Hi,
I have prepared a QA upload for the orphaned package muine which
includes an new upstream that fixes RC bug #440817, and fixes a few
other bugs.
(#415419, #427263, #449835, and probably several of the bugs posted
against the 0.6.x versions). If someone could please review and/or
upload
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Bug Tracking System contains patches fixing 3 bugs, you should
> consider including them or removing the "patch" tag from the bugs.
Slightly more idiomatic:
X bugs in the Bug Tracking System are tagged as having patches.
Either they should
Hello,
Looking at pkglist I went back the track and it seems that the
maintainer is MIA (last upload was aprox 2 years ago):
http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I already sent a O: mail for pkglist (466622).
This is just a heads up.
--
Regards,
EddyP
===
Paul Bone wrote:
Hi Barry.
I'm interested in re-packaging this, however it's going to be one of
those things that gets a small amount of attention here and there. I'm
one of the Mercury developers, so I use and develop on Mercury
day-to-day.
This will mean that there may be 6-12 mercury-rel
I filed the initial ITA, but have then been unable to make much progress because of other commitments (including being
overseas for a while).
Unfortunately, although I'm back now, unforeseen personal circumstances mean I won't be able to do anything in the
immediate future (next 2-3 weeks at le
Barry deFreese wrote:
Hi,
Here is a QA upload for kguitar. Fixes 2 bugs and standards update,
etc. if someone has time to review/upload.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kguitar/kguitar_0.5-3.dsc
Description: Stringed instrument tablature editor for KDE
Kguitar is basically a g
Hi folks,
Sorry for all of the CCs but all of you have expressed interest in
fixing/adopting this package (with the exception of QA).
Do any of you still have an interest and/or a plan to fix this
package? According to the Mecury website, it is supposed to build with
gcc-4.1 which would be
Le Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:08:46 Thijs Kinkhorst, vous avez écrit :
> > As a side note, I've already done a lot of things to try to fix this,
> > but upstream seems not to care at all, and didn't maintain this package
> > for 1 year (last upload was my NMU)...
>
> So am I right to conclude that
Your message dated Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:46:52 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#466515: PTS: "you should include ."
has caused the Debian Bug report #466515,
regarding PTS: "you should include ."
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:14, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The Bug Tracking System contains patches fixing 3 bugs, you should
> consider including them or removing the "patch" tag from the bugs.
Wonderful :)
regards,
Holger
pgp8kk8GN53tc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:29, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Perhaps "The Bug Tracking System contains patches fixing 3 bugs, you
> should consider including or untagging them." then? Two additional
> words. :)
Patch updated :-)
Thijs
Index: pts/www/xsl/pts.xsl
On ti, 2008-02-19 at 14:14 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 11:55, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > On ti, 2008-02-19 at 11:23 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > And as this isn't always right, I suggest to use a less strong wording.
> > > "You should look at.." or "You could in
On ti, 2008-02-19 at 13:39 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:32PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I concur, although I suggest that the wording could say that if the
> > patch is inappropriate, the patch tag should be removed.
>
> No objection, but please someone c
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 11:55, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ti, 2008-02-19 at 11:23 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > And as this isn't always right, I suggest to use a less strong wording.
> > "You should look at.." or "You could include". Or whatever. But _all_
> > those patches should definitly
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 13:57, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Package: gnome-peercast
> Version: 0.5.4-1.1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security
> Justification: user security hole
>
>
> Hi !
>
> CVE-2007-6454 as been fixed for peercast, but since this package
> includes a static version of the c
On 19/02/2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Actually I'm always slightly annoyed when I see this. A computer should not
> tell anyone what to do, unless its 100% right.
>
> And as this isn't always right, I suggest to use a less strong wording. "You
> should look at.." or "You could include". Or whatever
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:32PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I concur, although I suggest that the wording could say that if the
> patch is inappropriate, the patch tag should be removed.
No objection, but please someone come up with an appropriate wording. I
will include it, but please don't
On ti, 2008-02-19 at 11:23 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And as this isn't always right, I suggest to use a less strong wording. "You
> should look at.." or "You could include". Or whatever. But _all_ those
> patches should definitly _not_ be included.
I concur, although I suggest that the wordi
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 10:16, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> When a package has one 'patched' bug, the PTS now displays:
> > The Bug Tracking System contains patches fixing 1 bug, you should include
Actually I'm always slightly annoyed when I see this. A computer should not
tell anyone what t
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hi,
When a package has one 'patched' bug, the PTS now displays:
> The Bug Tracking System contains patches fixing 1 bug, you should include .
as seen e.g. here: http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sword.html
Attached patch restores the word "it", th
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:35AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >One low-tech thing that one could do is just put, in the package long
> >description, a note that the software is dead upstream. Personally, I
> >think that's often information worthy of being in the long description;
> >one purpose
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
One low-tech thing that one could do is just put, in the package long
description, a note that the software is dead upstream. Personally, I
think that's often information worthy of being in the long description;
one purpose of the long description, after
22 matches
Mail list logo
