Bug#681813: marked as done (unblock: dunst/0.2.0-2)
Your message dated Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:45:36 +0100
with message-id <1342467936.3728.35.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#681813: unblock: dunst/0.2.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #681813,
regarding unblock: dunst/0.2.0-2
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
immediately.)
--
681813: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681813
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
Please unblock package dunst
The only change between 0.2.0-1 (currently in testing) and 0.2.0-2 is
the added "Provides: notification-daemon", which fixes bug #681732.
Here is the debdiff:
$ debdiff dunst_0.2.0-1_amd64.deb dunst_0.2.0-2_amd64.deb
File lists identical (after any substitutions)
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
------------------------------------------------
Installed-Size: [-46-] {+47+}
{+Provides: notification-daemon+}
Version: [-0.2.0-1-] {+0.2.0-2+}
unblock dunst/0.2.0-2
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 21:12 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Please unblock package dunst
>
> The only change between 0.2.0-1 (currently in testing) and 0.2.0-2 is
> the added "Provides: notification-daemon", which fixes bug #681732.
>
> Here is the debdiff:
>
> $ debdiff dunst_0.2.0-1_amd64.deb dunst_0.2.0-2_amd64.deb
fwiw, when we ask for debdiffs we (almost always) mean between the
source packages, rather than the resulting binaries.
Unblocked; thanks.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
Reply to: