Your message dated Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:12:47 +0100 with message-id <a6d46a14e0954e56709f5188063a3928.squirrel@adsl.funky-badger.org> and subject line Re: Bug#597251: nmu: libppl-swi_0.10.2-8 has caused the Debian Bug report #597251, regarding nmu: libppl-swi_0.10.2-8 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.) -- 597251: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=597251 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: nmu: libppl-swi_0.10.2-8
- From: Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:47:00 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20100918084700.4d3a3a1d@valar>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu I erroneously removed libppl-swi_0.10.2-8 from hppa instead of mips (see #596501), so I ask a binNMU on hppa to restore removed binary. nmu libppl-swi_0.10.2-8 . hppa . -m "Rebuild for erroneous removal"Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Luca Falavigna" <dktrkranz@debian.org>, 597251-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#597251: nmu: libppl-swi_0.10.2-8
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:12:47 +0100
- Message-id: <a6d46a14e0954e56709f5188063a3928.squirrel@adsl.funky-badger.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 4C98996A.3070002@debian.org>
- References: <[🔎] 20100918084700.4d3a3a1d@valar> <[🔎] 1284799017.1138.3272.camel@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net> <[🔎] 4C98996A.3070002@debian.org>
On Tue, September 21, 2010 12:39, Luca Falavigna wrote: > Il 18/09/2010 10:36, Adam D. Barratt ha scritto: >> Before I schedule a 22-hour build to get one binary package back :) I'm >> assuming dak can't easily be persuaded to re-introduce the old version >> of the package? (I'm guessing not given the time since removal, but it's >> always worth asking...) > > Unluckily, it seems the best solution is scheduling a binNMU, sorry :( Scheduled. Regards, Adam
--- End Message ---