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

Bug#595629: marked as done (unblock: xmame/0.106-3.2)

Your message dated Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:37:48 +0200
with message-id <20101006203748.GB2854@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#595629: unblock: xmame/0.106-3.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #595629,
regarding unblock: xmame/0.106-3.2
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

595629: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=595629
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception

Please unblock package xmame

Yet another NMU originally aimed at fixing debconf translations. That
one included a debhelper compatibility level bump from 4 to 7 and a
few other fixes:

* Build-Depend on pkg-config (workaround to avoid FTBFS as
  libesd0-dev does not depend on pkg-config)
* Add dependencies on ${misc:Depends} to packages that
  were missing them. The goal is to properly cope
  with dependencies triggerred by the use of debhelper.

The first is needed to avoid FTBFS, IIRC (that was one month ago!).
The latter is a common and safe fix when debhelper is used.

unblock xmame/0.106-3.2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Oct  6, 2010 at 22:28:18 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:

> Quoting Julien Cristau (jcristau@debian.org):
> > It took all of 90 minutes from filing an ftp.d.o bug to the old binaries
> > being gone.  I have trouble calling that "never".
> > 
> > > IMHO, the unnblock request bug can be closed.
> > > 
> > Do you still want the package updated?
> If that's technically possible without hassle, yes. Thanks for your
> work...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: