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

Bug#263221: marked as done (Please package newer version of atftpd)



Your message dated Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:47:07 -0400
with message-id <E1C8GGh-0002OR-00@newraff.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#263221: fixed in atftp 0.7-1
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; 3 Aug 2004 11:45:09 +0000
>From root@asterix.dyndns.org Tue Aug 03 04:45:09 2004
Return-path: <root@asterix.dyndns.org>
Received: from ms001msg.fastwebnet.it [213.140.2.51] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BrxjA-00031A-00; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:45:08 -0700
Received: from localhost (5.255.71.242) by ms001msg.fastwebnet.it (7.0.028)
        id 4096D40502018842; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:44:37 +0200
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 0)
	id 057674FFC2; Tue,  3 Aug 2004 13:44:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alessandro Polverini <alex@nibbles.it>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Please package newer version of atftpd
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.63
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:44:36 +0200
Message-Id: <20040803114436.057674FFC2@localhost>
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=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: atftpd
Version: 0.6.3
Severity: wishlist

Hello,
atftpd 0.7 is out since a while, please package it :)

Alex

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (50, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages atftpd depends on:
ii  debconf                     1.4.29       Debian configuration management sy
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-13 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libwrap0                    7.6.dbs-4    Wietse Venema's TCP wrappers libra
ii  netkit-inetd                0.10-9       The Internet Superserver

-- debconf information excluded

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 263221-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2004 10:54:32 +0000
>From katie@ftp-master.debian.org Fri Sep 17 03:54:32 2004
Return-path: <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1C8GNs-0001V8-00; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:54:32 -0700
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1C8GGh-0002OR-00; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:47:07 -0400
From: Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@debian.org>
To: 263221-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.51 $
Subject: Bug#263221: fixed in atftp 0.7-1
Message-Id: <E1C8GGh-0002OR-00@newraff.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:47:07 -0400
Delivered-To: 263221-close@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_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 5

Source: atftp
Source-Version: 0.7-1

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

atftp_0.7-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/a/atftp/atftp_0.7-1.diff.gz
atftp_0.7-1.dsc
  to pool/main/a/atftp/atftp_0.7-1.dsc
atftp_0.7-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/a/atftp/atftp_0.7-1_i386.deb
atftp_0.7.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/a/atftp/atftp_0.7.orig.tar.gz
atftpd_0.7-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/a/atftp/atftpd_0.7-1_i386.deb



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 263221@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@debian.org> (supplier of updated atftp 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@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:20 +0200
Source: atftp
Binary: atftpd atftp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.7-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@debian.org>
Changed-By: Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@debian.org>
Description: 
 atftp      - Advanced TFTP client
 atftpd     - Advanced TFTP server
Closes: 155300 180461 227258 238196 263221
Changes: 
 atftp (0.7-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New maintainer. Closes: Bug#227258.
   * New release. Closes: Bug#263221, Bug#155300, Bug#180461, Bug#238196.
Files: 
 74e44865679c3b69d614d88e4baa87a5 615 net optional atftp_0.7-1.dsc
 3b27365772d918050b2251d98a9c7c82 202234 net optional atftp_0.7.orig.tar.gz
 3678b84e6cecdfc1cec48b88d8ab5876 3649 net optional atftp_0.7-1.diff.gz
 e630fb68c8b348ffd1dff31d810f5ca4 27544 net optional atftp_0.7-1_i386.deb
 f57eca2a57cd49d79c587781ce3362f6 63766 net optional atftpd_0.7-1_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBSruisRlQAP1GppgRAlnyAJ0Yavxkm7hfknQqFYvdaifoFOQfOgCgh21o
rFKlg/ECOZ7Q31FyH7HQqh4=
=9cfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: