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

Bug#603069: marked as done (unblock: common-lisp-controller/7.4+nmu1)



Your message dated Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:24:17 +0000
with message-id <1289507057.17237.480.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#603069: unblock: common-lisp-controller/7.4+nmu1
has caused the Debian Bug report #603069,
regarding unblock: common-lisp-controller/7.4+nmu1
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.)


-- 
603069: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603069
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: unblock

Hi,

Please unblock package common-lisp-controller

common-lisp-controller (7.4+nmu1) unstable; urgency=high

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * lisp-config.lisp is shipped as a conffile from 7.0 onwards, so when
    upgrading from earlier versions we have to remove the old auto-generated
    file, to avoid config file conflict (Closes: #601957). Setting urgency to
    high for RC bug.

Thanks,
Serafeim



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:25 +0100, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> common-lisp-controller (7.4+nmu1) unstable; urgency=high
> 
>   * Non-maintainer upload.
>   * lisp-config.lisp is shipped as a conffile from 7.0 onwards, so when
>     upgrading from earlier versions we have to remove the old auto-generated
>     file, to avoid config file conflict (Closes: #601957). Setting urgency to
>     high for RC bug.

Unblocked.

Regards,

Adam



--- End Message ---

Reply to: