Bug#87229: marked as done (/devel/people is out of date)
Your message dated Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:38:10 +0100
with message-id <[🔎] 20010223183810.A27438@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
and subject line Bug#87229: /devel/people is out of date
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; 23 Feb 2001 13:05:37 +0000
>From mas@echo.fr Fri Feb 23 07:05:37 2001
Return-path: <mas@echo.fr>
Received: from blackhole.x-echo.com (cachemir.echo-net.net) [::ffff:195.101.94.7]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14WHui-0007LF-00; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:05:36 -0600
Received: by cachemir.echo-net.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CB4884811; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:05:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: /devel/people is out of date
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.14
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.14
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:05:34 +0100
Message-Id: <[🔎] 20010223130534.CB4884811@cachemir.echo-net.net>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2001-02-23
Severity: normal
It seems the people.names file hasn't been regenerated for a while:
$ ls -l /org/www.debian.org/webwml/english/devel/people.names
[...] Feb 7 00:23 /org/www.debian.org/webwml/english/devel/people.names
$
The page at <http://www.debian.org/devel/people> is therefore out of
date.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux cachemir 2.4.0 #1 Thu Jan 25 14:01:26 CET 2001 i686
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 87229-done) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Feb 2001 17:37:59 +0000
>From joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr Fri Feb 23 11:37:59 2001
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 14WMAI-0001X7-00; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:58 -0600
Received: from joy by cibalia.gkvk.hr with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 14WMAU-00079H-00; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:38:10 +0100
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:38:10 +0100
To: Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org>, 87229-done@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-www@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#87229: /devel/people is out of date
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20010223183810.A27438@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
References: <[🔎] 20010223130534.CB4884811@cachemir.echo-net.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20010223130534.CB4884811@cachemir.echo-net.net>; from lolando@debian.org on Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 02:05:34PM +0100
From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>
Delivered-To: 87229-done@bugs.debian.org
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 02:05:34PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Version: N/A; reported 2001-02-23
> Severity: normal
>
> It seems the people.names file hasn't been regenerated for a while:
>
> $ ls -l /org/www.debian.org/webwml/english/devel/people.names
> [...] Feb 7 00:23 /org/www.debian.org/webwml/english/devel/people.names
> $
>
> The page at <http://www.debian.org/devel/people> is therefore out of
> date.
I've fixed/updated it. Some translations may still be screwed up, that'll
take no more than 6 hours to get synced (I didn't want to bother waiting for
the thing to compile :)
For debian-www readers: I've also hacked in some experimental support for
Mail::Address. Its advantage is supposed to be better handling of comments
(stuff in parenthesis, where people put their nicknames and whatnot). I'm
still not finished, there are some nice old regexps to modify...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: