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 ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: FW: tla-buildpackage
- From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:57:51 -0600
- Message-id: <20031112025751.GC14247@complete.org>
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 ---
- To: 220343-done@bugs.debian.org,223177-done@bugs.debian.org,234453-done@bugs.debian.org,251533-done@bugs.debian.org,306313-done@bugs.debian.org,557333-done@bugs.debian.org,572348-done@bugs.debian.org,
- Cc: tla-buildpackage@packages.debian.org, tla-buildpackage@packages.qa.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#617585: Removed package(s) from unstable
- From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:33:11 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] E1PxcF5-0001HW-Go@franck.debian.org>
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 ---