Your message dated Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:16:51 +0200 with message-id <20080704191651.GY11882@mail-vs.djpig.de> and subject line Re: Bug#488634: bug in NEW/packages procedure? has caused the Debian Bug report #488634, regarding bug in NEW/packages procedure? 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 immediately.) -- 488634: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=488634 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: bug in NEW/packages procedure?
- From: "Dmitry E. Oboukhov" <unera@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:37:03 +0400
- Message-id: <20080630083703.GJ19610@work.uvw.ru>
- In-reply-to: <486898F1.8090903@uvw.ru>
- References: <20080629180604.GG19610@work.uvw.ru> <486898F1.8090903@uvw.ru>
Package: qa.debian.org Usually if the quantity of binary packages changes in an src-package then its upload leads to the fact that the package passes the NEW procedure again. However it hasn't happened in the case with greasemonkey and webdeveloper, that's why there've been hanging errors on qa.debian.org for a few days already: # out of date on i386: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on alpha: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on amd64: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on arm: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on armel: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on hppa: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on ia64: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on mips: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on mipsel: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on powerpc: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on s390: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on sparc: firefox-greasemonkey (from 0.8.20080609.0-1) # out of date on i386: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on alpha: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on amd64: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on arm: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on armel: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on hppa: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on ia64: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on mips: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on mipsel: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on powerpc: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on s390: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) # out of date on sparc: firefox-webdeveloper (from 1.1.6-1) Please help to correct the situation. -- . ''`. : :’ : `. `~’ `- GPGKey: 1024D/F8E26537 2006-11-21 Dmitry E. Oboukhov <unera@debian.org>Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 488634-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#488634: bug in NEW/packages procedure?
- From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:16:51 +0200
- Message-id: <20080704191651.GY11882@mail-vs.djpig.de>
- In-reply-to: <20080630151729.GI11882@mail-vs.djpig.de>
- References: <20080629180604.GG19610@work.uvw.ru> <486898F1.8090903@uvw.ru> <20080630083703.GJ19610@work.uvw.ru> <20080630151729.GI11882@mail-vs.djpig.de>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:17:30PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:37:03PM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > > Usually if the quantity of binary packages changes in an src-package > > then its upload leads to the fact that the package passes the NEW > > procedure again. > > That is not true. NEW handling is only required in the case of *new* > binary packages. Dropped binary packages should be removed by the > ftp-masters during the next cleanup run, which needs to be run manually > though. They have now been removed. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> www: http://www.djpig.de/
--- End Message ---