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

Bug#683235: marked as done (unblock: datapacker/1.0.1+nmu2)

Your message dated Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:56 +0200
with message-id <501673F4.1000206@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#683235: unblock: datapacker/1.0.1+nmu2
has caused the Debian Bug report #683235,
regarding unblock: datapacker/1.0.1+nmu2
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.)


-- 
683235: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683235
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Subject: unblock: datapacker/1.0.1+nmu2
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal

Please unblock package datapacker

I've NMU'd this package to fix RC bug #629774.

Diff attached.

unblock datapacker/1.0.1+nmu2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2012-07-30 13:38, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:03:08AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Unfortunately, this packages was removed from testing over 20 days ago
>> (3rd of July) and its excuses says:
>>
>> """
>> datapacker/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/armel unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/kfreebsd-amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/kfreebsd-i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/mips unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/mipsel unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/powerpc unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/s390 unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> datapacker/sparc unsatisfiable Depends: libgmp3c2
>> """
> 
> [...]
> 
> it appears installable here -- could you double check?
> 

I was looking at some outdated excuses cached on qa.d.o and indeed the
"unsatisfiable Depends" entries are gone now.

>>
>> So I am afraid this will not get an exception.
>>
>> ~Niels
>>
>>
> 
> Cheers,
>   Paul
> 

However, my verdict is not going to change - it was pointed out on IRC
that I misread the date datapacker was last in testing by a year (i.e.
3rd of July 2011 rather than 2012).

Sorry - but this bug should really have been fixed ages ago.

~Niels

--- End Message ---
Reply to: