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

Bug#29955: marked as done (policy versions aren't parallel with packaging-manual)



Your message dated Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:25:42 -0500 (EST)
with message-id <m0zj72s-000LKVC@bobspc>
and subject line Bug#29955 closed
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'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Nov 1998 23:13:15 +0000
Received: (qmail 20643 invoked from network); 24 Nov 1998 22:49:17 -0000
Received: from shell.flinet.com (root@205.216.85.4)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 1998 22:49:17 -0000
Received: from bobspc (root@psl-pm5-6.flinet.com [208.14.31.198])
	by shell.flinet.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08522;
	Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:49:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by flinet.com
	via sendmail with stdio
	id <m0ziL0A-000LJSC@bobspc> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
	for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:07:42 -0500 (EST) 
Message-Id: <m0ziL0A-000LJSC@bobspc>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:07:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Hilliard <hilliard@flinet.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: policy versions aren't parallel with packaging-manual

Package: packaging-manual
Version: 2.4.1.2 
Severity: wishlist

     The most recent version of packaging-manual is 2.4.1.2, while the
most recent version of debian-policy is 2.5.0.0.  I believe there has
been agreement on the policy list that these documents would maintain
parallel version numbers.  

     I have filed Wishlist Bug#2993 against lintian, proposing that
lintian version numbers be parallel to the packaging and policy
versions that it is programmed to check.


Reply to: