Le Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:42:55PM +0100, GCS écrivait:
> Recently I have noticed that at least db4.2 was added to p.q.d.o (auto
> or manual - I do not know), but tried to subscribe on that:
> -- cut --
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
Hi debian-qa!
having a package upstream up-to-date is important and this is why we have
debian/watch files used by uupdate. Fortunately the PTS checks and reports if a
new upstream version is available IF it founds the debian/watch file for
package.
Unfortunately only a few packages provide this fi
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:28:31AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Did you look in CVS?
>
Hmm, have now. Looks like it's been deleted. I wonder it it's worthwhile
porting your TCL backend to a backend that ships with OpenLDAP as standard,
that way we don't need to rely on a custom TCLified LDAP se
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:44:46PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:28:31AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Did you look in CVS?
> >
>
> Hmm, have now. Looks like it's been deleted. I wonder it it's worthwhile
> porting your TCL backend to a backend that ships with Ope
[CC'ing debian-qa since it might be of some interest]
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:08:12PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On [14/01/04 1:13], Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > Usually it is expected for a DD to follow or at least be subscribed to
> > program
> > developing, while this is true for big p
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:13:14AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> Hi debian-qa!
> having a package upstream up-to-date is important and this is why we have
> debian/watch files used by uupdate.
.snip.
> possible solutions are to mass-filing wishlist bugs
Massfiling bugs is allways dubious.
* James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-14 21:20]:
> > These packages depend on emacs20 and are designed to work only with emacs20.
> > emacs20 has just been removed.
> >
> > The functionality of these packages is available in other packages for
> > emacs21
> > (as part of emacs21 in the case o
1. Removing xpm from unstable -- see bug #226752
2. Removing swig from unstable -- see bug #221209
3. Removing prime-net from unstable -- see bug #221253
If I can get general agreement that these should be done, I will pass the buck
back to ftp.debian.org (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/20
> > The functionality of these packages is available in other packages
> > for emacs21 (as part of emacs21 in the case of eshell, as the
> > w2-el-e21 package in the case of w3-el).
Both of these requests look sane, but it's polite to contact the
maintainer before (especially if they're around).
-
* James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-14 21:20]:
> reassign 227738 qa.debian.org
> > These packages depend on emacs20 and are designed to work only with emacs20.
> > emacs20 has just been removed.
> >
> > The functionality of these packages is available in other packages for
> > emacs21
> > (
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-14 13:18]:
> 1. Removing xpm from unstable -- see bug #226752
> 2. Removing swig from unstable -- see bug #221209
> 3. Removing prime-net from unstable -- see bug #221253
They look fine, thanks. Reassigned.
> If I can get general agreement that the
Yeah, xpm can imho be removed. It cannot be built, and the
README.Debian claims it's good for old versions of Netscape and
WordPerfect 8. Surely we don't care about libc5 versions of Netscape
anymore, and OOo is in main now...
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-14 21:20]:
>> reassign 227738 qa.debian.org
>> > These packages depend on emacs20 and are designed to work only with
>> > emacs20.
>> > emacs20 has just been removed.
>> >
>> > The functionality of these pac
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-17 10:14]:
> Please remove this package from unstable. The new version packaged as
> swig1.3 has reached testing.
Yup, and nothing depends on libswig1.1 anymore.
> The package maintainer doesn't respond, and the removal has been
> suggested two times
* Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-14 14:15]:
> Yes. That applies only to the w3-el source package and its
> binaries though. There is also the w3-el-e21 source package and
> its binaries, which should not be removed.
Sure.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-17 15:20]:
> The package does not even install (see #166219), but doesn't contain
> any source code. It's outdated and unmainted.
I mailed the maintainer in April 2003 and never got a reponse. He's
also not a Debian developer. It's a non-free package
(I know you responded with updated info to some of them already, but
I'll comment anyway.)
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-14 14:18]:
> * Sebastian Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
He orphaned/gave-up-for-removal a couple of packages, and they're gone
now.
> * Brian White <[EMAIL PROTEC
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-19 00:00]:
> I checked all ITA bugs older than six months, closed around 10
> where packages were already uploaded and retitled around 10 back.
> Two were reassigned to ftp.debian.org requesting removal of packages.
>
> After nearly three months I
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:16:46PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Since CVS performed no checking on what unix account was specified anyone
> who could modify the CVSROOT/passwd could gain access to all local users
> on the CVS server, including root.
I always thought that putting passwd into qa
Note that it is dead upstream and has a long-standing RC bug (#191722).
QA, does it sound reasonable to remove this package from unstable? (It's
already removed from testing).
Maintainer, what do you think?
If I get agreement, I'll file a bug against ftp.debian.org, unless someone
beats me to i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 227738 qa.debian.org
Bug#227738: ftp.debian.org: Please remove eshell and w3-el from unstable
Bug reassigned from package `ftp.debian.org' to `qa.debian.org'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debia
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:15:14PM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
up-to-dated. OTOH having the PTS stating "new upstream version available blah
blah" can reduce BRs like "hey, a new release is out! could you please update
this package?"
I seriously doubt that. I see zero value in having a wat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:13:14AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> having a package upstream up-to-date is important and this is why we have
> debian/watch files used by uupdate. Fortunately the PTS checks and reports if
> a
That, of course, presupposes you can get watch files working. I've ne
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 226752 ftp.debian.org
Bug#226752: Please remove xpm from unstable & testing
Bug reassigned from package `qa.debian.org' to `ftp.debian.org'.
> reassign 221209 ftp.debian.org
Bug#221209: Please remove swig from unstable
Bug reassigned from pack
24 matches
Mail list logo
