Control: tags -1 + pending
On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 18:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 02:36 +0100, Olly Betts wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack?
I'm open to guidance as
Control: tags 712622 + confirmed - moreinfo
Control: tags 712623 + confirmed - moreinfo
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 02:36 +0100, Olly Betts wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack?
I'm open to guidance as to
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
What version were you proposing to use for the re-repack?
I'm open to guidance as to what's best.
The repacked upstream tarball would be the same as testing/unstable has,
so perhaps 0.4.2.dfsg.2-1~deb7+1 (and 0.4.2.dfsg.2-1~deb6+1
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: tags -1 + wheezy moreinfo
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 11:23 +1200, Olly Betts wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: serious
Nope. It's an RC bug in wv2, the request to update that package is
normal at most.
README.Debian says that
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: serious
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
README.Debian says that src/generator/generator_wword{6,8}.htm have been
removed from the repacked wv2_0.4.2.dfsg.1.orig.tar.bz2, but they are
still present.
These two files are based on
5 matches
Mail list logo