On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:46:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x? I thought for sure you
weren't.]
I'm not, but it looks like mutt's group reply isn't clever enough to
add me to the Mail-Followup-To field without debian-x being explicitly
listed as a
[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x? I thought for sure you
weren't.]
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
woody was released. So either no or it was already special cased.
Oh ah. Is that
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:46:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x? I thought for sure you
weren't.]
I'm not, but it looks like mutt's group reply isn't clever enough to
add me to the Mail-Followup-To field without debian-x being explicitly
listed as a
[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x? I thought for sure you
weren't.]
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
woody was released. So either no or it was already special cased.
Oh ah. Is that
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 143825 serious
Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
Severity set to `serious'.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 143825 serious
Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
Severity set to `serious'.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:14:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:
+ libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 = 1)
it's doesn't block the package from being
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, someone else pointed this out to me. So you didn't have to special
case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the
bug?
I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
woody
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 143825 serious
Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
Severity set to `serious'.
Is it your intention not to let XFree86 4.2.1-3 propagate into
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 143825 serious
Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
Severity set to `serious'.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:14:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:
+ libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 = 1)
it's doesn't block the package from being
11 matches
Mail list logo