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

Bug#640641: marked as done (nmu: keysafe_0.4.0.2-3)

Your message dated Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:55:35 +0100
with message-id <1315565735.29292.15.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#640641: nmu: keysafe_0.4.0.2-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #640641,
regarding nmu: keysafe_0.4.0.2-3
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.)


-- 
640641: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640641
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: binnmu

nmu keysafe_0.4.0.2-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with libbotan1.8-dev (>= 1.8.13-2) to fix SONAME breakage in libbotan-1.8.2 (= 1.8.13-1)"

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.2
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:21 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> 2011/9/6 Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 01:26 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >> nmu keysafe_0.4.0.2-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with libbotan1.8-dev (>=
> >> 1.8.13-2) to fix SONAME breakage in libbotan-1.8.2 (= 1.8.13-1)"
> >
> > Aside from the fact that the package name was originally not changed to
> > follow the SONAME bump, now that things have been fixed up this is
> > "just" an un-coordinated library transition afaics?
> 
> Yes, it is, but I have filled a transition bug some time ago:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638818

Our definitions of "some time ago" differ somewhat, it would appear. :-)
(and the bug is intended to be filed in advance of the upload, to allow
us to co-ordinate, rather than afterwards).

In any case, yes, I missed that when replying, sorry.

> > If so, was there any reason that binNMUs for monotone weren't also
> > requested?
> 
> Because I was just writing the monotone maintainers and I didn't want
> to step on their toes:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640638#12

You might want to fix up the version information on that bug - because
of the merging, it's currently marked as found in both -1 and -4, but
fixed in -2, which means the BTS thinks it's still relevant in unstable.

I've scheduled the binNMUs for keysafe and monotone, as they don't
obviously appear to be involved in other ongoing transitions.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: