Bug#180780: marked as done (apache-doc: weird file ownerships)
Your message dated Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:22 +0100
with message-id <20031021022622.GY18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
and subject line no longer a problem
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Feb 2003 18:23:17 +0000
>From dave@biff.org.uk Wed Feb 12 12:23:17 2003
Return-path: <dave@biff.org.uk>
Received: from puck.biff.org.uk [62.254.217.167]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18j1XQ-0003Ow-00; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:23:17 -0600
Received: from dholland by puck.biff.org.uk with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18j1XJ-0005LD-00; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:23:09 +0000
From: Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk>
Subject: apache-doc: weird file ownerships
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.1
Message-Id: <E18j1XJ-0005LD-00@puck.biff.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:23:09 +0000
X-Scanner: exiscan *18j1XJ-0005LD-00*2cxBPGn1xrg* (puck.biff.org.uk)
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Package: apache-doc
Version: 1.3.26-0woody3
Severity: normal
This package contains some files owned by joey.Debian which should be
owned by root.root.
root@puck:/var/cache/apt/archives# dpkg -c apache-doc_1.3.26-0woody3_all.deb |grep -v root
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 1659 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/programs/suexec.html.en
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 1775 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/programs/suexec.html.html
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 1797 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/programs/suexec.html.ja.jis
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 22868 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/suexec.html.en
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 22984 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/suexec.html.html
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 24380 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/suexec.html.ja.jis
-rw-r--r-- joey/Debian 7452 2002-06-18 19:23:01 ./usr/share/doc/apache/manual/suexec_1_2.html
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux puck 2.4.18 #2 Tue Oct 22 16:56:20 BST 2002 i686 unknown
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 180780-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Oct 2003 02:26:25 +0000
>From willy@www.linux.org.uk Mon Oct 20 21:26:24 2003
Return-path: <willy@www.linux.org.uk>
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk (www.linux.org.uk) [195.92.249.252]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ABmE4-0003Md-00; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:26:24 -0500
Received: from willy by www.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.22)
id 1ABmE3-0001k8-2s
for 180780-done@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:23 +0100
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:22 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
To: 180780-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: no longer a problem
Message-ID: <20031021022622.GY18370@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: <willy@www.linux.org.uk>
Delivered-To: 180780-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_70
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_20
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
I don't see this any more with 1.3.28-5.
Thanks for the report though.
--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk
Reply to: