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

Bug#220343: marked as done (FW: tla-buildpackage)



Your message dated Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:33:11 +0000
with message-id <E1PxcF5-0001HW-Go@franck.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#617585: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #220343,
regarding FW: tla-buildpackage
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
220343: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220343
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tla-buildpackage
Version: 0.9.3

[ Forwarded with permission from Anthony ]

----- Forwarded message from Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> -----

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:39:51 +1000
To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Subject: tla-buildpackage

Hi John,

Nice little gizmo you've whipped up there.

Is there any reason to have the "working tree" hardcoded like that? I'm
not seeing why /tmp/tbp-$$/ wouldn't work just as well in the ordinary
case, and the existing $TBP_WC override wouldn't suffice for the rare
cases.

I'd also like to have a little bit more control over my branch naming
-- in particular, I'd like to be able to have the tla version match
the first two numbers in my upstream versions.

I'd also like to store the debian version configs as a branch of
the package, something like "ifupdown--debdist--0.6" rather than
"configs--head--1.0". The folks on #arch seemed to think that having
a separate branch in the same category was a rasonable place to store
configs (they recommended --dist--).

In some respects, I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd rather be able
to point tla-buildpackage at an existing archive and let it manage the
Debian part, rather than give it a complete archive of its own; much
of that can presumably be done by mirroring branches to my own archive
with tla anyway, but I think some of the above changes would make that
a bit more convenient.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda



----- End forwarded message -----


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.9.14+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package tla-buildpackage has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see http://bugs.debian.org/617585

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)


--- End Message ---

Reply to: