Re: Bug#285234: ITP: unlzx -- unarchiver for *.lzx archives
Op za, 11-12-2004 te 16:37 -0600, schreef Graham Wilson: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name: unlzx > > Version : x.y.z > > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx > > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) > > Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archives > > How can so many people fail to fill in all of the fields in reportbug's > ITP template? Is there some way to make it more clear, or are people > just lazy? Leave the fields empty, rather than filled in with foo-like data? -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Re: Bug#285234: ITP: unlzx -- unarchiver for *.lzx archives
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:37:01PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > > > * Package name: unlzx > > Version : x.y.z > > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx > > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) > > Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archives > > How can so many people fail to fill in all of the fields in reportbug's > ITP template? Is there some way to make it more clear, or are people > just lazy? Maybe patching reportbug to complain if an ITP doesn't have some of its fields changed from the defaults would be a good idea? Steve --
Re: Bug#285234: ITP: unlzx -- unarchiver for *.lzx archives
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: unlzx > Version : x.y.z > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) > Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archives How can so many people fail to fill in all of the fields in reportbug's ITP template? Is there some way to make it more clear, or are people just lazy? -- gram
Bug#285234: ITP: unlzx -- unarchiver for *.lzx archives
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: unlzx Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archives unlzx is (surprise!) LZX archive unpacking utility released under GNU license LZX archiver was most popular on Amiga platform some time ago and the archiver itself was formerly commercial and then released free of charge (but still closed-source). -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.9 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL (charmap=ISO-8859-2)
