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

Bug#331774: marked as done (cgiemail depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition)

Your message dated Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:47:05 -0700
with message-id <E1EQDiz-0001lb-00@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#331774: fixed in cgiemail 1.6-29
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 maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:40:50 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Tue Oct 04 16:40:50 2005
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [] (postfix)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1EMwOw-0004Pn-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:40:50 -0700
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 35A2517F72; Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:40:50 +0000 (GMT)
To: maintonly@bugs.debian.org
Subject: cgiemail depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks cdebconf transition
Message-Id: <20051004234050.35A2517F72@kitenet.net>
Date: Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:40:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: joey@kitenet.net (Joey Hess)
Delivered-To: maintonly@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(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_2005_01_02

Package: cgiemail

This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0

Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all.

debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been
provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began
automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it
generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current
version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and
review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is
modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it.

This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to
the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced
mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and
it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign
this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature
your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf.

Received: (at 331774-close) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2005 00:51:16 +0000
>From katie@spohr.debian.org Thu Oct 13 17:51:16 2005
Return-path: <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1EQDiz-0001lb-00; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:47:05 -0700
From: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
To: 331774-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#331774: fixed in cgiemail 1.6-29
Message-Id: <E1EQDiz-0001lb-00@spohr.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:47:05 -0700
Delivered-To: 331774-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(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_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2

Source: cgiemail
Source-Version: 1.6-29

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

  to pool/main/c/cgiemail/cgiemail_1.6-29.diff.gz
  to pool/main/c/cgiemail/cgiemail_1.6-29.dsc
  to pool/main/c/cgiemail/cgiemail_1.6-29_alpha.deb
  to pool/main/c/cgiemail/cgiemail_1.6-29_i386.deb
  to pool/main/c/cgiemail/cgiemail_1.6-29_sparc.deb

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

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 331774@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> (supplier of updated cgiemail 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)

Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:57:41 +1000
Source: cgiemail
Binary: cgiemail
Architecture: source i386 alpha sparc
Version: 1.6-29
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
 cgiemail   - CGI Form-to-Mail converter
Closes: 314434 331774 333482
 cgiemail (1.6-29) unstable; urgency=low
   * New maintainer, closes: #314434.
   * Set Standards-Version to 3.6.2.
   * Set DH_COMPAT to 4.
   * Added Swedish translation of the debconf templates, closes: #333482.
     Patch by Daniel Nylander <yeager@lidkoping.net>.
   * Fixed "cgiemail depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0
     alternate; blocks cdebconf transition", closes: #331774.
 ab4699349d8cded8557891f4280cfdd2 578 web optional cgiemail_1.6-29.dsc
 13bff150c4b217888ecb3806f6fde112 21893 web optional cgiemail_1.6-29.diff.gz
 dffe6fea770c6519649370f610a124bc 38712 web optional cgiemail_1.6-29_i386.deb
 b3d3a236503e7a01b399e89eeadb207b 38666 web optional cgiemail_1.6-29_sparc.deb
 72048e7cfa42ed830706f5395afa284a 44524 web optional cgiemail_1.6-29_alpha.deb

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: