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

Bug#649845: marked as done (binNMU request for proftpd addon modules)



Your message dated Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:07:37 +0000
with message-id <1323727657.28289.20.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#649845: binNMU request for proftpd addon modules
has caused the Debian Bug report #649845,
regarding binNMU request for proftpd addon modules
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.)


-- 
649845: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649845
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 proftpd-mod-vroot_0.9.2-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-vroot_9.2.2-2 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-autohost_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-autohost_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.4~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-case_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-case_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.4~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-clamav_0.10-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-clamav_0.10-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-dnsbl_0.1.5-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-dnslb_0.1.5-3 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.1rc1)"
nmu proftpd-mod-fsync_0.2-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-fsync_0.2-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.0~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-geoip_0.3-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-geoip_0.3-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-msg_0.4.1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-msg_0.4.1-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
nmu proftpd-mod-tar_0.3.3-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
dw proftpd-mod-tar_0.3.3-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 10:16 +0100, Fabrizio Regalli wrote:
> nmu proftpd-mod-vroot_0.9.2-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-autohost_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-case_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-clamav_0.10-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-dnsbl_0.1.5-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-fsync_0.2-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-geoip_0.3-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-msg_0.4.1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"
> nmu proftpd-mod-tar_0.3.3-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against proftpd-dev_1.3.4a"

Scheduled.

> dw proftpd-mod-autohost_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.4~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-vroot_9.2.2-2 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)" 
> dw proftpd-mod-case_0.4-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.4~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-clamav_0.10-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-dnslb_0.1.5-3 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.1rc1)"
> dw proftpd-mod-fsync_0.2-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.0~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-geoip_0.3-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-msg_0.4.1-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"
> dw proftpd-mod-tar_0.3.3-1 . ALL . -m "proftpd-dev (>= 1.3.3d-5~)"

These mostly don't make any sense.  If you want to ensure that the
binNMUs were built against version 1.3.4a, what good would a dep-wait on
1.3.0~ be?

Regards,

Adam



--- End Message ---

Reply to: