Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod

> Can you please clarify what problem you see with these package names? > The results I get for this search are: > > apt search penis | grep --color penis I see no problem whatsoever, that was the point I was making. Sorry that it wasn't more clear. The bug linked in the email I replied to, r

Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 08:32:29AM +0200, Sven Bartscher wrote: Hi Am 24.09.23 um 18:41 schrieb Salvo Tomaselli: Without an ftpteam hat on, but my point of view -- I believe the team would absolutely reject a package only based on its name (see: #914179). Not very consistently though: $ apt

how-can-i-help by default [Re: lpr/lpd]

Hi, On 9/25/23 14:08, Paul Wise wrote: The problem with that approach is that the help needed information changes independently to packages, so the information will get very out of date in between point releases, which is why how-can-i-help does online checks. If desired, it would be easy to ha

Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

Hi all, I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with "Control: tags ### wontfix" as the first line of my message body. The bug was closed but the tags command wasn't processed. Looking at the raw

Bug#1052619: ITP: pydantic-core -- Rust implementation of pydantic core functionality

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Timo Röhling X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 * Package name: pydantic-core Version : 2.9.0 Upstream Author : Samuel Colvin * URL : https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-

Re: Abandonware in testing (Re: lpr/lpd)

On 2023-09-23 08:35 +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > On 22/09/23 09:41, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > I doubt simple rules will really work out, rules like that > > one I had in mind "Packages are removed from testing once they have been > > orphaned/last maintainer-uploaded more than five years ago".

Re: debian/copyright format and SPDX

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 7:15 AM Steve Langasek wrote: > > So can you tell me where in that specification this "flat text file" format > is actually described? The specification is not on the page that includes > this quote. The text does not link to the place in the spec where this > format is d

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On 25/09/2023 12:16, Jonathan Kamens wrote: Hi all, I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with "Control: tags ### wontfix" as the first line of my message body. The bug was closed but the tags co

Re: Abandonware in testing (Re: lpr/lpd)

On 25/09/23 14:29, Wookey wrote: It's actually quite well-maintained, just not by the maintainer: someone else has uploaded the last 3 upstream versions via debian-mentors. I think this example shows the need for a level of maintainership that sits between "fully maintained" and "orphaned". (O

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

So putting a Control: line in the pseudo-header of a message sent to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org doesn't work at all? On 9/25/23 09:06, Peter B wrote: On 25/09/2023 12:16, Jonathan Kamens wrote: Hi all, I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at once by sendin

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:06:44PM +0100, Peter B wrote: > > I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag > > all at once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with > > "Control: tags ### wontfix" as the first line of my message body. The > > bug was closed

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On 25/09/2023 14:25, Jonathan Kamens wrote: So putting a Control: line in the pseudo-header of a message sent to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org doesn't work at all? It should work if the syntax is correct. The + character was missing.

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

According to https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#tag the plus is optional. Once again, my question was, should a valid Control: header on the first line of an email message sent to ###-d...@bug.debian.org work, and if so, is the reason why it didn't work in my case because the MIME part

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:44:19PM +0100, Peter B wrote: > On 25/09/2023 14:25, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > > > > So putting a Control: line in the pseudo-header of a message sent to > > ###-d...@bugs.debian.org doesn't work at all? > > > > It should work if the syntax is correct. The + character

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

...and I just successfully used a Control: header in an email to ###@bugs.debian.org, so the only question remaining in my mind is whether the one that didn't work failed because it was sent to ###-done, or failed because of the base64 encoding. I can't think of any other reasons why the Contro

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:04:17AM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I did find this here after I emailed > the list: > >QUESTION: Can you do all the control-server actions by using fields >in a pseudo header in an email to bugnumber@b.d.o >

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 07:16:56AM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at > once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with "Control: > tags ### wontfix" as the first line of my message body. The bug was closed >

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

Thank you! A canonical answer at last. On 9/25/23 10:53, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 07:16:56AM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with "Cont

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

* Jonathan Kamens [230925 07:17]: > Hi all, > > I recently tried to close a bug, explain why, and set a "wontfix" tag all at > once by sending my explanation to ###-d...@bugs.debian.org with "Control: > tags ### wontfix" as the first line of my message body. The bug was closed > but the tags comm

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

Marvin Renich writes: > I've seen differing opinions about closing "wontfix" bugs, but as a > user, I appreciate when they are left open. Whether it is a simple > wishlist feature request or a crash when the user abuses the software, > if I go to file the same or similar bug at a later time, if

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

Closed bugs are available for direct search for 30 days after they're closed. After that you can still search them by selecting either "Archived" or "Archived and Unarchived" under "Misc Options" on the search page. All that aside, in this particular case I closed the bug because it wasn't a

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:55:16PM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > All that aside, in this particular case I closed the bug because it wasn't > actually a bug, but rather a PEBKAC issue (user complaining that a program > wasn't respecting his locale when he had LC_ALL set to "C" so he was > essenti

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

The documentation you inked to does not specify a tag that can be used specifically to mark something as not actually a bug. That documentation does say the following about the "wontfix" tag (*/emphasis/* added by me): |wontfix| This bug won't be fixed. Possibly because this is a ch

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

* Russ Allbery [230925 12:43]: > Marvin Renich writes: > > > I've seen differing opinions about closing "wontfix" bugs, but as a > > I think it's a trade-off. Which is why I said there are differing opinions. This has come up on this list before. > There are some bugs that seem unlikely to e

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

* Jonathan Kamens [230925 12:56]: > Closed bugs are available for direct search for 30 days after they're > closed. > > After that you can still search them by selecting either "Archived" or > "Archived and Unarchived" under "Misc Options" on the search page. Except that in the general case, thi

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:55:22PM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > The documentation you inked to does not specify a tag that can be used > specifically to mark something as not actually a bug. Yes, we just close those. The Debian BTS is not as rich as e.g. a typical bugzilla installation in this r

Re: Control header sent with done email didn't do what I expected, should it have?

* Andrey Rakhmatullin [230925 15:13]: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:55:22PM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > > The documentation you inked to does not specify a tag that can be used > > specifically to mark something as not actually a bug. > Yes, we just close those. The Debian BTS is not as rich as

Bug#1052673: ITP: golang-github-bazelbuild-bazelisk -- A user-friendly launcher for Bazel.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arthur Diniz * Package name: golang-github-bazelbuild-bazelisk Version : 1.18.0-1 Upstream Author : Bazel * URL : https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: Go Description : A

Re: lintian.debian.org off ?

> > > > Host lintian.debian.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > > > > > > is this expected ? > > > > > > Yes, it is replaced by the UDD interface: > > > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Services/lintian.debian.org The page above links to two bug reports but I can't find any actual information about *why

Re: lintian.debian.org off ?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:28:06PM -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > > > > Host lintian.debian.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > > > > > > > > is this expected ? > > > > > > > > Yes, it is replaced by the UDD interface: > > > > > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Services/lintian.debian.org > > The pag