[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#162262: marked as done (general: Many OMF files are buggy.)

Your message dated Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:50:52 +0200
with message-id <200808272050.52957.holger@layer-acht.org>
and subject line gnome1 was removed long ago
has caused the Debian Bug report #162262,
regarding general: Many OMF files are buggy.
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

162262: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=162262
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: general
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-09-25
Severity: normal

GNOME packages use OMF-XML files for describing a ressource.

Right now I have about 60 files that are not valid XML by the
OMF-DTD. These leed to very confusing scrollkeeper-messages.

I suggest urging package-maintainers to submit valid OMF files into 
a debian package. These OMF files have a similar function as a 
correct debian-packages description for GNOME manual data. So I think
it is very essential to be more strict here. This is a suggestion for
all GNOME packages maintainers (and maybe other packages that use OMF
and scrollkeeper).

OMF files can be easily parsed and only valid files should make it into
a debian package.

Thilo Pfennig,

-- System Information:
Debian Release: woody
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux stevie 2.4.18-k6 #1 Sun Apr 14 12:43:22 EST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

this bug is about gnome1, but gnome1 was removed long ago.


Attachment: pgpxpziT8gSxD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: