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

Bug#681196: marked as done (unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-4)

Your message dated Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:34:26 +0200
with message-id <20120728123426.GF17223@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#681196: unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #681196,
regarding unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-4
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.)


-- 
681196: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681196
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 tryton-proteus. The -3 upload fixes the #680817 FTBFS,
revealed by a Lucas-powered rebuild.

unblock tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3

debdiff attached

Attachment: tryton-proteus_2.2.2-3.debdiff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 14:16:14 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:

> I now can see, what has happened.
> 
> tryton-proteus_2.2.2-2 was uploaded and accepted into unstable on 2012-06-30,
> but didn't make it into testing so far because of a version mismatch [1].

No, it didn't make it into testing because it had a serious regression
(namely #680817).

> This should be due to a missing upload of 2.2.1-1 on Wed May 9, that I wasn't
> aware of.
> Could you please mark 2.2.2-2 for acceptance in testing, because it is a
> legitimate version uploaded before the freeze?
> 
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate".  2.2.2-2 was RC-buggy.
Plus, marking that version for acceptance wouldn't make sense now, since
it's been superseded in unstable.  So, I'm sorry, but no.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: