The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 333 (new: 15)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 93 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
[changed mailing list from debian-project to debian-devel because I'd regard
it a debian-devel topic]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_problem_with_tools/
is a big one that deserves attention. It's been a low-level grumble for
quite
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
It's been some time since DEHS[1] had some 'big' changes (probably since its
creation). Here's a list of changes that have been done lately:
I don't know how to file wishlist bug reports but I would like to be
able to file one saying:
Please lis
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
It's been some time since DEHS[1] had some 'big' changes (probably since its
creation). Here's a list of changes that have been done lately:
Many thanks for your work on.
Note that there are some packages shipping a watch file which reports an
inc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
It's been some time since DEHS[1] had some 'big' changes (probably since its
creation). Here's a list of changes that have been done lately:
* "new" look&feel
DEHS' website now has a look similar to other *.d.o pages.
More restyling will b
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> - Close them. However, they might still affect stable or oldstable. So
> closing them without a version might lead people to thinking that the
> bug is solved. And I'm not sure that closing them with a version is a
> solution either: there's no version we can use t
Ian Jackson wrote:
> We have been adopting the practice of removing such things from the
> source tarballs too. Personally I think this is a waste of our time,
> unless the files are very large or there is some other reason why
> leaving them in is especially harmful.
>
> One reason why it might
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-24 21:08]:
> I think that the BTS learns the hierarchy of packages' versions by
> parsing the changelogs. Would your plan work even if the version is a
> fake one (not in any changelog)?
At least it's what Don told me to do: "it's probably good enough
Kumar Appaiah writes ("Re: postscropt document without source"):
> It is a hand-made one, following the _same_ format which Camm used for
> the earlier refblas. Refer these:
>
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/12/msg00012.html
> 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/12/
Colin Tuckley writes ("postscropt document without source"):
> Obviously I can remove the postscript file from the binary package, but is
> this sufficient or do I also need to remove it from the source package -
> which implies re-packaging the .orig.tar.gz
We have been adopting the practice of r
On 24/01/08 at 21:04 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-24 20:44]:
> > What's the best way to deal with bugs from packages that are removed
> > from unstable? Currently, they are not closed when a package is removed.
> > I can see two solutions:
> > - Clo
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-24 20:44]:
> What's the best way to deal with bugs from packages that are removed
> from unstable? Currently, they are not closed when a package is removed.
> I can see two solutions:
> - Close them. However, they might still affect stable or oldstable.
Hi,
What's the best way to deal with bugs from packages that are removed
from unstable? Currently, they are not closed when a package is removed.
I can see two solutions:
- Close them. However, they might still affect stable or oldstable. So
closing them without a version might lead people to
On 24-Jan-08, at 9:37 AM, Adam Majer wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:35:06PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Have you spoken with the rails package maintainer about this and
your
other ITP? Having duplicate copies of the same code lying around in
the archive is something th
Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:35:06PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> Have you spoken with the rails package maintainer about this and your
>> other ITP? Having duplicate copies of the same code lying around in
>> the archive is something the security team has said they are activel
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:35:06PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Have you spoken with the rails package maintainer about this and your
> other ITP? Having duplicate copies of the same code lying around in
> the archive is something the security team has said they are actively
> discouraging. Split
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 09:49 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:22:46PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > We (Audacious package maintainers) would like to provide a transitional
> > package for beep-media-player, since it is now removed in Lenny. We feel
> > that audacious
So it seems not handling bugs status well across releases...
I thought that that is the purpose of specifying tags with release
names so they do not even appear in list of bugs for others (ie etch
bugs in dist=unstable), but they do (example is again that fail2ban
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pk
Dear Sir,
I am arranging to come over to your country with some large sum of money for an
investment. I will be flying in few days. However, I do not know any investor
in your country who I may trust to handle the business for me as I am a
foreigner.
Secondly, I am afraid of bringing
On 24/01/2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Wasn't m68k supposed to be ignored by the BTS, since it's no longer a
> released arch? It's already ignored by testing transitions AFAIK.
ISTR that it's the case for hurd-i386 (and it might be “only for”). Ah,
references: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1] and below.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:22:46PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> We (Audacious package maintainers) would like to provide a transitional
> package for beep-media-player, since it is now removed in Lenny. We feel
> that audacious is a sufficient replacement for BMP, as it's BMP's
> logical succes
[Changes the title to make sure we are talking about dependencies.]
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
IIRC from logic, a | (b&c) == (a|b) & (a|c), which means you should be
able to represent the above using:
gnome-office | openoffice.org, gnome-office | openoffice.org-gnome
From logic you seem
xin anh cho biet them ve card goi quoc te 130.000vnd/344 phut. Card o day
co nghia la anh se ban truc tiep the DT cho khach hang, hay cai dat dich vu &
thanh toan tren may tinh.Con neu la card thi xin anh cho biet phai mua o dau.
XIN CAM ON!!.
-
On Jan 24, 2008 10:05 AM, Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now my idea is, that only both packages together, i.e. openoffice.org
> *and* openoffice.org-gnome, will make a good substitute for
> gnome-office. The Debian package management is currently not able to
> deal with this situati
Package: dpkg
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
I'd like to share an idea with you that arose in my head when I tried to
install the gnome meta-package. I allready had gnome-desktop-environment
and (many packages of ) openoffice.org installed. The gnome package
wanted to pull in gnome-office, but I t
On 24/01/08 at 07:09 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 22:39 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > Well... as Neil pointed it seems not to be the case -- m68k arch is
> > still -1 but now it is "resolved".
>
> Where are you seeing it as "resolved"? It's still listed as
26 matches
Mail list logo
