On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:22 AM, oldtechaa wrote:
> I see you already filed one; never mind.
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:21 PM, oldtechaa wrote:
>>
>> So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?
For reference: the RM bug is #813336.
--
Daniel Schepler
I see you already filed one; never mind.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:21 PM, oldtechaa wrote:
> So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Schepler
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa wrote:
>> > The packag
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa wrote:
> The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?
Only from testing. As far as I know, there's no process to autoremove
packages with RC bugs from unstable - though certainly, an RC bug
without any response from the maintainer within a
The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?
So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Schepler
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa wrote:
> > The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?
>
> Only from testing. As far as I know, there's no proces
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Control: retitle -1 RM: tads2-mode -- RoM: obsolete
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:35 AM, oldtechaa wrote:
> Package: tads2-mode
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 7.7
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> tads2-mode violates Section 7.7 of the Debian Policy Manual
Package: tads2-mode
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 7.7
Dear Maintainer,
tads2-mode violates Section 7.7 of the Debian Policy Manual, which states that
packages must include dependencies for the clean rule in Build-Depends rather
than Build-Depends-Indep.
This package has a number of oth
7 matches
Mail list logo
