Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:10:54 GMT
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line f-prot-installer has been removed from Debian, closing #500974
has caused the Debian Bug report #500974,
regarding f-prot-installer doesn't install
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50:25AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 07:59:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:23:13AM +0100, Jiri Palecek wrote:
I believe you have read the reason why this bug was closed. If you
disagree,
please reply
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50:25AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 07:59:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:23:13AM +0100, Jiri Palecek wrote:
I believe you have read
Договopы в стpoительстве (прaктическиe pекoмендации)
Oднoднeвный сeминap / 8 дeкабря 2008 г. / Мoсква
Прoграмма ceминaра
Догoвоpы в стpoитeльстве: oбщие пoлoжения
∙ Oбщaя хаpaктеристикa договopов, сопpовождaющих cтроитeльную дeятельноcть.
∙ Oбзоp дoговopoв пoдрядного типа и прaктической cфeры
Dear release team,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:31:31PM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:50:25AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
Indeed, is there an ETA for this bug? At least for the unstable (i.e.
Package: xmcd
Version: 2.6-21
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertags: origin-ubuntu jaunty ubuntu-patch
Hi,
open(2) states that a mode must be specified when the O_CREAT flag
is specified, there are a few cases where you package does not do
that.
Attached is a patch to
Beдeниe каccовых опеpаций. Прaвилa, нарyшения, кoнтроль.
Oднодневный семинар / 12 дeкaбpя 2008 г
Пpoгpамма:
1. Общие пpaвилa ведения каccовых oпeраций в РФ. Нopмативная бaза.
2. Oрганизaция нaличныx pасчeтов на прeдпpиятии.
3. Оформлeние кaсcoвых докyментoв.
4. Дeнeжнaя нaличнocть в кассе
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
icemc |0.2.4-3 | source, alpha, amd64, arm, armel, hurd-i386, i386,
ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
icemc | 0.2.4-3+b1 | hppa
Note that the package(s) have
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
tapiir | 0.7.1-9.1 | source, alpha, amd64, arm, armel, hppa, i386, ia64,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database
Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:34:26 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line qa.debian.org bug fixed in revision 2052
has caused the Debian Bug report #506655,
regarding Strange things on QA page
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
and on http://packages.debian.org/source/stable/mysql-dfsg-5.0
There it is rightly etch8, but the link to the changelog is dead:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35
tags 501814 confirmed
Bug#501814: qa.debian.org: igloo not working after move of people.debian.org
There were no tags set.
Tags added: confirmed
End of message, stopping processing
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 01:02:48PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
I see two strange things on this page:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mysql-dfsg-5.0.html
Thanks for this bug report!
1. it lists 5.0.32-7etch6
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/packagename.html
would contain a link to
http://qa.debian.org/madison.php?package=packagename
Thanks in advance,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Your message dated Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:01:48 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line qa.debian.org bug fixed in revision 2057
has caused the Debian Bug report #507255,
regarding PTS: a link to qa.debian.org/madison.php would be nice
to be marked as done.
This means that you
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46:29PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
To be picky, the link behind 5.0.32-7etch6 actually leads to a page
describing -etch8. While 5.0.32-7etch8 has no link. That seems
illogical.
That's caused by the fact that packages.d.o maintains no
(user-visible) concept of a
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address listed
in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
regards,
Holger
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 507288 qa.debian.org
Bug#507288: mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should also be send to Uploaders:
Warning: Unknown package 'package.qa.debian.org'
Bug reassigned from package `package.qa.debian.org' to `qa.debian.org'.
--
Stopping processing
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 22:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
This does the wrong thing if the maintainer is a mailing list and
Uploaders are the people who do the uploads, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
I generally want
to get such mail only once, via the mailing list.
I prefer duplicate
* Holger Levsen [Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:27:19 +0100]:
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
to the addresses in
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:20, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the maintainer
is a mailing list.
not always.
regards,
Holger
pgpznir7eLIuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:20:17 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be
send
to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
Why? Uploaders are
* Holger Levsen [Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:34:03 +0100]:
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:20, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the maintainer
is a mailing list.
not always.
Then that uploader does not want to receive mail, period. Unless you go
and
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (30/11/2008):
Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the
maintainer is a mailing list.
not always.
dpkg-reconfigure $user, then. Not a PTS bug, at least seen from here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:45, Adeodato Simó wrote:
(One could say that they should receive the mail nevertheless because
they've put their name in the control file. That's a valid point of
view, but that's not the status quo, and it's debatable whether it
should be that way, because
gregor herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My personal approach for getting rid of the already existing multiple
instances of the same mail is a simple procmail recipe [0]; and since
the problem of duplicate mails already exists anyway (and needs to be
handled anyway) I second Holger's
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:32:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
My personal approach for getting rid of the already existing multiple
instances of the same mail is a simple procmail recipe [0]; and since
the problem of duplicate mails already exists anyway (and needs to be
handled anyway) I
27 matches
Mail list logo
