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

Bug#383511: marked as done (E: Broken packages)



Your message dated Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:32:14 -0700
with message-id <E1GE98g-0003s9-7c@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#383511: fixed in spe 0.8.2a+repack-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)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: spe
Version: 0.8.2a+repack-0.1
Severity: normal


I have python2.3 and 2.4 installed, yet I cannot manage to get spe to
install. See below.

apt-get install spe
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.

Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
that package should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  spe: Depends: python (< 2.4) but 2.4.3-11 is to be installed
E: Broken packages


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-k7
Locale: LANG=nb_NO.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nb_NO.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: spe
Source-Version: 0.8.2a+repack-1

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

spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/s/spe/spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.diff.gz
spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.dsc
  to pool/main/s/spe/spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.dsc
spe_0.8.2a+repack-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/s/spe/spe_0.8.2a+repack-1_all.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 383511@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Matej Vela <vela@debian.org> (supplier of updated spe 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: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:26:55 +0200
Source: spe
Binary: spe
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.8.2a+repack-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
Changed-By: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>
Description: 
 spe        - Stani's Python Editor
Closes: 380958 383511
Changes: 
 spe (0.8.2a+repack-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * QA upload.
   * Switch to new Python policy.  Closes: #380958, #383511.
   * debian/README.Debian: Fix typo.
   * debian/copyright: Update FSF address.
   * debian/watch: Add.
   * Remove dh-make templates.
   * Conforms to Standards version 3.7.2.
Files: 
 6ab234bc84735a9720c03f6f9e970c05 656 python optional spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.dsc
 a5882ab0a0e931e91ccdc61e603d2a1f 4691 python optional spe_0.8.2a+repack-1.diff.gz
 934ae6b1a26605d04ef87718be464695 514824 python optional spe_0.8.2a+repack-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE5gaCxBYivKllgY8RAl73AKC+pcD1o/Y7Lc0yYX1HpxvjY2V5+QCfbfJK
2Qm98caOCQ39q6bIYzBa6ks=
=0fk5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- End Message ---

Reply to: