Re: Re: [Mass bug filing] Native vs. non-native packages consistency

2005-11-05 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:32:18PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > >> Feel free to point me to false positives, as I haven't checked every > >> single one of them. I know that some of them already have respective > >> bugs filed against them. > > Indeed, at least some of these *are* false positives

Re: Re: [Mass bug filing] Native vs. non-native packages consistency

2005-11-05 Thread Roland Stigge
Hi Steve, >> Feel free to point me to false positives, as I haven't checked every >> single one of them. I know that some of them already have respective >> bugs filed against them. > > Indeed, at least some of these *are* false positives; there is nothing > that prohibits the use of dashes in nat

Re: [Mass bug filing] Native vs. non-native packages consistency

2005-11-04 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:13:50PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > I knew you would read this mail considering the subject. ;-) > Below is a list of 311 packages that currently have a version in > unstable that is not properly reflected by the existence of an > orig.tar.gz file (that's 3.3% of the w

[Mass bug filing] Native vs. non-native packages consistency

2005-11-04 Thread Roland Stigge
Hi, I knew you would read this mail considering the subject. ;-) Below is a list of 311 packages that currently have a version in unstable that is not properly reflected by the existence of an orig.tar.gz file (that's 3.3% of the whole sid archive). Feel free to point me to false positives, as I