Bug#209819: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 21:23:52 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:23:50 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wotu-0006Ph-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:46 -0500
Received: (qmail 4977 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:45 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:45 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: libarts1-audiofile
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209819-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:37 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:37 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
Bug#209677: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 20:30:22 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 15:14:43 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wost-0006Eu-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:43 -0500
Received: (qmail 4015 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:42 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:42 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kdemultimedia-kio-plugins
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209677-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:38 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:37 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
Bug#210025: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 22:18:47 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 17:18:42 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wotQ-0006MD-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:16 -0500
Received: (qmail 4538 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:15 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:15 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kmidi
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 210025-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:36 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:28 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
X-AntiAbuse:
Bug#209918: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 21:53:58 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:53:56 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wotR-0006MS-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:18 -0500
Received: (qmail 4557 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:16 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:16 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kmid
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209918-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:37 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:36 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
X-AntiAbuse:
Bug#209966: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 22:06:26 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 17:06:24 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wote-0006O4-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:31 -0500
Received: (qmail 4747 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:29 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:29 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: krec
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209966-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:36 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:36 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
X-AntiAbuse:
Bug#209842: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 21:28:26 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:28:24 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wotg-0006O8-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 4766 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:31 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:31 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kscd
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209842-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:37 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:37 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
X-AntiAbuse:
Bug#209767: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 21:04:49 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:04:47 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wosa-0006Aj-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:24 -0500
Received: (qmail 3750 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:23 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:23 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kaudiocreator
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209767-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:37 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:37 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
Bug#209624: marked as done (The package description does not follow Debian policy)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line The package description does not follow Debian policy
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 2003 20:27:36 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 15:14:45 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19wosu-0006FC-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:44 -0500
Received: (qmail 4040 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:43 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:43 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: kdemultimedia
Version: 4:3.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: section 2.3.3
Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
The description should be written so that it gives the system
administrator enough information to decide whether to install the
package.
Take in account that package descriptions are very important to administrators
to determine wether a package is (or isn't) useful for them and are
used by package frontends in order to implement keyword-based searchs
(samples include command line tools such as 'apt-cache search X'
or 'grep-dctrl -F Description X' or even fancier interfaces such as
'dpkg-iasearch').
If you need help to provide a proper description for your package you
are advised to digest the README/manpages/HTML files provided by the package
or, as a last resort, request help at the debian-devel mailing list.
If this package is being generated from a single source package and
you already provide a full description in your control file for the
main package, you might want to use it automatically in sub-packages. If this
is the case consider using ${description}, and debian/substvars.
This report has been automatically generated and the main reason is that
the package has an extended description which is only one line long.
Regards
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
PS: For more information please read the Debian Policy or the thread
at debian-devel started by
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01257.html
---
Received: (at 209624-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:38 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:38 2004
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 18.64-5-56.reverse.theplanet.com (pico.surpasshosting.com)
[64.5.56.18]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgfIJ-0001bY-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:27 -0600
Received: from conr-adsl-cheney.txucom.net ([207.70.165.48] helo=calc)
by pico.surpasshosting.com with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.24)
id 1AgfI9-0005zD-Hn; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:17 -0600
Received: from ccheney by calc with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1AgfII-0005at-Tv; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:18:26 -0600
From: Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The package description does not follow Debian policy
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=0kRkyLZR5zsR9u2P
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pico.surpasshosting.com
Processing of kdepim_3.1.5-1_i386.changes
kdepim_3.1.5-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: kdepim_3.1.5-1.dsc kdepim_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz kdepim_3.1.5-1.diff.gz kdepim-dev_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kaddressbook_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kalarm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kandy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb karm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim-kfile-plugins_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim-libs_3.1.5-1_i386.deb knotes_3.1.5-1_i386.deb korganizer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kpilot_3.1.5-1_i386.deb ksync_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim_3.1.5-1_all.deb kdepim-doc_3.1.5-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon
Processing of kdeutils_3.1.5-1_i386.changes
kdeutils_3.1.5-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: kdeutils_3.1.5-1.dsc kdeutils_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz kdeutils_3.1.5-1.diff.gz ark_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kcalc_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kcharselect_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepasswd_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdessh_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdf_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kfloppy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb khexedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kjots_3.1.5-1_i386.deb klaptopdaemon_3.1.5-1_i386.deb ksim_3.1.5-1_i386.deb ktimer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kregexpeditor_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdeutils_3.1.5-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon
Bug#224339: marked as done (kcontrol: crash on selecting SOCKS library.)
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:15:55 +0100 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Fixed in kdelibs 3.1.5 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; 7 Nov 2003 10:40:03 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 07 04:40:03 2003 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from xkis.kis.ru [195.98.32.200] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1AI426-0008Ud-00; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 04:40:02 -0600 Received: from ipjk (dynnn.195.98.62.55.dialup.kis.ru [195.98.62.55]) by xkis.kis.ru (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA7AduR2073533; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:40:00 +0300 (MSK) Received: from jk by ipjk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AI41p-To-00; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:39:45 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R From: Alexander N. Kogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: konqueror: fails to work with Dante SOCKS X-Mailer: reportbug 2.35 Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:39:45 +0300 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Alexander N. Kogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_03 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_03 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Package: konqueror Version: 4:3.1.3-1 Severity: normal Hi! Konqueror fails to autodetect and to work with Dante SOCKS because it doesn't preload /lib/libdl.so.2. When I do $ export LD_PRELOAD=/lib/libdl.so.2 $ konqueror it works fine. -- Alexander Kogan Auto Wave Processes Group Institute of Applied Physics RAS -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux ipjk 2.4.22-jk #1 ðÔÎ óÅÎ 26 23:06:25 MSD 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=ru_RU.KOI8-R, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.KOI8-R Versions of packages konqueror depends on: ii kate 4:3.1.3-1 KDE Advanced Text Editor ii kcontrol 4:3.1.3-1 KDE Control Center ii kdelibs4 4:3.1.4-2 KDE core libraries ii kfind 4:3.1.3-1 KDE File Find Utility ii libart-2.0-2 2.3.16-1 Library of functions for 2D graphi ii libc6 2.3.2-4GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfam0c102 2.6.10-4 client library to control the FAM ii libgcc1 1:3.3.2-1 GCC support library ii libjpeg62 6b-9 The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG ii libkonq4 4:3.1.3-1 Core libraries for KDE's file mana ii libpcre3 4.3-3 Philip Hazel's Perl 5 Compatible R ii libpng12-01.2.5.0-4 PNG library - runtime ii libqt3c102-mt 3:3.2.1-6 Qt GUI Library (Threaded runtime v ii libstdc++51:3.3.2-1 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libxrender1 0.8.2-1X Rendering Extension client libra ii xlibs 4.2.1-12.1 X Window System client libraries ii zlib1g1:1.1.4-16 compression library - runtime -- debconf information: * konqueror/crypto: --- Received: (at 224339-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 16:15:55 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 10:15:55 2004 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from spoetnik.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.46] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1AgngR-0006wQ-00; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:15:55 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spoetnik.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573B4343F0 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:15:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.71]) by spoetnik.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37A0342B1 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:15:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from appel (domi.kotnet.org [10.0.57.168]) by octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19C9AEF47 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:15:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from domi by appel with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AgngR-0001HB-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:15:55 +0100 To: [EMAIL
Re: KDE 3.1.5 Status Update -- 20040113
Chris Cheney wrote: kdelibs --- m68k- failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) mips- failed - ICE #226727 Please try to find a workaround for this ICE (or help find fix it). The GCC developers haven't tracked it down yet, which means it may well not be fixed by sarge release time. (Unless of course it's already fixed, which can be tested by trying a newer gcc-3.3 package). It's also not top priority for GCC since gcc-3.3 is still producing silently wrong code in some situations (which comes first, of course). Possible workarounds include compiling with less optimization. Finding it, since it's a segfault, probably means running gdb on the cc1plus process. :-P
Bug#227802: kmix: tray icon displays absurd volume levels (e.g. 24119703%)
Package: kmix Version: 4:3.1.5-1 Severity: normal Tags: patch Kmix 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 show ridiculous volume levels until the volume is manually adjusted. See KDE bug #64274. This was fixed upstream on 11/24/03 but won't be available until KDE 3.2 It's a very simple fix, so I attached a patch. Any chance of including it soon? Thanks. John Stamp -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux lipsius 2.6.1 #1 Tue Jan 13 10:35:17 PST 2004 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 Versions of packages kmix depends on: ii kdelibs4 4:3.1.5-1 KDE core libraries ii libart-2.0-2 2.3.16-1 Library of functions for 2D graphi ii libasound2 0.9.8-2 Advanced Linux Sound Architecture ii libaudio2 1.6b-1The Network Audio System (NAS). (s ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfontconfig1 2.2.1-13 generic font configuration library ii libfreetype6 2.1.7-1.1 FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib ii libgcc11:3.3.2-4 GCC support library ii libice64.3.0-0pre1v5 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libpng12-0 1.2.5.0-4 PNG library - runtime ii libqt3c102-mt 3:3.2.3-1 Qt GUI Library (Threaded runtime v ii libsm6 4.3.0-0pre1v5 X Window System Session Management ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.2-4 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libx11-6 4.3.0-0pre1v5 X Window System protocol client li ii libxcursor11.0.2-4 X Cursor management library ii libxext6 4.3.0-0pre1v5 X Window System miscellaneous exte ii libxft22.1.2-5 FreeType-based font drawing librar ii libxine1 1-rc3a-2 the xine video/media player librar ii libxmu64.3.0-0pre1v5 X Window System miscellaneous util ii libxrender10.8.3-5 X Rendering Extension client libra ii libxt6 4.3.0-0pre1v5 X Toolkit Intrinsics ii xlibmesa-gl [libgl1] 4.3.0-0pre1v5 Mesa 3D graphics library [XFree86] ii xlibs 4.3.0-0pre1v5 X Window System client libraries m ii zlib1g 1:1.2.1-3 compression library - runtime -- no debconf information kmix-volume.diff.gz Description: Binary data
Re: KDE 3.1.5 Status Update -- 20040113
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:39:12PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Chris Cheney wrote: kdelibs --- m68k - failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) mips - failed - ICE #226727 Please try to find a workaround for this ICE (or help find fix it). The GCC developers haven't tracked it down yet, which means it may well not be fixed by sarge release time. (Unless of course it's already fixed, which can be tested by trying a newer gcc-3.3 package). It's also not top priority for GCC since gcc-3.3 is still producing silently wrong code in some situations (which comes first, of course). Possible workarounds include compiling with less optimization. Finding it, since it's a segfault, probably means running gdb on the cc1plus process. :-P Why aren't the mips porters working on this, it seems to be ICEing on quite a few binaries on mips... How am I supposed to know how to fix this issue, aiui individuals still can't log into various debian boxes (or was that finally fixed). Is the less optimization fix a known fix or just a guess, and should it be -O0 or -O1. I think I will ask AJ to just push it through once m68k is done. Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: tag l10n related bugs [4/7]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags 137658 + l10n Bug#137658: russian debconf template file for htdig package There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 225824 + l10n Bug#225824: Japanese po-debconf template translation (ja.po) Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 207727 + l10n Bug#207727: ifupdown: spanish debconf templates There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 213723 + l10n Bug#213723: [INTL:nl] new po-debconf template translation in Dutch. Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 227285 + l10n Bug#227285: imanx: Japanese po-debconf template translation (ja.po) Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 137663 + l10n Bug#137663: russian debconf template file for interchange-ui package There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 227430 + l10n Bug#227430: ipmask: french debconf templates translation There were no tags set. Warning: Unknown package 'ipmask' Tags added: l10n tags 144263 + l10n Bug#144263: german template file [ircd 2.10.10.pl18-2] There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 174714 + l10n Bug#174714: ircd: Danish template translation Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 227207 + l10n Bug#227207: iso-codes: Faulty Finnish translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 224514 + l10n Bug#224514: jsboard: Some debconf cleanup : rewrite, translation, less abuse Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 201763 + l10n Bug#201763: kwin4: [i18n] german translation of Move should be Zug instead of Verschieben Tags were: upstream Tags added: l10n tags 205005 + l10n Bug#205005: quanta: German translation: Hochladen and Hinaufladen Tags were: upstream Tags added: l10n tags 210943 + l10n Bug#210943: kbugbuster: bad translation of a button in Spanish Tags were: upstream Tags added: l10n tags 141845 + l10n Bug#141845: kdebase: wrong french menu translation Tags were: upstream Tags added: l10n tags 137940 + l10n Bug#137940: kdm: debconf Japanese translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 142540 + l10n Bug#142540: Debconf template - Polish translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 227399 + l10n Bug#227399: kernel-patch-usagi: Japanese po-debconf template translation (ja.po) Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 207266 + l10n Bug#207266: libc6: Norwegian translation confuses free-as-in-freedom and free-as-in-beer. There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 218457 + l10n Bug#218457: libc6: spanish debconf templates update There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 221658 + l10n Bug#221658: russian PO-file translation for libnss-ldap package There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 220803 + l10n Bug#220803: libpam-ldap: [INTL:fr] French debconf templates translation Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 213069 + l10n Bug#213069: libpaper1: Japanese debconf templates There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 138601 + l10n Bug#138601: german template file [linuxlogo 3.9b4-6] There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 216935 + l10n Bug#216935: dutch po-debconf translation Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 223120 + l10n Bug#223120: [INTL:de] german po-debconf translation Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 119751 + l10n Bug#119751: lynx: problem with French translation Tags were: upstream Tags added: l10n tags 193205 + l10n Bug#193205: lynx-ssl: Minor correction for the French translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 179996 + l10n Bug#179996: lyx: Hungarian translation: fele_p_ites menu hotkey collosion w/ paragraph formatting (M-p) There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 227198 + l10n Bug#227198: lyx: [INTL:fr] French debconf templates translation Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 187888 + l10n Bug#187888: lyx-xforms: translation to spanish word Elencar for itemize There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 106177 + l10n Bug#106177: magicfilter: debconf template translation for brazilian portuguese (pt_BR) There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 88812 + l10n Bug#88812: magicfilter: French translation of debconf template There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 90865 + l10n Bug#90865: debconf's template translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 227487 + l10n Bug#227487: mailfilter: Japanese po-debconf template translation (ja.po) Tags were: patch Tags added: l10n tags 227137 + l10n Bug#227137: mailman: Please update Japanese translation There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 227246 + l10n Bug#227246: mailman: Updated french translation of debconf templates There were no tags set. Tags added: l10n tags 225432 + l10n Bug#225432: maint-guide-es: Bad free translation Tags were: experimental Tags added: l10n tags 198726 + l10n Bug#198726: missing translation Tags were: patch upstream Tags added: l10n tags 225716 + l10n Bug#225716: New updated menu-sections French translation Tags were: pending patch Tags added: l10n tags 227038 + l10n Bug#227038: [l10n] Finnish translations Tags
Re: Kbear -- Is it broken?
Hi. I downloded Kbear from: deb ftp://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ sarge main Which versions of kbear and kdelibs4 (precise package version numbers) do you have installed? Thanks - Ben (kbear maintainer).
What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
The past few days, I've been downloading lots of core KDE packages with version 3.1.5. Funny thing is that I haven't seen any announcements on the KDE web site or dot.kde.org or elsewhere, and I can't find a changelog for 3.1.5. My guess is that's it's just a bugfix release, but I'm curious as to exactly what bugs have been fixed. :D pgpieiiXpeRWI.pgp Description: signature
Re: KDE crashes on startup
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:16:00 -0700, Doug Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue 13 Jan 2004 7:51 pm, Jim Higson wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:03:29 -, Jim Higson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I've been having a few problems with getting debian woody working, it must be about 2 weeks now since I first installed it. Thanks to google and guys over at the debian-user list I've gotten X at least starting now (with the vesa drivers, it still won't start with the nvidia ones) The computer still isn't working correctly, when I log in KDE crashes just after it gets to the initalising peripherals stage. I can start sawfish and gnome and ok so I think this is a problem with KDE. I'm not sure what details to post here. When X wasn't working I'd put my XFree86.log online, but I don't know what the KDE equivalent is. This seems like a KDE bug, but I don't think I have enough information to make a bug report. Hardware: Gigabyte GA-7VAX mobo (uses via KT400), GeForce Ti 4200 video card, Hauppauge wintv, AthlonXP, Logitech MX700 usb mouse, SoundBlaster live! soundcard Regards, Forgot to mention - the error I get is: Caught signal 11. Server aborting which i think is to do with memory segmentation. and I've put a few relevent-looking files up here http://users.aber.ac.uk/jqh1/x/ -- Jim Higson Hmmm. I took a look at the log files you put on your web site (which are useful), and it looks like XFree86 itself is crashing. FYI, as far as signal 11, aka segmentation faults... Linux uses a feature found in most modern CPUs called protected memory. Each program (including KDE's programs and XFree86) running in Linux is allocated it's own memory space. The program can do whatever it wants in it's memory space, but is forbidden from stepping outside it's memory space, or segment (I'm oversimplifying, but hear me out.) Sometimes, due to bugs, a program tries to illegally access a memory address outside it's allocated area. The CPU and kernel will catch the the program and terminate it with extreme prejudice, leaving you with a segmentation fault error. This is a Good Thing, because if a program was allowed to address memory outside of it's allocated area, it could scribble all over other programs or the kernel itself, which could crash your entire system. Ok, this confirms my suspisions, thanks. Now, as to why XFree86 is crashing... You've already had problems with the nvidia drivers, so you switched to the vesa drivers. According to the XFree86.0.log file, it crashed soon after you try to load OpenGL related stuff, which won't work very well because the vesa drivers won't give you hardware-accelerated 3-d. Things to try: Comment out or remove the lines 'Load GLcore' and 'Load glx' under Section Module in your XF86Config-4. OpenGL will be dog slow without NVidia's accelerated drivers anyways, so if you won't be using them, get rid of them. Without them, OpenGL programs probably won't work at all. You may also want to uninstall nvidia's glx drivers (the nvidia-glx package) so the system goes back to using the generic glx libraries. Ok, I will try this when I get home and let you know if it helps. Another alternative if you want accelerated 3-D for games and such is to get the nvidia drivers working, which is definitely tricky, but may solve your segfault problems. It requires compiling and installing nvidia's kernel driver (and it looks like you already have nvidia's glx libraries which may be trying to do their thing but can't talk to the nvidia driver). Let us know what happens. If you want to get nvidia's driver working, let me know. I've had to wrestle with them a couple times (though in sid, not woody), so I might be able to help you get them working. That's the idea, I've done a fair bit of programming in OpenGL via java [1], so it's pretty important that I have 3d in debian if it's to take over from windows as my main OS. I've downloaded driver NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-5328-pkg1.run and installed it following the instructions to the letter, having first installed my kernel headers so it can build a kernel interface. [1] see http://users.aber.ac.uk/jqh1/maze.html for example, and yes, it's a university assignment! -- Jim Higson
Re: K3b, cdrecord and user...
Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: Le 13/01/04 a` 14:37 Lars Schimmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) crivait : Hi! I just setup Debian sarge with KDE 3.1 and an IDE/ATAPI burner and k3b. While starting K3b as a user, I get the message: Can't find cdrecord, install package cdrtools for cdrecord. But apt-cache doesn't show ANY cdrtools package, only cdrecord, which is in the system. How do I get K3B to run as a user and burn as a user? 0) apt-get install cdrecord 1) at the setuid question, say yes. 2) add the user to the cdrom group Done. Nothing happend to k3b and cdrecord. K3b still says can't find cdrecord. But it IS there and it is executeable as root. Cya Lars -- - Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institut fr Computergraphik Tel.: +49 531 391-2109E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: K3b, cdrecord and user...
El Mircoles, 14 de Enero de 2004 12:49, Lars Schimmer escribi: But it IS there and it is executeable as root. Have you checked if it's a link to cdrecord.mmap or a shell script? I recall having a problem like that... -- Eduardo Ramrez -- Kynes 2672 WU @ http://seti.frenopatico.net --
Re: K3b, cdrecord and user...
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 14:44, Eduardo Ramirez wrote: El Mircoles, 14 de Enero de 2004 12:49, Lars Schimmer escribi: But it IS there and it is executeable as root. Have you checked if it's a link to cdrecord.mmap or a shell script? I recall having a problem like that... Hey guys, please check if the cdrecord is also READABLE! If not, the SUID bit doesn't matter for users. Please try to start cdrecord as normal user. If there appears a message like permission denied try to change the permissions. Frank -- ## Dept. of Computer Science, Dresden University of Technology, Germany ## ## http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~fm3 ## pgpZY0z9btr7V.pgp Description: signature
Re: K3b, cdrecord and user...SOLVED
Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote: Le 13/01/04 a` 14:37 Lars Schimmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) crivait : Hi! I just setup Debian sarge with KDE 3.1 and an IDE/ATAPI burner and k3b. While starting K3b as a user, I get the message: Can't find cdrecord, install package cdrtools for cdrecord. But apt-cache doesn't show ANY cdrtools package, only cdrecord, which is in the system. How do I get K3B to run as a user and burn as a user? 0) apt-get install cdrecord 1) at the setuid question, say yes. 2) add the user to the cdrom group OK, cdrecord is only a script. You have to exchange cdrecord with cdrecord.mm under kernel 2.4+ Cya Lars -- - Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institut fr Computergraphik Tel.: +49 531 391-2109E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Diappearing symbols on KDE 3.1.4
Hi! Another problem for me: I set up Debian sarge with KDE 3.1.4 and everything works fine. But after a few days using it (and screen-blanking with password), the symbols on the desktop are gone. No symbol for home-dir, no symbol for the cdrom, no symbol for anything else... WHY and how can I get them back without restarting the XServer? Cya Lars -- - Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institut fr Computergraphik Tel.: +49 531 391-2109E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
On Wednesday 14 of January 2004 03:19, Doug Holland wrote: The past few days, I've been downloading lots of core KDE packages with version 3.1.5. You have been downloading KDE 3.1.5 packages -- but from where? And what is your version of Debian? If it is woody, I haven't seen anything like that on download.kde.org. Heck man, try to be more precise when you are asking question (http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)! Have a nice day, Matej -- Matej Cepl, http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488 America is the only country that has gone from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -- Oscar Wilde pgpuC7fImZ7lf.pgp Description: signature
Re: Diappearing symbols on KDE 3.1.4
Try to run kdesktop manually. There also seems to be a bug, that causes kdesktop to crash when icons are dragged over it. Can anybody confirm this? Will it be fixed in 3.1.5? ~sth
Re: Diappearing symbols on KDE 3.1.4
There also seems to be a bug, that causes kdesktop to crash when icons are dragged over it. Can anybody confirm this? Will it be fixed in 3.1.5? It happened several times on my desktop. Generally when I tried to link a application of the K menu to the desktop. -- Slaanesh
Re: What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
Le Mercredi 14 Janvier 2004 09:19, Doug Holland a écrit : The past few days, I've been downloading lots of core KDE packages with version 3.1.5. Funny thing is that I haven't seen any announcements on the KDE web site or dot.kde.org or elsewhere, and I can't find a changelog for 3.1.5. My guess is that's it's just a bugfix release, but I'm curious as to exactly what bugs have been fixed. :D http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-announcem=107409233030447w=2 Security fix. There must be also some progress in internationalization packages. The French translation team made some grammatical corrections for 3.1.5 Cheers, Charles -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kde-france.org
Re: Diappearing symbols on KDE 3.1.4
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 13:25, Lars Schimmer wrote: Hi! Another problem for me: I set up Debian sarge with KDE 3.1.4 and everything works fine. But after a few days using it (and screen-blanking with password), the symbols on the desktop are gone. No symbol for home-dir, no symbol for the cdrom, no symbol for anything else... WHY and how can I get them back without restarting the XServer? Heya :) I'm not sure why this happens (this also goes for the cases that others have also mentioned,) however I do know of a solution. I'm using KDE 3.2beta, however I'm pretty sure this will be in the same place on KDE 3.1.4. 1. You will need to run kdcop (generally by typing Alt-F2 and then typing in kdcop.) This will bring up a program with a list of applications. 2. You will then need to find kdesktop and click on the + in front of it. This will open up a list of options below it. 3. Next click on the + in front of KDesktopIface, once more you will get a list of options below. 4. Almost at the bottom of this new list that opened up you will find (hopefully) void setIconsEnabled(bool enable), you will need to double click on this. 5. After the double click a new window will pop up. This will have an option enable bool and a check box. Make sure the checkbox is empty and then click on ok. 6. Double click on the same option as before, however this time you will want to make sure the checkbox has an x in it. 7. After clicking ok the last time hopefully the icons will have returned. I have just had this problem occur by me and was able to get my icons back with the above. I can of course not guarantee that it will work in the older versions of KDE, however hopefully it will. Good luck and I hope this helps, Justin T Cya Lars -- - Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institut fr Computergraphik Tel.: +49 531 391-2109E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:19:54AM -0700, Doug Holland wrote: Content-Description: signed data The past few days, I've been downloading lots of core KDE packages with version 3.1.5. Funny thing is that I haven't seen any announcements on the KDE web site or dot.kde.org or elsewhere, and I can't find a changelog for 3.1.5. My guess is that's it's just a bugfix release, but I'm curious as to exactly what bugs have been fixed. :D See: http://www.kde.org/ http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-3.1.5.php Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
Have a look at what is in unstable currently...
Re: What's New in KDE 3.1.5?
Matej Cepl writes: On Wednesday 14 of January 2004 03:19, Doug Holland wrote: The past few days, I've been downloading lots of core KDE packages with version 3.1.5. It wasn't announced yet, but here is the announcement now: http://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-3.1.5.php You have been downloading KDE 3.1.5 packages -- but from where? He's using unstable prolly And what is your version of Debian? unstable prolly If it is woody, I haven't seen anything like that on download.kde.org. wait a few more days or switch to debian unstable ;p Heck man, try to be more precise when you are asking question His question was perfectly understandable to me. He was not asking anything specific to any sort of debian package, just the changelog between 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. cheers domi
