Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-05-07
Severity: wishlist
The bottom of each package page gives links to the dsc and tarball, but no
link to the changelog. So we can see that a package is at version 1.0 in
stable, 1.1 in testing, and 1.2 in unstable (though only by editing the
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 09:53:11PM +0200, Marko Schulz wrote:
Packages.debian.org does not search on subwords in package names, even
when this is selected. Searching for all packages which names contain
'screen' as a subword only yields the package 'screen':
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 103694 wishlist
Bug#103694: packages.d.o doesn't search on subwords in package names
Severity set to `wishlist'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-06-12
Severity: normal
Someone must have done changes to break this again, IIRC I had checked
that the fix (by Jay IIRC) was working a couple of months ago...
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
merge 87002 97037
Bug#87002: packages.d.o: lists packages that were removed from testing
Bug#97037: stale postgresql-pl binary in unstable
Merged 87002 97037.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-05-12
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if there was a link on a package webpage to
a file list for the files in that package (webinterface to
dpkg -L or dpkg --contents)...
I sometimes want to check the files in package version from
other
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:51:55PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-04-23
Severity: normal
The following URL:
http://packages.debian.org/kernel-patch-kiobuf-bigmem
Yields:
Malformed query! (Or something strange happened to
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:08:31 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#95034: packages.d.o/pkgname does not handle long pkg names
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:55:02PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-04-23
Severity: normal
In the package search at packages.d.o, searching for the string
raw-io, in Descriptions, in all versions, all sections, yields. The
following. You'll
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:59:53 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#95035: packages.d.o: finds matches in packages indices
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-04-23
Severity: normal
The following URL:
http://packages.debian.org/kernel-patch-kiobuf-bigmem
Yields:
Malformed query! (Or something strange happened to this script.)
I believe the second choice is the right one
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-04-23
Severity: normal
In the package search at packages.d.o, searching for the string
raw-io, in Descriptions, in all versions, all sections, yields. The
following. You'll notice the allpackages and index matches, which
I believe should
I want to link to the packages.d.o page for a specific package
(e.g. mutt, http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/muttprint.html)
without knowing in which section (mail) the package is. Currently,
I link to the search_packages.pl script. However, in the case of
mutt, also muttprint, muttzilla
* James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20010404 18:55]:
What I really want is the ability to change the quality algorithm in
swish++ without having to modify the source. If people want to get
rid of that column in the output, that's fine with me.
Of course it would be better to have it fixed
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 02:09:03AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Since packages.d.o moved from master to klecker, can I assume that
/org/packages.debian.org/htmlscripts/unstable on master is no
longer updated?
Yes. That stuff will be removed or moved to the attic shortly.
Can we stick
* Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20010403 14:36]:
Eh? You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't
lessen the freedom of others :)
Bah, I think I will move my stuff to pandora and leave the dead horse
master to others. :-P
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Eh? You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't
lessen the freedom of others :)
Bah, I think I will move my stuff to pandora and leave the dead horse
master to others. :-P
Why did you get so grumpy all of
* Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20010403 14:45]:
Bah, I think I will move my stuff to pandora and leave the dead
horse master to others. :-P
Why did you get so grumpy all of the sudden, how does my comment
imply that master is a dead horse or that you should move anything
from it?
Err,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:58:57PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Bah, I think I will move my stuff to pandora and leave the dead
horse master to others. :-P
Why did you get so grumpy all of the sudden, how does my comment
imply that master is a dead horse or that you should move
Since packages.d.o moved from master to klecker, can I assume that
/org/packages.debian.org/htmlscripts/unstable on master is no
longer updated?
Can we stick updates Package/Source files somewhere on master or keep
that directory updated?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:01:33AM -0800, James A. Treacy wrote:
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal
At this date there is no console-tools package in testing, as can be
verified in the Packages file. However, when looking at
http://packages.debian.org/console-tools, we are
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-02-22
Severity: normal
At this date there is no console-tools package in testing, as can be
verified in the Packages file. However, when looking at
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote:
Do you have any more information on the pools db? One thing
that really needs to be fixed is how we provide access to
copyright, changelog (both debian and upstream) and file
listings for packages. Perhaps the db could carry this
information.
This
Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to
klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it
has better bandwidth.
--
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote:
Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to
klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it
has better bandwidth.
It seems to me auric would be a better choice. Of course the reason to do
that is to integrate
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:33:48PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, James A. Treacy wrote:
Are there any reasons we shouldn't move packages.d.o over to
klecker? klecker is a much faster machine and I believe it
has better bandwidth.
It seems to me auric would
201 - 226 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
