On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=partman-lvm;dist=unstable
hurd 11 uploads behind; 7 out of 20 bugs long solved
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=base-installer;dist=unstable
hurd 31
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:14:31PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[There is some argument that I should completely ignore hurd-i386 by
default since it isn't keeping up *at all* but I haven't made that
change yet.]
Well, feel free to ignore hurd-i386 for that.
I'm not going to argue about how
Michael Banck wrote:
And note that that is not because we upload new versions every day.
partman-lvm: last version built for hurd: 45; uploaded: 2006-07-19 (1.5
years!) base-installer: last version built for hurd: 1.57; uploaded:
2006-05-14
D'oh, that's a known bug in dak which does not
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:06:58PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
And note that that is not because we upload new versions every day.
partman-lvm: last version built for hurd: 45; uploaded: 2006-07-19 (1.5
years!) base-installer: last version built for hurd: 1.57; uploaded:
Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:06:58PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
D'oh, that's a known bug in dak which does not generate Packages.gz
for d-i/hurd-i386 [1]; I've been told it's low priority. I suggest
you prod the ftp-masters to get this fixed.
I
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007, Michael Banck wrote:
D'oh, that's a known bug in dak which does not generate Packages.gz
for d-i/hurd-i386 [1]; I've been told it's low priority. I suggest
you prod the ftp-masters to get this fixed.
base-installer is uptodate on hurd-i386, partman-lvm is Arch: all
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
[There is some argument that I should completely ignore hurd-i386 by
default since it isn't keeping up *at all* but I haven't made that
change yet.]
It's been anoying for a long time and there is absolutely no
improvement.
Don Armstrong wrote:
I've modified the code to now have an explicit default list of
architectures instead of assuming that all architectures are keeping
up [and made the version display more verbose for things that matter.]
Thanks a lot Don. The bugs have now moved down to Resolved. Looks much
Don Armstrong wrote:
[There is some argument that I should completely ignore hurd-i386 by
default since it isn't keeping up *at all* but I haven't made that
change yet.]
Please do.
It's been anoying for a long time and there is absolutely no improvement.
For example, please take a look at:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339581 has been fixed on
Apr 17, 2007. But it still shows up in http://bugs.debian.org/texmacs .
Is this a bug in the BTS or am I missing something stupid?
1:1.0.6-11 is
Frans Pop wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=partman-lvm;dist=unstable
hurd 11 uploads behind; 7 out of 20 bugs long solved
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=base-installer;dist=unstable
hurd 31 uploads behind, 7 out of 33 bugs long solved
And note that that
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339581 has been fixed on
Apr 17, 2007. But it still shows up in http://bugs.debian.org/texmacs . Is
this a bug in the BTS or am I missing something stupid?
Maybe it's because a version with the bug is still available
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339581 has been fixed on
Apr 17, 2007. But it still shows up in http://bugs.debian.org/texmacs . Is
this a bug in the BTS or am I missing something stupid?
1:1.0.6-11 is still available in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339581 has been fixed on
Apr 17, 2007. But it still shows up in http://bugs.debian.org/texmacs . Is
this a bug in the BTS or am I missing something stupid?
thanks
raju
--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
14 matches
Mail list logo
