Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:23:53PM +0200, Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: > > Debian Bug Tracking System said: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> reopen 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> tags 109629 upstream > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> merge 117116 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? Not through the bot, not anymore. You can just file it again... -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: New key procedure
On Friday, October 26, 2001 05:04:36 +0200 Alexander List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 25 Oct 2001, James Troup wrote: Anybody can update existing keys but new keys will be ignored. Alexander's key is new. OK, as I want to switch from PGP to GPG, I did as told (and mentioned in the Developers's reference) and read [snip] Tried that, but gpg doesn't accept the passphrase of my old PGP secret key :-(. I'd be happy about new proposals to fix this, as I want to avoid using the (non-free) PGP5 to solve the problem ;-) How about if you use PGP5 just for a second... I recently did this. Using PGP, change the passphrase on the private key to nothing, so it's unencrypted. Then, also using PGP, export the key (I used the ascii armor format). Then use gpg to import it and give it a passphrase again. Then (of course) delete the exported, non-passphrase protected key. Then you can delete pgp forever. -David pgpPMZgrvU3bp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:23:53PM +0200, Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: > > Debian Bug Tracking System said: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> reopen 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> tags 109629 upstream > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> merge 117116 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? You can. At least I can: http://bugs.debian.org/109629 is reachable. Maybe you've hit a bug somewhere. -- _ _ _| _ _ | _ . _ | _ Who controls the past, controls the future. (_(_|| |(_)_) |(_|\/|(_)|(_| Who controls the present, controls the past. http://laviola.org icq #981913 -- George Orwell, "1984" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: > > Debian Bug Tracking System said: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> reopen 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> tags 109629 upstream > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> merge 117116 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? After a bug is archived, it is available for search, but its history is "frozen", so no commands to change its status are accepted. Somebody suggested once a "resurrect" command for this, but not everybody likes the idea of being able to resurrect a bug when it's already dead. If bug #109629 (archived) is the same as bug #117116 (alive) just tell the submitter of #109629 that you are working on it, if you like.
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:23:53PM +0200, Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: > > Debian Bug Tracking System said: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> reopen 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> tags 109629 upstream > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> merge 117116 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? > > Thank you for any ideas. Send a note to 117116 referring to the old bug page if it's the same bug. If it's different and not yet fixed, then resubmit it. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg NEW: Visit http://www.helpthehungry.org/ to do just that ALSO http://www.thehungersite.com/ is back! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
First, thanks for your quick reply :-) Santiago Vila dijo: > After a bug is archived, it is available for search, but its history > is "frozen", so no commands to change its status are accepted. Ack. > Somebody suggested once a "resurrect" command for this, but not everybody > likes the idea of being able to resurrect a bug when it's already dead. I wouldn't understand why. Bugs mean nothing (as to how good or bad person you are, I mean), bugs are bugs and the BTS is there to work with them. If an old bug keeps coming back it means that I didn't fix it right the first time. Just that. :-) > If bug #109629 (archived) is the same as bug #117116 (alive) just tell the > submitter of #109629 that you are working on it, if you like. Already fixed it, but I don't like the hack. It is a problem I have with gettext, BTW ;-) Upstream is trying to be helpful, but access to machines other than i386 is sadly very limited to both of us. Google won't help either. I'm stuck. - RROTD - Random Rant of The Day - -- .''`. I don't want people to love me. It makes for obligations. : :' :- Jean Anouilh - `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (Kernel 2.4.9) on Reiserfs `-www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com Listening to John Petrucci & Dream Theater - Purple Rain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Yet another person looking for advocate
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 10:28:45AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got a package of the Xfm filemanager. Is this the same as the one already in unstable? Package: xfm Priority: optional Section: utils Installed-Size: 2160 Maintainer: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: i386 Version: 1.4.3-2 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.3-7), xaw3dg (>= 1.5-6), xlibs (>> 4.1.0) Filename: pool/main/x/xfm/xfm_1.4.3-2_i386.deb Size: 232404 MD5sum: 1dcd9a551f41930aed5e742eae988290 Description: X file and application manager Xfm is an file and application manager program for the X Window System, based on the Xaw3d widget set. It provides virtually all of the features that you would expect in a file manager; move around your directory tree in multiple windows, move, copy or delete files, and launch programs with simple mouse operations. Directory displays are updated automatically in regular intervals when the contents of the directory change. The integrated application manager provides a kind of "shelf" onto which you can place your favorite applications, as well as the files and directories you are currently working with. It also allows you to access different groups of applications and files. User-definable file types let you specify a command to be executed when double-clicking on a file or dropping other files onto it. Last not least, xfm can automatically mount and unmount special devices like floppies as you open and close the corresponding directories (mount points). -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:23:53PM +0200, Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: [...] > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? Unfortunately not, although the BTS administrators seem to consider this a feature request rather than a bug report. See #103803. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python scripts
Hi! I am planning to package a Python script that will aid another package I already have in Debian. Since I don't really know much about Python I wonder what packages I need to depend on. Is it enough to depend on python-base? The script starts with these lines: import sys import nntplib import getopt are those libraries part of python-base, or do I need to get them elsewhere? -- \\// peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law: http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:23:53PM +0200, Amaya wrote: > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one. > This is the answer I get from the BTS: > > Debian Bug Tracking System said: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> reopen 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> tags 109629 upstream > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > > >> merge 117116 109629 > > Bug number 109629 not found. > > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore? Not through the bot, not anymore. You can just file it again... -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New key procedure
On Friday, October 26, 2001 05:04:36 +0200 Alexander List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25 Oct 2001, James Troup wrote: > >> Anybody can update existing keys but new keys will be ignored. >> Alexander's key is new. > > OK, as I want to switch from PGP to GPG, I did as told (and mentioned in > the Developers's reference) and read > [snip] > Tried that, but gpg doesn't accept the passphrase of my old PGP secret > key :-(. > > I'd be happy about new proposals to fix this, as I want to avoid using the > (non-free) PGP5 to solve the problem ;-) How about if you use PGP5 just for a second... I recently did this. Using PGP, change the passphrase on the private key to nothing, so it's unencrypted. Then, also using PGP, export the key (I used the ascii armor format). Then use gpg to import it and give it a passphrase again. Then (of course) delete the exported, non-passphrase protected key. Then you can delete pgp forever. -David PGP signature
