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

Bug#286015: marked as done (search engine disabled)

Your message dated Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:22:20 +0100
with message-id <20090110202220.GA29666@edna.gwendoline.at>
and subject line search engine up and running for a while now
has caused the Debian Bug report #286015,
regarding search engine disabled
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.)


-- 
286015: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=286015
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal

Searching for e.g. CAN-2003-0967 does not lead to any results. It would
be very nice if the search would cover the security advisories so that
users do not think we did not fix the bug without having to browse the
advisories page by page.

bye,

-christian-

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.9-1-k7
Locale: LANG=de_DE, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-15) (ignored: LC_ALL set to de_DE)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
	Hi!

 The search engine is up and running for a while now again. Given that
the complete webtree including the security advisories doesn't contain
the term CAN-2003-0967 it's no wonder that it doesn't appear in the
search, so I consider that not having been the original problem - from
four years ago. The thread in the bug also sounds like the issue is
resolved.

 If not, further informations would be helpful when reopening the
bugreport.

 So long, and thanks. :)
Rhonda

--- End Message ---
Reply to: