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 22
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
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/livecd/packagelist
CVS commit by eva: answered some questions, that kurt added to the file M +12 -2 might_be_removed 1.4 --- kdenonbeta/kdedebian/livecd/packagelist/might_be_removed #1.3:1.4 @@ -4,4 +4,6 @@ dirmngr dhcp # WHY? (is there a replacement?) + this is the server, no? + there is a dhcp-client package for client functionality (eva) gphoto2 gv # NO! (works, even if kpdf/kghostview are buggy! (kurt) @@ -10,7 +12,11 @@ john kappfinder # Why? (is there a replacement?) -karbon + a) kappfinder only finds the apps it knows about (not that many) + b) these apps can also be included into the menu in different ways + c) it's part of 3.2, but it hasn't been ported to use the new +menu system +karbon (if there is space, don't remove) kaudiocreator -kugar +kugar (if there is space, don't remove) nano nvi ?? @@ -18,4 +24,8 @@ python2.2-sip-... ?? samba # NO! (long-term, we use it to demo KDEPrint/CUPS/Samba printer driver download to Win clients) + is this a server demo or a client demo. I have nothing against this, + but first all kde packages need to be included (when I started this + list even kdevelop and koffice haven't been installed, but I think + now they are) (eva) vimpart xmms
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
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#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:
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kapture
CVS commit by mornfall: - oops, mixed up files a bit - also, move one of the TODO items to a later version Akapture/kaptureview.h 1.1 [no copyright] M +5 -5 TODO 1.6 Rkapture/kaptureiface.h 1.1 --- kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kapture/TODO #1.5:1.6 @@ -62,9 +62,4 @@ - translation from aptitude: replay the actions taken (investigate!) - PINNING SUPPORT [morn, done: 0%] - Make it possible to pin individual packages to different versions, provide - simple internal (libcapture) interface for defining/manipulating/cancelling - pins. Default values shouldn't get written to /etc/apt/preferences. - ::: 0.3 (prealfa) ::: @@ -94,4 +89,9 @@ DEBTAGS GROUPERS/FILTERS [done: 0%] + PINNING SUPPORT [morn, done: 0%] + Make it possible to pin individual packages to different versions, provide + simple internal (libcapture) interface for defining/manipulating/cancelling + pins. Default values shouldn't get written to /etc/apt/preferences. + ::: 0.5 (prealfa) :::
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kapture
CVS commit by mornfall: - update TODO (domi: please read, maybe adjust) - fix qextmdi.diff (you'll need to reapply) - create initial kmdi interface - implemented PkgGrouperChain: this encapsulates a chain of PkgGrouperFactory's, or of PkgGrouperChain's. This allows for building trees of PkgGrouperFactory's, where the PkgGrouperChain is responsible for building a linear path of the groupers; - implemented PkgNameFilter and PkgDescrFilter groupers - move default PkgGrouperFactory initialization from PkgManager to a static method of PkgGrouperFactory - make relevant classes use PkgGrouperChain - implement package viewing history (optional) in KaptureManager, make part/ use this interface (also kapture/ uses same interface, but with history control disabled) - implement grouper settings management in KaptureManager - adapt operationmenu for KaptureManager - implement delayed package changing in PkgDetails (using custom PkgChanger class), so we don't empty the lists in QListView::clicked (...) handler (which is illegal according to Qt docu) - make PkgList inherit PkgTree instead of encapsulating it in member variable (simplifies things a bit) - implement simple filter support in PkgTreeView - make PkgView base class more useful by implementing common behaviour of (hopefully) all PkgViews - adapt part/PartView to KaptureManager, nuke its own history impl - implement capture::PkgCache, derived class of pkgDepCache; this is still incomplete, but seems to work in simpler cases for now; it implements a priority driven engine for selecting packages for installation: user assigns priority (or so does the frontend on users behalf) of his selection of wanted package status; see the code comments and TODO for details; i will document this more CCMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Akapture/kapture_client.cpp 1.1 [no copyright] Akapture/kaptureiface.h 1.1 [no copyright] Akapture/kapturepref.cpp 1.1 [no copyright] Akapture/kapturepref.h 1.1 [no copyright] Akapture/kaptureui.rc 1.1 Akapture/kaptureview.cpp 1.1 [no copyright] Alibcapture/pkgcache-test.cpp 1.1 [no copyright] Alibcapture/pkgcache.cpp 1.1 [LGPL (v2+)] Alibcapture/pkgcache.h 1.1 [LGPL (v2+)] Alibkapture/acqprogress.h 1.2 [no copyright] Apart/kapture.cpp 1.1 [UNKNOWN] Apart/kapture.h 1.1 [no copyright] Apart/main.cpp 1.1 [no copyright] M +1 -1 README 1.4 M +115 -43 TODO 1.5 M +15 -5 qextmdi.diff 1.3 M +31 -23kapture/Makefile.am 1.8 M +225 -119 kapture/kapture.cpp 1.4 M +60 -46kapture/kapture.desktop 1.5 M +47 -14kapture/kapture.h 1.3 M +16 -13kapture/main.cpp 1.3 M +7 -2 libcapture/Makefile.am 1.2 M +1 -1 libcapture/pkgfeeder.h 1.2 M +443 -195 libcapture/pkggrouper.cpp 1.2 M +120 -36 libcapture/pkggrouper.h 1.2 M +1 -10 libcapture/pkgmanager.cpp 1.2 M +4 -4 libcapture/pkgmanager.h 1.2 M +1 -1 libcapture/pkgsubtree.cpp 1.2 M +2 -0 libcapture/pkgsubtree.h 1.2 M +16 -7 libcapture/pkgtree.cpp 1.2 M +7 -3 libcapture/pkgtree.h 1.2 M +1 -0 libcapture/pkgtreenode.cpp 1.2 M +1 -1 libcapture/stl_util.cpp 1.2 M +1 -1 libkapture/Makefile.am 1.3 M +139 -5libkapture/kapturemanager.cpp 1.2 M +24 -0 libkapture/kapturemanager.h 1.2 M +7 -8 libkapture/operationmenu.cpp 1.2 M +3 -3 libkapture/operationmenu.h 1.2 M +2 -19 libkapture/operationmenuui.ui 1.2 M +68 -39libkapture/pkgdetails.cpp 1.2 M +23 -3 libkapture/pkgdetails.h 1.2 M +4 -18 libkapture/pkgdetailscommon.cpp 1.2 M +1 -0 libkapture/pkgdetailscommon.h 1.2 M +20 -22libkapture/pkglist.cpp 1.2 M +9 -8 libkapture/pkglist.h 1.2 M +66 -18libkapture/pkglistview.cpp 1.2 M +15 -3 libkapture/pkglistview.h 1.2 M +5 -5 libkapture/pkglistviewui.ui 1.2 M +54 -1 libkapture/pkgview.cpp 1.2 M +26 -4 libkapture/pkgview.h 1.2 M +19 -0 part/Makefile.am 1.3 M +36 -22part/partview.cpp 1.2 M +7 -7 part/partview.h 1.2 M +0 -3 part/partviewui.ui 1.2
kdeutils_3.1.5-1_i386.changes is NEW
ark_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/ark_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kcalc_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kcalc_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kcharselect_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kcharselect_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepasswd_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdepasswd_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdessh_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdessh_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdeutils_3.1.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdeutils_3.1.5-1.diff.gz kdeutils_3.1.5-1.dsc to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdeutils_3.1.5-1.dsc kdeutils_3.1.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdeutils_3.1.5-1_all.deb kdeutils_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdeutils_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz kdf_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kdf_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kfloppy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kfloppy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb khexedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/khexedit_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kjots_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/kjots_3.1.5-1_i386.deb klaptopdaemon_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/klaptopdaemon_3.1.5-1_i386.deb (new) kregexpeditor_3.1.5-1_i386.deb optional kde graphical regular expression editor plugin KDE is a powerful Open Source graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations. It combines ease of use, contemporary functionality, and outstanding graphical design with the technological superiority of the Unix operating system. . KDE graphical regular expression editor plugin. . This package is part of the official KDE utils module. ksim_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/ksim_3.1.5-1_i386.deb ktimer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdeutils/ktimer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb Changes: kdeutils (4:3.1.5-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. * Added libtool arm patch. * libkregexpeditor renamed to kregexpeditor. (Closes: #210330) Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 210330 Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of the override file. It is ok otherwise, so please be patient. New packages are usually added to the override file about once a week. You may have gotten the distribution wrong. You'll get warnings above if files already exist in other distributions.
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#227677: kate: change to Recommends: kregexpeditor
Package: kate Version: 4:3.1.5-1 Severity: important Don't forget to change the Recommends: libkregexpeditor to kregexpeditor. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux calc 2.6.0-mm1 #1 SMP Thu Dec 25 17:43:51 CST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 Versions of packages kate 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 libaudio2 1.6b-1The Network Audio System (NAS). (s ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfam0c1022.6.10-6 client library to control the FAM ii libfontconfig1 2.2.1-13 generic font configuration library ii libfreetype6 2.1.7-1.1 FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib ii libgcc11:3.3.3-0pre2 GCC support 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 libstdc++5 1:3.3.3-0pre2 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 ii libxcursor11.0.2-4 X Cursor management library ii libxft22.1.2-5 FreeType-based font drawing librar ii libxrender10.8.3-5 X Rendering Extension client libra 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
kdepim_3.1.5-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: kaddressbook_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kaddressbook_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kalarm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kalarm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kandy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kandy_3.1.5-1_i386.deb karm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/karm_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim-dev_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim-dev_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim-doc_3.1.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim-doc_3.1.5-1_all.deb kdepim-kfile-plugins_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim-kfile-plugins_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim-libs_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim-libs_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kdepim_3.1.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim_3.1.5-1.diff.gz kdepim_3.1.5-1.dsc to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim_3.1.5-1.dsc kdepim_3.1.5-1_all.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim_3.1.5-1_all.deb kdepim_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/k/kdepim/kdepim_3.1.5.orig.tar.gz knotes_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/knotes_3.1.5-1_i386.deb korganizer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/korganizer_3.1.5-1_i386.deb kpilot_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/kpilot_3.1.5-1_i386.deb ksync_3.1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/k/kdepim/ksync_3.1.5-1_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 218665 Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
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
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives
CVS commit by juanjux: TODO M +2 -2 TODO 1.4 --- kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives/TODO #1.3:1.4 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -* KDE Support (KUniqueApp, Exit confirm dialog, etc) +* KDE Support (KUniqueApp, Exit confirm dialog, .desktop file, etc) * Buttons with icons, where configured -* About, Help and tooltips (the tooltips showing the package the file belongs to?) +* About, Help, whatsthis and tooltips (the tooltips showing the package the file belongs to?) * Change the ugly yellow square for the KDE gear icon * i18n
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives
CVS commit by juanjux: More TODO modification M +1 -1 TODO 1.3 --- kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives/TODO #1.2:1.3 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ * KDE Support (KUniqueApp, Exit confirm dialog, etc) * Buttons with icons, where configured -* About, Help and tooltips +* About, Help and tooltips (the tooltips showing the package the file belongs to?) * Change the ugly yellow square for the KDE gear icon * i18n
kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives
CVS commit by juanjux: Changed the TODO (the sys.exit problem is already fixed) M +0 -1 TODO 1.2 --- kdenonbeta/kdedebian/kalternatives/TODO #1.1.1.1:1.2 @@ -1,3 +1,2 @@ -* sys.exit(0) doesn't seems to work here, change it * KDE Support (KUniqueApp, Exit confirm dialog, etc) * Buttons with icons, where configured
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.surp
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.surp
Bug#209788: 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 21:12:58 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:12:52 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 19wozD-000774-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:21:15 -0500
Received: (qmail 10026 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:21:14 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:21:14 +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: noatun
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 209788-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.surpasshos
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.surpasshostin
Bug#210186: 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; 10 Sep 2003 00:09:07 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 19:09:05 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 19woss-0006EU-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:42 -0500
Received: (qmail 3994 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:41 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:41 +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: kdemultimedia-kfile-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 210186-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:28 +
>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 Hostn
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.surpasshostin
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.surpasshostin
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.surpasshosti
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#209654: 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 20:29:00 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 15:14:41 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 19wosq-0006EA-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:40 -0500
Received: (qmail 3983 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:40 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:40 +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-dev
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 209654-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.
Bug#209444: 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 20:11:07 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 15:10:17 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 19wooa-00058O-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:10:16 -0500
Received: (qmail 32679 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:10:15 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:10:15 +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_30,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: artsbuilder
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 209444-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 07:18:28 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 14 01:18:27 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.surpa
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
Bug#209768: 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 21:09:48 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:09:46 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 19wotT-0006Mp-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:19 -0500
Received: (qmail 4576 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:18 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:18 +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: kmix
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 209768-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.surpasshostin
Bug#209828: 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 21:27:33 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 16:27:07 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 19wotv-0006Pq-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:47 -0500
Received: (qmail 4997 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:15:46 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:15:46 +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-xine
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 209828-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.surp
Bug#209553: 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 20:17:16 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 09 15:14:20 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 19wosV-00069z-00; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:14:19 -0500
Received: (qmail 3679 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Sep 2003 20:14:18 -
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:14:18 +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]
Package: kaboodle
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 209553-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
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - bugs.debian.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - cheney.cx
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org
KDE 3.1.5 Status Update - 20040113
It appears m68k will be holding up KDE as usual. It still has not built qt-x11-free even though it was uploaded on Jan 6. Which means it can't build the rest of KDE until it does. Thanks, Chris arts m68k- failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) kdeaddons - not uploaded yet kdeadmin m68k- failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) s390- no attempt kdeartwork -- not uploaded yet kdebase --- m68k- no attempt mips- no attempt mipsel - no attempt s390- no attempt kdebindings --- not packaged yet kdeedu -- not uploaded yet kdegames not uploaded yet kdegraphics --- arm - failed - needs retry with g++ 3.3.3-0pre2 m68k- failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) mips- no attempt mipsel - failed - needs retry with g++ 3.3.3-0pre2 powerpc - failed - libglut3-dev #226738 s390- no attempt sparc - failed - needs retry with g++ 3.3.3-0pre2 kde-i18n not uploaded yet kdelibs --- m68k- failed - needs retry (waiting on qt-x11-free) mips- failed - ICE #226727 kdemultimedia - arm - no attempt m68k- no attempt mips- no attempt mipsel - no attempt s390- no attempt sparc - no attempt kdenetwork * -- not uploaded yet kdepim * -- not uploaded yet kdesdk -- not uploaded yet kdetoys --- not uploaded yet kdeutils * not uploaded yet qt-x11-free --- m68k- no attempt quanta -- not uploaded yet signature.asc Description: Digital signature
