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

Bug#330404: marked as done (powernowd: protection against multiple runs)



Your message dated Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:13 +0000
with message-id <[🔎] E1TbD4z-0002Rs-HV@franck.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#602052: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #330404,
regarding powernowd: protection against multiple runs
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.)


-- 
330404: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=330404
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: powernowd
Severity: wishlist

I see one can mistakenly start a second powernowd, and a third... All
running at the same time. I'm not sure this is bad, but I know it is
not good.

Maybe at least for we single CPU users, make it the default case to
detect and refuse a concurrent run.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.00-2+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package powernowd 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/602052

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.
Ansgar Burchardt (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---

Reply to: