Bug#110520: marked as done ([DOC] dpkg manpage over 3 years old)
Your message dated Fri, 07 May 2004 03:00:24 +0100
with message-id <1083895224.2803.70.camel@localhost>
and subject line Bug#110520: [DOC] dpkg manpage over 3 years old
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; 29 Aug 2001 10:06:58 +0000
>From email@example.com Wed Aug 29 05:06:58 2001
Received: from svpal.svpal.org [18.104.22.168] (grantbow)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15c2FO-0004wK-00; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 05:06:58 -0500
Received: (from grantbow@localhost)
by svpal.svpal.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f7TA6uO21670;
Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:06:55 -0700
From: Grant Bowman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: dpkg manpage over 3 years old
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The man page for dpkg is dated April 12, 1998. Mention of apt would be
appropriate now. Also perhaps installing a link for a manpage of dpkg.conf
to view the dpkg man page would be great.
Looking over the bug database for dpkg, I was surprised. There are alot of
bugs for this package. This is one of a small handful of packages that
Debian can not possibly work without. I understand as well there is added
complexity because the software is being developed by Debian. I don't know
the history of the people actually working on it and packaging it.
I hope you are able to get the help you need in updating this package and
the development resources to improve it. I am not sure what I can do to
help, but if you posted a wishlist somewhere I and others might be able to
-- Grant Bowman <email@example.com>
Received: (at 110520-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 May 2004 02:00:26 +0000
>From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu May 06 19:00:26 2004
Received: from populous.netsplit.com (mailgate.netsplit.com) [22.214.171.124] (qmailr)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BLuf4-0000tz-00; Thu, 06 May 2004 19:00:26 -0700
Received: (qmail 12521 invoked from network); 7 May 2004 02:00:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO syndicate.netsplit.com) (email@example.com)
by populous.netsplit.com with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 7 May 2004 02:00:24 -0000
Subject: Bug#110520: [DOC] dpkg manpage over 3 years old
From: Scott James Remnant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Grant Bowman <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-mpraHHH8A9Ropv0LV/qi"
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.5.7
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 03:00:24 +0100
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
The man page has been updated many times over the past three years ...
if there are any problems with it, please file bugs.
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----