On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:50:12PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
> > Hi,
> > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
> >
> > says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
> > was uploaded on Jan 18th:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-
Frank Küster wrote:
> Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Frank Küster wrote:
>>>http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>>>
>>>says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
>>>was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>>>
>>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-ch
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi
>
>> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>>
>> says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
>> was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/0
Frank Küster wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>
> says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
> was uploaded on Jan 18th:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html
>
> Is this just a bug in the qa s
Hi,
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which
was uploaded on Jan 18th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html
Is this just a bug in the qa scripts, or worse?
Regards, Frank
--
Fran
5 matches
Mail list logo