Processed: Really merge

To: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>
Cc: debian-bugs-closed@lists.debian.org (#427639), Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>(netcdfg-dev #219592 #278739 #427639)
Subject: Processed: Really merge
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:39:09 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] handler.s.C.118104693921559.transcript@bugs.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <871wgqfuoy.fsf@slavuj.carpriv.carnet.hr>
References: <871wgqfuoy.fsf@slavuj.carpriv.carnet.hr>

Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:

> close 427639 1:3.6.2-1
Bug#427639: netcdfg-dev: why no fortran 90 support via gfortran?
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug marked as fixed in version 1:3.6.2-1, send any further explanations to Giacomo Mulas <gmulas@ca.astro.it>

> merge 219592 427639
Bug#219592: Fortran interface not provided for netcdf
Bug#427639: netcdfg-dev: why no fortran 90 support via gfortran?
Bug#278739: netcdfg-dev: Fortran Support?
Merged 219592 278739 427639.

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Reply to:

Prev by Date: Processed (with 2 errors): Re: Bug#427639: netcdfg-dev: why no fortran 90 support via gfortran?
Next by Date: Processed: reopen - still fails to purge because of non-essential depends in postrm
Previous by thread: Bug#427639: netcdfg-dev: why no fortran 90 support via gfortran?
Next by thread: Bug#417026: reopen - still fails to purge because of non-essential depends in postrm
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread