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

Bug#600198: marked as done (unblock: gnuplot/4.4.0-1.1)

Your message dated Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:33:02 +0200
with message-id <20101014153302.GO3167@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#600198: unblock: gnuplot/4.4.0-1.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #600198,
regarding unblock: gnuplot/4.4.0-1.1
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

600198: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=600198
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
Severity: normal

Please unblock package gnuplot

Hi, release team,

gnuplot 4.4.0-1 needed a libedit2 symbol that was not available in 
minimal version provided by shlibs (See libedit #523260), making 
possible to install gnuplot with an old wrong libedit2. libedit has 
been fixed and now ships correct information in shlibs. My NMU just 
make sure gnuplot is built against at least the version having 
correct shlibs.

Changelog entry follows:

gnuplot (4.4.0-1.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Build depend on recent libedit-dev with fixed shlibs
    dependencies (Closes: #597514).

 -- Agustin Martin Domingo <agmartin@debian.org>  Tue, 21 Sep 2010

unblock gnuplot/4.4.0-1.1


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 16:57:50 +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:

> Please unblock package gnuplot
Migrated already.

   gnuplot |  4.4.0-1.1 |       testing | source, all


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: