version: 1.4-3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are almost no users, but some open bugs. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328856: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: samba-doc-ja Version: 2.0.6+ja1.0-3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are very few users and the package is not in sync with the samba version distributed by Debian. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328857: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: libfloat Version: 990616-3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. popcon doesn't even provide data for this package, it's very old and has probably lost all it's uses. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328695: sylpheed-claws-maildir-plugin is uninstallable in Sid
Hi all, All of this is, I believe, fully explained in package's README.Debian Is not the first time this kind of bug happens, and will not be the last as it seems not much people cares to read the README.Debian files :) Despite the fact that the package cannot be first-time-installed in Sid and so, README.Debian is not accesible until the package is, i.e., manually downloaded. :) OK, I have done so, and read the README.Debian where it states clearly the problem. I will wait for a new package recompilation then... Thanks to both of you and sorry for the inconveniences caused. :) regards, -- Ricardo Mones Lastra - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Descubre la descarga digital con MSN Music. Más de medio millón de canciones. http://music.msn.es/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Fixed in upload of curl 7.14.1-1 to experimental
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 318590 + fixed-in-experimental Bug#318590: libcurl3-dev: A development package linked again gnutls needed There were no tags set. Tags added: fixed-in-experimental quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327751: marked as done (Eric IDE says undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:11:45 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Eric IDE says undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Sep 2005 20:57:17 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 11 13:57:17 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from element.ksp.edi.fmph.uniba.sk (element.ksp.sk) [158.195.16.154] (mail) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EEYt3-0006Fb-00; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:57:17 -0700 Received: from [195.168.59.195] (helo=[195.168.59.195]) by element.ksp.sk with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EEYsz-0003yd-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:57:14 +0200 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:57:08 +0200 From: Twold Benger [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Eric IDE says undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: eric Version: 3.7.1+3.7.2-rc2-1 Package: python2.3 Version: 2.3.5-8 Package: python2.3-qt3 Version: 3.15-3 Package: libqt3-mt Version: 3:3.3.4-8 Invoking eric yields the following result: $ eric Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/share/eric/modules/eric3.py, line 15, in ? from qt import QTextCodec, SIGNAL, SLOT, qApp ImportError: /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/qt.so: undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle I suppose python-qt3 seems to have problems interfacing the libqt3 correctly. I am using Debian GNU/Linux unstable, kernel 2.6.11-1-k7 and libc6 2.3.5-6. --- Received: (at 327751-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 18:12:18 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 11:12:18 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from imap.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20] by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGhAf-0005Yx-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:12:17 -0700 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2005 18:11:46 - Received: from c213-100-42-10.swipnet.se (EHLO [213.100.42.10]) [213.100.42.10] by mail.gmx.net (mp009) with SMTP; 17 Sep 2005 20:11:46 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14342181 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:11:45 +0200 From: Torsten Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Eric IDE says undefined symbol: _ZTI11QMotifStyle X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm closing this bugreport since the bug has been fixed with the upload of libqt3-mt 3.3.5-1, but it wasn't mentioned in their Changelog. For an explanation of what happened, please look at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=327360 best Torsten - -- Torsten Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146 894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858 Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDLFxhfMVFHqJEyFgRArQKAJ41o/PJ+DDuBkJllA5ezlULX/XwiQCeOuCh rLG/rdkjRS1S7gh00SiEIbc= =+rHb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328859: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: safe-hole-perl Version: 0.08-3.1 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are very few users and though a new upstream release is available for some time, nobody has requested it yet. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328860: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: libhs Version: 0.1.3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. There are no users. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328862: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: gidic Version: 0.2-3 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. It has not many users, there are some alternatives as dictionaries available and the program itself is based on Gtk1.2, which should get removed for etch. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Mar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328863: very old package, should this be removed?
Package: ultrapoint Version: 0.4-9 Severity: serious Hi, During the Debian QA meeting hold during Sept. 09th till 11th, we decided that looking at packages that haven't been uploaded for a very long time could cover up some QA problems. I've done this now and your package showed up on the list. I propose to remove it. The package has some open bugs, 4 (!) not acknowledged NMUs and almost no users. It's probably time to remove it, as there are plenty of alternatives available. This usually means that your package matched some of the following criteria: [1] Your packages has not had a maintainer upload for more than three years. [2] has one or more RC bugs with no answer from the maintainer (**) [3] the state of your packages in general seems to indicate that you might be MIA [4] (if we propose a removal) it shows in popcon as having less than 100 users with the package installed. [5] the package was not released with sarge and at least ([1] and ( [2] or [3] or [4] or [5] )) was true. (**) The maintainer not answering to RC bugs refers to bugs filed more than one month before the time the check was performed. After 7 days without answer from you (the maintainer) we will reassign this bug to either WNPP (in case we propose to orphan it) or ftp.debian.org (in case we propose to remove it). The package will need an upload or an explanation for this action not to proceed. Please do *not* upload a package just to get off this list - it won't help the package at all. Maintainers should be responsive and feel responsible for their packages without needing other people to force them to do work. Sometimes, finding a new maintainer or even removing the package completly from the archive is better for Debian's users. Thanks! Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328846: xfce4-systray: Cannot use the Systray plugin
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] (17/09/2005): I'll try to have a look at it, I never used it till now. Seems to be known upstream as #1098 [1]. For information, the error message is issued from 666th line of xfce4-panel-4.2.2/panel/controls.c I guess that we'll have to check periodically upstream reactions. The last one was a suspicion about race condition or something like that. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois [1] http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1098 ; you need to create an account to view them, IIRC. Quite quick, don't hesitate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#328846: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#328846: xfce4-systray: Cannot use the Systray plugin
I remember having something similar, and it turned out that a system tray was already added in the taskbar so it would not create another.But the error message is misleading indeed if it's your case too.So if you have little icons in the upper right corner chances are you already have the systray running.On 9/17/05, Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] (17/09/2005): Hi,Hi. When I try to add the System tray plugin to my XFCE panel, it simply displays a dialog box with « Impossible to create panel element Systemtray » (this message is a translation from french to english, as I'm running with a french locale. The real english message might be different).Got the same problem too, on Sid. To get the real english message:$ killall xfce4-panel$ export LANG=C $ xfce4-panelHere it is:Could not create panel item Systemtray. I think this is an upstream bug since I have the exact same problem on a Mandriva distribution.I'll try to have a look at it, I never used it till now. Sincerly,Sincerely ;-)--Cyril Brulebois-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQFDLFk9eGfVPHR5Nd0RAndmAJ95846ZGr1P8ci/VRX2nNOCwQwuGgCglCpG cXsNZE8yoaTMj0y+lSJKv9A==fCrt-END PGP SIGNATURE-___Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
Bug#278411: marked as done (SchoolBell should not be released with sarge)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:14:14 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#278411: fixed in schoolbell 1.2.1-2 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Oct 2004 19:48:42 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 26 12:48:42 2004 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from smtp05.web.de [217.72.192.209] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1CMXJC-0006RD-00; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:48:42 -0700 Received: from [80.26.194.2] (helo=fauxpas.home) by smtp05.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (WEB.DE 4.101 #44) id 1CMXIg-0002hY-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:48:10 +0200 Received: from jinty by fauxpas.home with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CMXRM-0001Hn-OQ for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:57:08 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SchoolBell should not be released with sarge X-Mailer: reportbug 2.62 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:57:08 +0200 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level: Package: schoolbell Version: 0.7.1-1 Severity: serious It has come to my attention that databases from schoolbell 0.7.x will not be upgradable to later versions. So the database has to be removed on update. This problem will be solved by upstream, but not by the time sarge releases. Therefore I think schooltool should not be released in sarge as it is too immature. --- Received: (at 278411-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 18:24:03 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 11:24:03 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from joerg by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGhCY-0006Ne-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:14:14 -0700 From: Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $ Subject: Bug#278411: fixed in schoolbell 1.2.1-2 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:14:14 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: schoolbell Source-Version: 1.2.1-2 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of schoolbell, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: python2.4-schoolbell_1.2.1-2_all.deb to pool/main/s/schoolbell/python2.4-schoolbell_1.2.1-2_all.deb schoolbell_1.2.1-2.diff.gz to pool/main/s/schoolbell/schoolbell_1.2.1-2.diff.gz schoolbell_1.2.1-2.dsc to pool/main/s/schoolbell/schoolbell_1.2.1-2.dsc schoolbell_1.2.1-2_all.deb to pool/main/s/schoolbell/schoolbell_1.2.1-2_all.deb schoolbell_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/s/schoolbell/schoolbell_1.2.1.orig.tar.gz A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] (supplier of updated schoolbell package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:47:11 +0200 Source: schoolbell Binary: python2.4-schoolbell schoolbell Architecture: source all Version: 1.2.1-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: python2.4-schoolbell - web-based calendaring server schoolbell - web-based calendaring server Closes: 278411 Changes: schoolbell
Bug#324100: marked as done (hyperestraier: ftbfs [sparc] gcj: Command not found)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:21:36 -0700 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#324100: fixed in hyperestraier 0.5.7-1 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 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Aug 2005 08:02:40 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 20 01:02:40 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from blars.org (renig.nat.blars.org) [64.81.35.59] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1E6OJM-0002iC-00; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:02:40 -0700 Received: from quaff (quaff.nat.blars.org [172.16.2.7]) by renig.nat.blars.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j7K82caC016960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:02:38 -0700 Received: from quaff.nat.blars.org (quaff [127.0.0.1]) by quaff (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j7K7x48Y009636; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:59:04 -0700 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by quaff.nat.blars.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j7K7x43I009634; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:59:04 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:59:04 -0700 From: Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: hyperestraier: ftbfs [sparc] gcj: Command not found Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Reportbug-Version: 3.15 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: hyperestraier Version: 0.5.4-2 Severity: important Justification: fails to build from source hyperestraier failed to build on all buildds, duplicated on my sparc pbuilder. make[1]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/hyperestraier-0.5.4/java' gcj -C -Wall -d . Document.java Condition.java DatabaseResult.java Database.java ResultDocument.java NodeResult.java Node.java Creator.java DocumentImpl.java ConditionImpl.java DatabaseResultImpl.java DatabaseImpl.java ResultDocumentImpl.java NodeResultImpl.java NodeImpl.java CreatorImpl.java Utility.java Call.java make[1]: gcj: Command not found make[1]: *** [estraier.jar] Error 127 make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/hyperestraier-0.5.4/java' --- Received: (at 324100-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 18:24:40 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 17 11:24:40 2005 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from joerg by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1EGhJg-0008PQ-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:21:36 -0700 From: Fumitoshi UKAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $ Subject: Bug#324100: fixed in hyperestraier 0.5.7-1 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:21:36 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Source: hyperestraier Source-Version: 0.5.7-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of hyperestraier, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: hyperestraier_0.5.7-1.diff.gz to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/hyperestraier_0.5.7-1.diff.gz hyperestraier_0.5.7-1.dsc to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/hyperestraier_0.5.7-1.dsc hyperestraier_0.5.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/hyperestraier_0.5.7-1_i386.deb hyperestraier_0.5.7.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/hyperestraier_0.5.7.orig.tar.gz libestraier-dev_0.5.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/libestraier-dev_0.5.7-1_i386.deb libestraier-java_0.5.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/libestraier-java_0.5.7-1_i386.deb libestraier-ruby1.8_0.5.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/libestraier-ruby1.8_0.5.7-1_i386.deb libestraier5_0.5.7-1_i386.deb to pool/main/h/hyperestraier/libestraier5_0.5.7-1_i386.deb A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to
