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

Re: Dependency Bugs in Debian Packages



On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 05:48:11PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> gecko@master.debian.org writes:
> 
> > Please take a look at this list and fix your package if it's on here.  (Or,
> > you can explain why it should be allowed to violate policy or isn't
> > violating policy).  There *could* be bogus reports in here, too.  In a week
> > or two, we'll file Bugs against packages that are still unaddressed.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                          --snip--
> >    This list was generated from the hurd-i386 Packages file,
> >    dated: Thu Aug 5 19:15:28 1999.
> >    
> >    It excludes the checks which were already reported for the i386
> >    architecture.
> >    
> >   Cannot satisfy with packages in main:
> >      * dict-elements: recommendations dictd, dict
> >      * dict-foldoc: recommendations dictd, dict
> >      * dict-web1913: recommendation dictd
>                          --snip--
> 
>      These packages passed your scan for i386, but failed on the
> Hurd.  It appears to me that the the binaries, dict and dictd, have
> not yet been ported to the Hurd.  I do not believe that is a bug
> against my packages.
> 

These packages should probably be removed from the hurd port until dict and
dictd are ported.. then... but that's more opinion than anything else.  I
don't know who's responsibility that would be.

-- 
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html        <gecko@benham.net>           <><  *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster          *
* <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org>  *
* <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org>   *
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgpYjiEoHzsmq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: