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

Bug#692794: marked as done (unblock: cm-super/0.3.4-7)

Your message dated Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:37:54 +0100
with message-id <509CA4C2.5070707@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#692794: unblock: cm-super/0.3.4-7
has caused the Debian Bug report #692794,
regarding unblock: cm-super/0.3.4-7
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.)


-- 
692794: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692794
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

Dear release team,

I would like to ask for an unblock of
	cm-super 0.3.4-7
which fixes one bug:
	#692523: cm-super: changelog.Debian.gz could be for wrong version
of severity serious.

The problem was that the directories
	/usr/share/cm-super
	/usr/share/cm-super-x11
where links to 
	/usr/share/cm-super-minimal
but the dependency was not strict onto the very same version,
which means that one could have an old version of cm-super-minimal
installed, leading to an outdated/wrong copyright/changelog file
in cm-super.

The change is a simple addition of
	(= ${source:Version})
to the dependency declaration onto cm-super-minimal. In detail,
here is the patch to debian/control:
--- tags/0.3.4-6/debian/control	2012-08-02 11:26:55.000000000 +0900
+++ trunk/debian/control	2012-11-07 13:53:21.000000000 +0900
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
 Architecture: all
 Replaces: pts-tetex-cm-super
 Conflicts: pts-tetex-cm-super
-Depends: ${misc:Depends}, texlive-latex-recommended, cm-super-minimal, pfb2t1c2pfb
+Depends: ${misc:Depends}, texlive-latex-recommended, cm-super-minimal (= ${source:Version}), pfb2t1c2pfb
 Description: TeX font package (full version) with CM (EC) in Type1 in T1, T2*, TS1, X2 enc
  This package ships the full set of cm-super fonts, for a minimal variant
  install cm-super-minimal.
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
 
 Package: cm-super-x11
 Architecture: all
-Depends: cm-super-minimal, ${misc:Depends}
+Depends: cm-super-minimal (= ${source:Version}), ${misc:Depends}
 Description: Make the cm-super fonts available to X11
  This package makes the cm-super fonts available to X11. This package
  does not contain any fonts itself but allows one to reuse the cm-super

plus the change of the changelog entry.

unblock cm-super/0.3.4-7

Thanks for your understanding

Norbert

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

Kernel: Linux 3.7.0-rc4+ (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2012-11-09 00:44, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> 
> Dear release team,
> 
> I would like to ask for an unblock of
> 	cm-super 0.3.4-7
> which fixes one bug:
> 	#692523: cm-super: changelog.Debian.gz could be for wrong version
> of severity serious.
> 
> The problem was that the directories
> 	/usr/share/cm-super
> 	/usr/share/cm-super-x11
> where links to 
> 	/usr/share/cm-super-minimal
> but the dependency was not strict onto the very same version,
> which means that one could have an old version of cm-super-minimal
> installed, leading to an outdated/wrong copyright/changelog file
> in cm-super.
> 
> [...]
> 
> plus the change of the changelog entry.
> 
> unblock cm-super/0.3.4-7
> 
> Thanks for your understanding
> 
> Norbert
> 
> [...]

Unblocked, thanks.

~Niels

--- End Message ---
Reply to: