Accepted:
gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz
to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz
gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc
to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc
gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb
to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb
Override entries for your package:
gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc - source devel
gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb -
Hi Mark,
Archive Administrator wrote:
>
> Accepted:
> gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz
> to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.debian.tar.gz
> gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc
> to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3.dsc
> gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb
> to main/g/gob2/gob2_2.0.16-3_amd64.deb
>
>
> Override entries for your package:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:11:06PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> From the changelog:
> >* Orphan package.
> Right, but orphaned packages are _not_ set to this discussion ML.
Thanks for your helpful response!
> Even running lintian on the package you uploaded points you to the right
> d
Mark Brown (28/04/2010):
> I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm
> going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings?
Random lintian warnings (and errors) like the ones you're generating
by orphaning the package in an improper manner? If you're not used to
that
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Mark Brown (28/04/2010):
> > I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm
> > going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings?
> Random lintian warnings (and errors) like the ones you're generating
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Mark Brown (28/04/2010):
> > > I'm orphaning the package. What part of that makes you think I'm
> > > going to be interested in fixing random lintian warnings?
>
> >
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > *sigh* Lintian just isn't the right tool for this job, the sort of
> > random things that lintian identifies just aren't interesting for an
> > upload like this.
> An
Mark Brown wrote:
> Look, I'm not saying that there's no problem with the upload here. What
> I'm saying is that an e-mail such as that which was sent originally sent
> tended rather to the hostile and appears to have unrealistic expectation
> as to the sort of work that a maintainer is going to d
8 matches
Mail list logo
