Your message dated Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:55:21 +0100 with message-id <20160128125521.GA20164@msg.df7cb.de> and subject line Re: Bug#767024: tracker.debian.org: Reports wrong new upstream for a native package has caused the Debian Bug report #767024, regarding udd-dehs: Report wrong new upstream version for a native package 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.) -- 767024: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767024 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: tracker.debian.org: Reports wrong new upstream for a native package
- From: Stephan Sürken <absurd@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:30:16 +0000
- Message-id: <20141027193016.30130.31961.reportbug@weslok.olx.intra>
Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: normal Dear maintainers, strangely, (old and new) PTS report a new upstream for the mini-buildd package: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mini-buildd First, it reports '1.0.0~alpha.8' as new although '1.0.5' is currently in unstable. Second, it imho should not report new upstream versions anyway as it is a native package. Or is there anything I can (need to?) do in the source package to set this straight? Thx! Stephan -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.16-0.bpo.2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>, 767024-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#767024: tracker.debian.org: Reports wrong new upstream for a native package
- From: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:55:21 +0100
- Message-id: <20160128125521.GA20164@msg.df7cb.de>
- Mail-followup-to: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>, 767024-done@bugs.debian.org, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>, Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <20151218201237.GB26927@home.ouaza.com>
- References: <20141206101131.GA4428@master.debian.org> <20151218091239.GA15219@home.ouaza.com> <20151218092903.GA27231@xanadu.blop.info> <20151218201237.GB26927@home.ouaza.com>
Re: Raphael Hertzog 2015-12-18 <20151218201237.GB26927@home.ouaza.com> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > udd-dehs seems to use mole.watch, according to the code. > > Duh, what a stupid name for the cgi then :) Ack. I've removed the script when switching DDPO over to the UDD watch/upstream data. (/cgi-bin/watch was updated to talk to UDD.) > > I would recommend switching to udd's upstream table, given it's also > > used for DMD. So problems would be easier to notice. > > Is there some sort of export available over HTTP? https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/upstream-status.json.cgi should be compatible, I believe. Christoph -- cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---