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

Bug#682134: marked as done (unblock: blockout2)

Your message dated Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:57:32 +0200
with message-id <20120724235732.GA8997@spike.0x539.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#682134: unblock: blockout2
has caused the Debian Bug report #682134,
regarding unblock: blockout2
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.)


-- 
682134: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682134
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

libpng*-dev and its binary package was renamed, so blockout2 was
rebuilt with new version of libpng (closed FTBFS #662275, #649550).

please unblock the package

-- 

. ''`.                               Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’  :   email: unera@debian.org jabber://UNera@uvw.ru
`. `~’              GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
  `- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555  E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
tag 682134 + wontfix
thanks

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 07:14:47PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > please unblock the package
> I'm afraid I'm currently inclined to say no.
> 
> Aside from the above, the diff also includes packaging changes which are
> a) inappropriate and b) not documented.  Specifically, the patch system
> has been changed and there's a standards-version bump; the latter's not
> so serious, the former appears to be entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Finally, why has the clean target in debian/rules gained an "rm
> -rf .pc"?

Closing, given the above.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: