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

Bug#1115445: marked as done (liblwt-ocaml-dev: recommends liblwt-ocaml-doc which is not in unstable)

Your message dated Fri, 09 Jan 2026 10:19:12 +0000
with message-id <E1ve9aK-0000000FfVM-44R4@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#1115445: fixed in lwt 5.9.2-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1115445,
regarding liblwt-ocaml-dev: recommends liblwt-ocaml-doc which is not in unstable
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.)


-- 
1115445: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1115445
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Subject: liblwt-ocaml-dev: recommends liblwt-ocaml-doc which is not in unstable
Package: liblwt-ocaml-dev
Version: 5.9.2-2
Severity: minor
User: submit@bugs.debian.org
Usertags: package-relations

Dear maintainer,

I see that the package liblwt-ocaml-dev (version 5.9.2-2) recommends
liblwt-ocaml-doc which is not in unstable.

This can be seen in
https://packages.debian.org/unstable/liblwt-ocaml-dev

Should it be dropped or changed?

I see that https://tracker.debian.org has information on the not
available packages:

- https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/liblwt-ocaml-doc

I notice that a suggested package (liblwt-glib-ocaml-dev)
andlibppxlib-ocaml-dev-i4ey0 [hppa] are not available either.


Thank you,

-- 
Carles Pina i Estany
https://carles.pina.cat | carles@pina.cat | cpina@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: lwt
Source-Version: 5.9.2-3
Done: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lwt, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 1115445@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org> (supplier of updated lwt package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:00:51 +0100
Source: lwt
Architecture: source
Version: 5.9.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>
Closes: 1115445
Changes:
 lwt (5.9.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Ralf Treinen ]
   * Drop Recommends liblwt-ocaml-doc, since that package has been dropped
     in 2019 (closes: #1115445).
 .
   [ Stéphane Glondu ]
   * Build-Depend on libcompiler-libs-ocaml-dev
   * Bump Standards-Version to 4.7.3
   * Remove Rules-Requires-Root and Priority
Checksums-Sha1:
 a14c59a874c74f92d96a8728e08a417164508f83 2035 lwt_5.9.2-3.dsc
 e7aac51523f7c51898e0ddc58f20bb7fbf285b31 6252 lwt_5.9.2-3.debian.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
 5397f1647e8105e8a825cdc5205756cf4d7f5712e28fa01d0acb8c3fb5c79354 2035 lwt_5.9.2-3.dsc
 b624faf47ad173b8934dd8de5c7e409f96a85f5a03178ceab6156dc2b1994123 6252 lwt_5.9.2-3.debian.tar.xz
Files:
 dec04ecae12c5d4db6dff203702fc377 2035 ocaml optional lwt_5.9.2-3.dsc
 a2b4d986635836c95da03d649f92023c 6252 ocaml optional lwt_5.9.2-3.debian.tar.xz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFGBAEBCgAwFiEEbeJOl+yohsxW5iUOIbju8bGJMIEFAmlg0mASHGdsb25kdUBk
ZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJECG47vGxiTCBMesH/Rid52AaP7zs4KV1vhQKyNsGs2KjsZBK
iMrkAuLaUB2nMzCKcyJXHcRs0KPXIk4XLGceMZ0ldVuI3Z32c6J82BeyKgPrMqGa
v1axaG4rbHJl/7YNJNxNzCWxYfzAIjiqX09LzZR3NsvXJvfiHnERTLoTcBTwmEFV
xkoXHl+3Jh1CStcvu3g0x5eMkiebjK8xtFYDXxkGpZfZBrpJL9Df3MNMEGoBcNre
3OZJ26TSmhrxH96SN9sOO5Mf8ZMlQft79F435JhYurahqVhwZUGUwAyBb6Lbh89l
Or1IJD5cfU9hUVk0WvBBgXnUDkPu5XfP0ObK4l+UfnyJLD/aEIBj9fU=
=Ug3Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attachment: pgpfMWnLYosAU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: