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

Bug#663681: marked as done (RM: python-libtiff/0.3.0~svn78-2)

Your message dated Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:20:04 +0200
with message-id <20120716152004.GS7369@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#663681: RM: python-libtiff/0.3.0~svn78-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #663681,
regarding RM: python-libtiff/0.3.0~svn78-2
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

663681: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=663681
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: rm

pylibtiff does not support the new tiff5 package. Please remove pylibtiff from testing. 

See #663490 for information


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.1
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 20:42:22 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> pylibtiff's code is full of ugly.  You're not supposed to use
> find_library() and you're not supposed to go read a header file.  That
> thing needs a rewrite IMO.
I've added a removal hint.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: