Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > On 05/05/18 17:34, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. > > Before doing the MBF, can you send an email with all the people in Uploaders

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

Dominic Hargreaves wrote... > Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important > to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open. Yeah, unfortunately other things have been blocking my spare spare time so this took *much* longer than wished. But here we go

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On 05/05/18 17:34, Christoph Biedl wrote: > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. Before doing the MBF, can you send an email with all the people in Uploaders in Bcc? It may trigger some package updates

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

Hi, On Wed, 09 May 2018, Mathieu Parent (Debian) wrote: > I will probably request the (re-)creation of those two mailing lists > unless the team+s...@tracker.debian.org is ready to use. Raphael, what > is the status of this? Where is the doc? I just implemented it. There is no doc yet. But

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

2018-05-05 17:34 GMT+02:00 Christoph Biedl : > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. Hi, > To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on > how to

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 02:31:05PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > Since the number of bugs is pretty large, I think it would be best to > > > file these in batches. > > why? I cannot see the benefit of this, but I can see the downsides. IME > > it's never^wonly very rarely useful to delay

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:47:52AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important > > to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open. > > indeed!

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

Hi, On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Thanks for doing this detailed work - which is very timely and important > to ensure that communication paths within Debian remain open. indeed! Christoph, many thanks for your work on this! > > Affected packages below,

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:34:10PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. > > To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on > how to resolve this I

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On Sat, 05 May 2018 17:34:10 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. > > To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on > how to resolve this I intend

[1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. To create awareness about that issue, also to provide suggestions on how to resolve this I intend to do a MBF using the following message: