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

Testing removal summary 2007-01-05 (Friday)



The following source package(s) have been removed from testing:

  REMOVED: google-perftools 0.8-5
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon>
    # 20070104
    Bug #404001: file conflict between perftools0_tau and libgoogle

  REMOVED: ktrack 0.3.0-alpha1-8.1
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon>
    # 20070104
    Bug #403699: ktrack: Crashes on startup

  REMOVED: trr19 1.0beta5-18
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon>
    # 20070104
    Bug #404270: gnuplot: license violation

  REMOVED: xtla 1.2.1-1
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/vorlon>
    # 20070104
    Bug #403058: xtla: FTBFS: b-dep on emacs-snapshot, which is not in testing

The following package(s) appear to have valid removal hints,
but are still in testing for some reason:

  HINTED FOR REMOVAL: faad2 2.5-1
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/aba>
    #20061223
    Bug #403117: Incomplete copyright/license information: Additional restrictions to GPL
    Bug #404279: Package unsuitable for release or testing

  HINTED FOR REMOVAL: playground-xmms 0.3-1
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/aba>
    #20061226
    Bug #403978: playground-plugin-xmms doesn't work

  HINTED FOR REMOVAL: ruby1.9 1.9.0+20060609-1
    <http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/luk>
    # 2006-12-15
    Bug #305065: ruby1.9 should not be part of a stable release

The script that generates this mail tries to extract removal
reasons from comments in the britney hint files. Those comments
were not originally meant to be machine readable, so if the
reason for removing your package seems to be nonsense, it is
probably the reporting script that got confused. Please check the
actual hints file before you complain about meaningless removals.

-- 
This email is automatically generated; henning@makholm.net is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.



Reply to: