Processed: tagging 344698

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.19bpo1 > tags 344698 + patch Bug#344698: enscript: [PATCH] option --footer does nothing There were no tags set. Tags added: patch > End of message, stopping processing here. Please conta

libtk-img 1:1.3-15 MIGRATED to testing

2006-09-17 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the libtk-img source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 1:1.3-13.1 Current version: 1:1.3-15 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information

zapata 1:1.0.1-2 MIGRATED to testing

2006-09-17 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the zapata source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 1:1.0.1-1 Current version: 1:1.0.1-2 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.

tdom 0.7.8-5 MIGRATED to testing

2006-09-17 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the tdom source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 0.7.8-4.1 Current version: 0.7.8-5 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. --

Bug#375702: New version of obconf

2006-09-17 Thread Joris van Rooij
Hi, I've installed the new version and this bug is fixed. The resulting debian package can be found at http://www.wasda.nl/~jorrizza/obconf/ Thanks. -- Greetings, Joris

obconf 1.5-4 MIGRATED to testing

2006-09-17 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the obconf source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 1.5-3 Current version: 1.5-4 -- This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible. See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information. -- To

Processed: apt-listbugs needs versioned BTS handling.

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 334697 Bug#334697: apt-listbugs does not show several grave/serious bugs Bug reopened, originator not changed. > retitle 334697 versioned BTS handling Bug#334697: apt-listbugs does not show several grave/serious bugs Changed Bug title. > thanks

Bug#334697: apt-listbugs needs versioned BTS handling.

2006-09-17 Thread Junichi Uekawa
reopen 334697 retitle 334697 versioned BTS handling thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Processed: ITA: apt-listbugs

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > retitle 374104 O: apt-listbugs -- Lists critical bugs before each apt Bug#374104: ITA: apt-listbugs -- Lists critical bugs before each apt Changed Bug title. > # close server errors that are since recovered. > close 381350 Bug#381350: apt-listbugs: cra

Bug#334697: QA packages with really high popcon numbers :-)

2006-09-17 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Hi, > Indeed. Please see for instance > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=334697 This bugreport sounds like a joke, really. If the goal isn't to 'not release apt-listbugs with etch', this is going to be bad. Note that the load for apt-listbugs is quite huge, and I doubt qa.deb

Bug#349402: Noting down the current status on apt-listbugs and servers required for apt-listbugs

2006-09-17 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Hi, Currently, it sounds unrealistic to move the apt-listbugs infrastructure back to Debian.org infrastructure. Which of the Debian servers have almost-unlimited bandwidth for serving ? I'm seeking information from those who are knowledgeable about Debian hosts. Currently osdl.debian.or.jp serv

Bug#245232: marked as done (apt-listbugs: fails with not in gzip format errors)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#245232: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#244555: marked as done (apt-listbugs: With BTS down, "not in gzip format" errors on retrieved bugreports)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#245232: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#304471: marked as done (apt-listbugs: Correction for HTML output: > -> >)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#304471: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#284434: marked as done (verbose cron.daily & rotating /etc/apt/preferences)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#284434: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#362671: marked as done (apt-listbugs: bad control file parsing; sends the long description to dpkg --compare-versions)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#362671: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#249758: marked as done (apt-listbugs: error "W: not in gzip format:")

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#245232: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#341150: marked as done (apt-listbugs: nonintuitive packaging)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#341150: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#253812: marked as done (apt-listbugs: suggests reportbug but silently does nothing if it is not installed)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#253812: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#349469: marked as done (apt-listbugs: [manual page] list all severities in options -t (bug type))

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#349469: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#341844: marked as done ([PATCH] grammar error in apt-listbugs)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#341844: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#312853: marked as done (apt-listbugs: apt{itude,-get} upgrade: dies with "...not in gzip format...")

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#245232: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Bug#341148: marked as done (apt-listbugs: maintscripts use absolute pathname)

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:32:08 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#341148: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.51 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 no

Processed: these bugs have dependencies

2006-09-17 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > block 324317 by 173559 Bug#324317: execute before downloading packages Was not blocked by any bugs. Bug#192787: apt-get invokes apt-list-bugs after downloading Blocking bugs of 324317 added: 173559, 80123 > tags 324317 -wontfix Bug#324317: execute befo