On Tuesday 26 September 2006 15:39, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 15:20 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Monday 25 September 2006 16:19, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > > > clone 12345 -1
> > > > reassign -1 apt-file
> > > > retitle -1 apt-file: known to break packagesearch ...
> > >
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 15:20 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 16:19, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > > clone 12345 -1
> > > reassign -1 apt-file
> > > retitle -1 apt-file: known to break packagesearch ...
> > > thanks
> >
> > However, the bugs live seperated from each other aft
On Monday 25 September 2006 16:19, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello
>
> > > Options I have thought about, but found not to be optimal:
> > > * File a bug report against apt-file, and block the bug against
> > > packagesearch by the new one - close the bug against
> > > packagesa
At 1159102812 past the epoch, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> I have a bug which is not a bug in my package
> (packagesearch). However, reassigning it to the package
> that causes that bug (apt-file), would leave it no longer
> visible for my package, and thus probably result in the
> bug to be posted aga
Hello
> > Options I have thought about, but found not to be optimal:
> > * File a bug report against apt-file, and block the bug against
> > packagesearch by the new one - close the bug against
> > packagesaerch as soon as the bug in apt-file is closed. This
> > optio
Hello
> > Is there a way to leave the bug visible for my package, but reassign it
> > to apt-file?
>
> Reassign it to "packagesearch,apt-file" ?
Is this an undocumented feature? From the documentation of the BTS:
reassign bugnumber package [ version ]
Records that bug #
On Sunday 24 September 2006 14:00, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a bug which is not a bug in my package (packagesearch). However,
> reassigning it to the package that causes that bug (apt-file), would
> leave it no longer visible for my package, and thus probably result in
> the bug to
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:00:12 +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a bug which is not a bug in my package (packagesearch). However,
> reassigning it to the package that causes that bug (apt-file), would
> leave it no longer visible for my package, and thus probably result in
> the bug
Hello,
I have a bug which is not a bug in my package (packagesearch). However,
reassigning it to the package that causes that bug (apt-file), would
leave it no longer visible for my package, and thus probably result in
the bug to be posted again.
Is there a way to leave the bug visible for my pack
also sprach Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1547 +0200]:
> I would assume it is either the www.debian.org pesudo-package or the
> bugs.debian.org pesudo-package.
It's the latter.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL P
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools
>
> Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS
> documentation on the web?
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> This should be better documented indeed, but most if not all tools
Time to file a bug report. What is the package responsible for the BTS
documentation on the web?
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
the
also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1443 +0200]:
> I usually get two copies: One to the From of my mail (usually
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and one to the maintainer address of the package
> (often debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org). The latter should
> not be sent if the bug had
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]:
>> I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in
>> which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the
>> new maintainer.
>
> They are sent to both, you,
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>> > reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
>> > thanks
>>
>> What's this actually supposed to do?
[...]
>> cl
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:32:06PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Nevertheless the correct command probably is
>
> reassign bugnumber package1,package2
>
> Or is there another undocumented feature that the control bot can guess
> the correct bug number from the other recipients of the mail?
O
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:07:02PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
> > > thanks
> >
> > What's this actually su
also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1413 +0200]:
> I usually find that it is reversed, and that all the mails in
> which I reassign a bug to an other package gets to _me_, not the
> new maintainer.
They are sent to both, you, and the other maintainer.
--
Please do not send c
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - No need to cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], since typically the mail to
> the bug number will be processed after control@ stuff gets processed
> (and so, the message will already go to the correct maintainers). And
> even if it is not so (the order o
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
> > thanks
>
> What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about
> this syntax in the BTS documenta
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> reassign libgtk2.0-0, sawfish
> thanks
What's this actually supposed to do? I can't find any information about
this syntax in the BTS documentation. Do you mean something like (or is
this an undocumented feature):
clone
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:33:22AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:54:36PM +0100, Arjan Oosting wrote:
> > I am thinking about reassigning the bug to libgtk2.0-0. Are there any
> > guidelines about how to do this? Should I include more info by sending
> > an email to [EMA
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:54:36PM +0100, Arjan Oosting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have packaged gaim-extendedprefs and yesterday I received a bugreport
> [1]. After looking at the code in the package, I believe the bug is not
> in gaim-extendedprefs but rather an interaction bug between gtk+2.0 and
> saw
Hi,
I have packaged gaim-extendedprefs and yesterday I received a bugreport
[1]. After looking at the code in the package, I believe the bug is not
in gaim-extendedprefs but rather an interaction bug between gtk+2.0 and
sawfish. I am not very familiar with sawfish and libgtk2.0 so I cannot
really
24 matches
Mail list logo
