This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report.
It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please co
Hi,
libc4 is still listed as withdrawn. There are discussions about removing
libc5 from Debian. Isn't it time to remove libc4 from project/orphaned ?
cu,
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trou
Hi,
the following packages have the wrong maintainer address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
cgiemail
dpkg-scriptlib
newscache
If noone disagrees, I will prepare fixed packages.
cu,
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or wh
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 01:21:55PM -0400, Gerhard Poul wrote:
> > If you think a package should be doing this then file a bug against the
> > package. Possibly with severity wishlist if it's not crippling, just
> > annoying.
> IMHO it is much better to have a central list of changes in the rel
> Perhaps. It's been my experience, though, that changing the package
> name just upsets a different set of users. In other words, it's a no
> win situation.
I also don't like this way because it is confusing after an upgrade but
it might be a reasonable workaround.
> > Since the maintainer (Da
> If you think a package should be doing this then file a bug against the
> package. Possibly with severity wishlist if it's not crippling, just
> annoying.
IMHO it is much better to have a central list of changes in the release
notes because it is much more user friendly to run apt-get upgrad
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Gerhard Poul wrote:
> What can be done for people like me who want to report on such problems and
> what can be done for maintainers who want to document such changes but
> don't know how?
The general method is to display a message during the upgrade (thi
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 01:36:55PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> 1. I agree the change from CMU to UCD snmp should have been better
> documented. Perhaps the maintainer should have made it more obvious
> by calling the UCD package "ucd-snmp", as he named the source package.
Perhaps. It's been m
> > please take a look at http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_34.html#SEC34 in
> > the gnu coding standards. I think such a utility is barely needed by debian
> > and maybe also other distributions. _user_ _visible_ changes are _worth_
> > to be documented.
>
> That link points to an explanation a
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 04:53:59AM -0400, Gerhard Poul wrote:
> > To summarize the bug: the logging behavior of the snmp package changed
> > when we switched from CMU SNMP to the UCD implementation.
> Yes, the user interface which might be used by many people of an
> essential remote monitoring to
> To summarize the bug: the logging behavior of the snmp package changed
> when we switched from CMU SNMP to the UCD implementation.
Yes, the user interface which might be used by many people of an
essential remote monitoring tool changed without any notice by the
system administrator. (and it is
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report.
It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please co
12 matches
Mail list logo
