Bug#70830: marked as done (3-sep-2000: List archives almost a week behind)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:17:28 +0200
with message-id <20000914011728.E1615@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
and subject line Bug#70830: 3-sep-2000: List archives almost a week behind
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 now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Sep 2000 10:42:02 +0000
>From miles@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp Sun Sep 03 05:42:02 2000
Return-path: <miles@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
Received: from smtp03.mail.gol.com [::ffff:203.216.5.13]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 13VXDu-0004DA-00; Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:42:02 -0500
Received: from tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (tc-1-250.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp [203.216.23.250])
by smtp03.mail.gol.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id B996B4051; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:41:18 +0900 (JST)
Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D931D288B; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:46:22 +0900 (JST)
From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: 3-sep-2000: List archives almost a week behind
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.2
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.2
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:46:22 +0900
Message-Id: <[🔎] 20000903104622.D931D288B@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
Sender: miles@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: listarchives
Version: N/A; reported 2000-09-03
Severity: normal
As the subject says.
I only checked a few lists, but notably debian-devel, which is quite
active, was last updated on 28-aug. No list seems to have an entry for
september.
This problem seems quite chronic with Debian's list archives; are(is) the
machine(s) being used really small, and just getting overwhelmed, or
does the software suck, or what?
Thanks,
-Miles
-- System Information
Debian Release: woody
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp 2.2.17 #1 Sun Jun 25 09:24:41 EST 2000 i586
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 70830-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Sep 2000 23:17:05 +0000
>From joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr Wed Sep 13 18:17:05 2000
Return-path: <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
Received: from cibalia.gkvk.hr [::ffff:161.53.211.3]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 13ZLm1-0007h9-00; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:17:05 -0500
Received: from joy by cibalia.gkvk.hr with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 13ZLmS-0000fK-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:17:28 +0200
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:17:28 +0200
From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>, 70830-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#70830: 3-sep-2000: List archives almost a week behind
Message-ID: <20000914011728.E1615@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
References: <[🔎] 20000903104622.D931D288B@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20000903104622.D931D288B@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp>; from miles@gnu.org on Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:46:22PM +0900
Delivered-To: 70830-done@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:46:22PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Package: listarchives
> Severity: normal
>
> I only checked a few lists, but notably debian-devel, which is quite
> active, was last updated on 28-aug. No list seems to have an entry for
> september.
The archives should be up to date now. If not, please reply/reopen.
> This problem seems quite chronic with Debian's list archives; are(is) the
> machine(s) being used really small, and just getting overwhelmed, or
> does the software suck, or what?
The software is a bit shakey ATM. We're working on it.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: