Your message dated Wed, 30 May 2001 14:56:27 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#96667: fixed in ifrench 1.4-8
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 99208
Bug#99208: dpkg asks about all conffiles individually
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
reopen 99208
thanks
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 07:04:11AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:01:20AM +0100, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> > I upgraded from xpuzzles 5.4.4-4 to 5.5.3-1 today, and dpkg asked me
> > about every single one of xpuzzles' app-defaults fil
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:29:27PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > dpkg asked me about every single one of xpuzzles' app-defaults files,
> > although I'm pretty sure I haven't changed any of them
>
> that's the problem. Asking about NOT changed upgraded conffiles. IMHO it's
> the X upgrade, which mov
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 07:03:28AM -0500 , Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:01:20AM +0100, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> > I upgraded from xpuzzles 5.4.4-4 to 5.5.3-1 today, and dpkg asked me
> > about every single one of xpuzzles' app-defaults files, although I'm
> >
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:29:49PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > >A problem I'm commonly finding with testing (the distribution, not
> > > > the process) is that
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:29:49PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > >A problem I'm commonly finding with testing (the distribution, not
> > > the process) is that packages get moved into testing, whil
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >A problem I'm commonly finding with testing (the distribution, not
> > the process) is that packages get moved into testing, whilst things
> > they have a versioned dependancy on are still in unstable
Your message dated Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:22 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#99208: dpkg asks about all conffiles individually
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
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>A problem I'm commonly finding with testing (the distribution, not
> the process) is that packages get moved into testing, whilst things
> they have a versioned dependancy on are still in unstable.
"commonly" ?
This happens onl
Hi folks,
A problem I'm commonly finding with testing (the distribution, not
the process) is that packages get moved into testing, whilst things
they have a versioned dependancy on are still in unstable. This
strikes me as highly undesirable behaviour. Should/could something be
done about this?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:27:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, volunteers?
A particularly good place for someone to start would be writing a
script to help find packages that depend on old libraries, running it,
and passing the output on to the autobuilders.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:11:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For the freeze to work well, there are two separate QA tasks that need
> to be done: (1) fixing RC bugs before the packages they apply to freeze,
> and (2) improving packages' policy compliance and overall consistency.
Hrm. I should
13 matches
Mail list logo
