Processing of gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.changes

gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gnushogi_1.3-5.dsc gnushogi_1.3-5.diff.gz gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.deb xshogi_1.3-5_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gnushogi_1.3-5.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gnushogi/gnushogi_1.3-5.diff.gz gnushogi_1.3-5.dsc to pool/main/g/gnushogi/gnushogi_1.3-5.dsc gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnushogi/gnushogi_1.3-5_i386.deb xshogi_1.3-5_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnushogi/xshogi_1.3-5_i386.deb

Bug#338060: marked as done (gnushogi: leaves /usr/doc/gnushogi symlink behind on upgrade)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:02:14 -0800 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#338060: fixed in gnushogi 1.3-5 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

Fwd:

Hutchison Sophia

libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0-8.1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Mapping stable-security to proposed-updates. Warning: ignoring libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0.orig.tar.gz, since it's already in the archive. Accepted: libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0-8.1.diff.gz to pool/main/liba/libapache-auth-ldap/libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0-8.1.diff.gz libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0-8.1.dsc

Processing of libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0-8.1_i386.changes

libapache-auth-ldap_1.6.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist Due to the errors above, the .changes file couldn't be processed. Please fix the problems for the upload to happen. Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe.

Bug#348159: O: xdialog - X11 replacement for the text util dialog

Hello János and *, I like Xdialog and use it extensivly. Unfortunatly I am not one of the best coders, but I am thinking to take over this package. What do you think about? Please feel free to contact me privatly. Note: Cause of a problem with my appartement (need a new one) I have

Bug#348159: O: xdialog - X11 replacement for the text util dialog

Hi, On 1/23/06, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like Xdialog and use it extensivly. Unfortunatly I am not one of the best coders, but I am thinking to take over this package. What do you think about? Good luck ;) Go ahead if you are going to work on it with the upstream and you

Processed: Re: Bug#348906: lmodern warnings with bullets and cdots

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 335899 RFA: lmodern -- scalable PostScript fonts for european character sets Bug#335899: O: lmodern -- scalable PostScript fonts for european character sets Changed Bug title. reassign 335899 wnpp,lmodern Bug#335899: RFA: lmodern -- scalable

Bug#348906: lmodern warnings with bullets and cdots

retitle 335899 RFA: lmodern -- scalable PostScript fonts for european character sets reassign 335899 wnpp,lmodern thanks Elrond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly my point! Thanks for clarifying. I really do like it, if Debian packages have a README.Debian, that gives quick start infos, as

Bug#349295: [pryzbyj: memprof bug]

For the reason the BTS won't let me 'b'ounce this message to it, so I'm trying a 'f'orward instead. - Forwarded message from pryzbyj - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason Dorje Short [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Subject: memprof bug Hey Jason, Can you confirm the ability to run xterm under memprof? I

Bug#347141: marked as done (libgnome-gnorba-perl: FTBFS: build-depends on removed xlibs-dev)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:50:47 +0100 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Package removed, bug fixed 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

Bug#349206: FTBFS: static declaration of ???MGAchipset??? follows non-static declaration

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:08:37AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: I can confirm this problem. The upstream development branch (1.3.3) compiles without error (gcc version 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-5)). It might be good if someone would upload a new copy, if even with a

Processed: tagging 159883, tagging 159885

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10 tags 159883 - wontfix Bug#159883: oneko: buttons don't work under Enlightenment Tags were: wontfix moreinfo Tags removed: wontfix tags 159885 - wontfix Bug#159885: oneko: when oneko

Bug#159885: this bug..

Regarding the oneko font restore bug, a patch to switch to a specified cursor would be good, please do send it. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#89962: oneko 2.0b

The situation with oneko seems to be more complicated than there simply being a new upstream version. The current debian package is actually a package of the oneko-sakura branch of oneko, from http://www.daidouji.com/oneko/. This branch has some features, including -towindow, -tofocus, and

Processing of libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1_i386.changes

libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.dsc libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.diff.gz libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1_i386.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#322646: marked as done (FTBFS: Undeclared OpenGL symbols)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:17:11 -0800 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#322646: fixed in libopengl-perl 0.54.alan1-3.1 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

Bug#221267: marked as done (oneko: should be in section games.)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:02:06 -0800 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#221267: fixed in oneko 1.2.sakura.6-3 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

libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.diff.gz to pool/main/libo/libopengl-perl/libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.diff.gz libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.dsc to pool/main/libo/libopengl-perl/libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1.dsc libopengl-perl_0.54.alan1-3.1_i386.deb to

Bug#349206: FTBFS: static declaration of ???MGAchipset??? follows non-static declaration

tag 349206 patch thanks Ryan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:08:37AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: I can confirm this problem. The upstream development branch (1.3.3) compiles without error (gcc version 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-5)). It might

Processed: Re: Bug#349206: FTBFS: static declaration of ???MGAchipset??? follows non-static declaration

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 349206 patch Bug#349206: FTBFS: static declaration of ‘MGAchipset’ follows non-static declaration Tags were: fixed-upstream confirmed Tags added: patch thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug

Re: Remove ipw2200 and ieee80211?

Hi, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: ipw2200 and ieee80211 have been orphaned a few days ago. Since both are present in current 2.6 kernels (2.6.14 onwards) I'd recommend to remove them right away. See the buglogs. Already proposed this... Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

What's wrong with update-excuses?

Hi, http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which was uploaded on Jan 18th: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html Is this just a bug in the qa scripts, or worse? Regards, Frank --

Re: What's wrong with update-excuses?

Frank Küster wrote: Hi, Hi http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which was uploaded on Jan 18th: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2006/01/msg01818.html Is this just a bug in the qa scripts,

Re: What's wrong with update-excuses?

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:50:12PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: Frank Küster wrote: Hi, http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base says that tetex-base is 0 days old. However, unstable has 3.0-13 which was uploaded on Jan 18th: