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

Bug#249777: marked as done (semi: prevents gnus-bonus-el package from configuring)

Your message dated 17 Aug 2004 17:19:43 -0700
with message-id <87smal2t7k.fsf@becket.becket.net>
and subject line unreproducable
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; 19 May 2004 07:19:52 +0000
>From bonnaud@jophur.dyndns.org Wed May 19 00:19:52 2004
Return-path: <bonnaud@jophur.dyndns.org>
Received: from lns-vlq-11-62-147-176-169.adsl.proxad.net (jophur) [] (Debian-exim)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BQLMm-0000VP-00; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:19:52 -0700
Received: from bonnaud by jophur with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BQLMk-0000JU-3P; Wed, 19 May 2004 09:19:50 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Laurent Bonnaud <Laurent.Bonnaud@inpg.fr>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: semi: prevents gnus-bonus-el package from configuring
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.59
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:19:48 +0200
Message-Id: <E1BQLMk-0000JU-3P@jophur>
Sender: Laurent Bonnaud <bonnaud@jophur.dyndns.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
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=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DSBL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25

Package: semi
Version: 1.14.6+0.20040
Severity: grave


the last upgrade of the gnus-bonus-el package failed:

Setting up gnus-bonus-el (24.5-1) ...
install/gnus-bonus-el: Handling emacs20, logged in /tmp/elc_3m8rRt.log
emacs-package-install: /usr/lib/emacsen-common/packages/install/gnus-bonus-el emacs20 emacs20 emacs21 xemacs21 failed at /usr/lib/emacsen-common/emacs-package-install line 30, <TSORT> line 1.
dpkg: error processing gnus-bonus-el (--configure):

The cause of the problem seems to be the semi package.  After purging
semi, gnus-bonus-el postinst does not fail any more.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.5-1-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR@euro, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR@euro

Received: (at 249777-done) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Aug 2004 00:19:44 +0000
>From tb@becket.net Tue Aug 17 17:19:43 2004
Return-path: <tb@becket.net>
Received: from vp085189.reshsg.uci.edu (becket.becket.net) [] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BxEB5-0006r5-00; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:19:43 -0700
Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BxEB5-0001EI-2o
	for 249777-done@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:19:43 -0700
To: 249777-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: unreproducable
X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute
		 permission for an emailed response.
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51  63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E  EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92
X-Windows: Flakey and built to stay that way.
From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
Date: 17 Aug 2004 17:19:43 -0700
Message-ID: <87smal2t7k.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Lines: 7
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: 249777-done@bugs.debian.org
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=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=no 

I'm closing this bug because attempts by others to reproduce it have
failed entirely, and there have been more recent releases which may
well have fixed the problem, and the submitter has not replied to a
request to verify if the bug still occurs.


Reply to: