Bug#1030056: qa.debian.org: The most recent lintian version known by UDD is 2.115.3

ye! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpGqhgTLkhky.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#1030056: qa.debian.org: The most recent lintian version known by UDD is 2.115.3

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 21:14:53 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi Francesco, Hi Lucas! :-) > > On 30/01/23 at 20:45 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: [...] > > Why is UDD outdated w.r.t. the lintian version? > > Shouldn't UDD be aware of the version curr

Bug#1030056: qa.debian.org: The most recent lintian version known by UDD is 2.115.3

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: udd Hi! In the [UDD Lintian report] for my package, I read: [...] | The most recent lintian version known by UDD is 2.115.3 [...] [UDD Lintian report]:

Bug#787662: tracker.debian.org: please always show bug statistics (even when the bug count is zero!)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:38:28 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, 03 Jun 2015, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > > Please enable the bug statistics box even for packages with zero bugs. > > Done in commit a7c5cecd629dbccb8bd47621e8492ff16405aa34 by Arthur De

Bug#815110: tracker.debian.org: please use plain images (rather than web fonts) as icons

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:45:57 +0100 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Francesco Poli , 2016-02-20, 11:28: > >I've just tried forbidding @font-face again and installing package > >fonts-octicons: even after restarting Iceweasel, I still see the > >rectangles with the hexadecimals i

Bug#815110: tracker.debian.org: please use plain images (rather than web fonts) as icons

eb interface; I am not especially happy about the OFL-v1.1 license (although OFL-licensed fonts may comply with the DFSG, as in this case); ... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..... Francesco P

Bug#815110: tracker.debian.org: please use plain images (rather than web fonts) as icons

Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: wishlist Hello! As discussed in bug #753800 [1], I would love seeing the tracker web interface modified so that it uses plain images (rather than @font-face web fonts) in order to display icons. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/753800#34 and following messages

Bug#753800: tracker.debian.org: please give the details link some content

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:45:39 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > since this change went online, I have experienced an awkward behavior > > with Iceweasel: if I visit a tracker page with the JavaScript > > interpre

Bug#753800: tracker.debian.org: please give the details link some content

and thanks for the many improvements that the tracker has seen so far). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpLLv7zn1h4U.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#787662: tracker.debian.org: please always show bug statistics (even when the bug count is zero!)

Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: wishlist Hello! Thanks for fixing bug #787246. I am separating the wishlist part of #787246 into a distinct bug report. The bug statistics box is displayed only if the package has a number of bugs greater than 0. For instance: https://tracker.debian.org/p

Bug#787246: tracker.debian.org: [regression] the package tracker seems to have lost the bugs box

Control: forcemerge 787163 -1 On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:32:16 +0200 Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > On 30 May 2015 at 12:22, Francesco Poli (wintermute) > wrote: [...] > > I have recently noticed a regression: the package tracker seems to > > no longer display the bugs box [...

Bug#787246: tracker.debian.org: [regression] the package tracker seems to have lost the bugs box

Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: important Hello and thanks for developing the (new) Debian Package Tracker! I have recently noticed a regression: the package tracker seems to no longer display the bugs box (which used to show up on the top of the right column). The bugs box seems to be miss

Re: apt-listbugs like tool for ci.debian.net?

for apt-listbugs users, at the same time! What do you think about this possible strategy? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpl5QWL3Dsl_.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#689342: qa.debian.org: incorrectly shows a new upstream version for a native package

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal Hi QA team, I am the maintainer of apt-listbugs. The PTS page for my package [1] currently tells me: | A new upstream version is available: 0.1.8, | you should consider packaging it. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/apt-listbugs.html This does not loo

Bug#565219: closed by Mike Hommey (Re: Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:37:13 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 07:14:01PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:53:50PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:19:35 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: [...] > > > > I a

Bug#565219: closed by Mike Hommey (Re: Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:19:35 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > In summary, I think that test-1 could be considered OK, unless we > > manage to find a way to further enhance the result... > > This was long overdu

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:21:45 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:10:43AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:49:00 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: [...] > > > Tried to set all of the above on the new graphs on > > > http://qa.debian.org/da

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:49:00 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Anyway: the documentation seems to state that the option > > > > --grid-dash 1:0 > > > > will give solid grid lines. > > >

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:54:51 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, Hello! :-) > > Sorry for the delay. That's OK... > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:44:33 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > [

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:44:33 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > I hope what I said does not sound too naive... :p Another option that may be nice to use is --right-axis 1:0 This should produce a second vertical axis on the right of the graph, with scale=1 and shift=0, that is to say

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:20:30 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:34:56 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: [...] > > I wouldn't mind someone searching for the appropriate rrd flags to make > > that happen ;) > > Wow! > I thought *you* were the rrdtool expe

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:34:56 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 08:00:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > I hope that constructive criticism may be helpful... :-) > > I wouldn't mind someone searching for the appropriate rrd flags to make >

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:42:35 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:53:48 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: [...] > > > New graphs are available on http://merkel.debian.org/~glandium/bts/ > > > >

Bug#578414: qa.debian.org: PTS stopped sending e-mail messages (about bugs and possibly other events) ...

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:44:25 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote: [...] > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:33:23 +0200 Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > Can you help me? > > > >

Bug#578414: qa.debian.org: PTS stopped sending e-mail messages (about bugs and possibly other events) ...

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:52:14 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:33:23 +0200 Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: > > [...] > > Can you help me? > > Should I re-subscribe from scratch to apt-listbugs PTS? > > Just a quick update: I tried to re-subscr

Bug#578414: qa.debian.org: PTS stopped sending e-mail messages (about bugs and possibly other events) ...

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:33:23 +0200 Francesco Poli (t1000) wrote: [...] > Can you help me? > Should I re-subscribe from scratch to apt-listbugs PTS? Just a quick update: I tried to re-subscribe one of my addresses and, after confirming, I got a reply claiming that the address "

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:53:48 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 07:47:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Is it feasible to fix the RRD configuration? > > Not that I know (except for dumping data, editing dumps, and > reimporting). Well, I mea

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:19:27 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 07:16:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > I am reopening this bug report, since it seems to me that the bug > > history graphs, although regenerated daily, get out-of-date data, not >

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

reopen 565219 ! retitle 565219 qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are updated with excessive delay thanks On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:23:55 +0100 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Francesco Poli wrote: > > If I understand correctly, the problem I reported is now fi

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

o you all for fixing this issue! If I understand correctly, the problem I reported is now fixed: as a consequence, I think this bug report may be safely closed as fixed. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ...

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:26:12 +0100 Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:45:13PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > I would be *more than happy* to see the graphs fixed for newer data > > only! > > Which is now the case: > http://people.debian.org/~glandiu

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ..... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpXQjv36sa5c.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#565219: qa.debian.org: bug history graphs are incorrect

Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal Hi! The bug count (and consequently the plot shape) is often incorrect in the bug history graphs. Consider for instance: http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpkg-ruby.html The package currenty has 0 (zero) outstanding bugs and 8 unarchived resolved bugs. None