Bug#690680: marked as done (RM: libzeromq-perl/0.21-1)
Your message dated Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:37:39 +0000
with message-id <1355945859.15294.3.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#690680: RM: libzeromq-perl -- ROM; deprecated, low popcon
has caused the Debian Bug report #690680,
regarding RM: libzeromq-perl/0.21-1
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.)
--
690680: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690680
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: RM: libzeromq-perl -- ROM; deprecated, low popcon
- From: Alessandro Ghedini <ghedo@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:11:41 +0200
- Message-id: <20121016111141.4397.56199.reportbug@dexter>
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
the libzeromq-perl package has just been deprecated upstream. An alternative
exists but it has not yet been packaged for Debian (it will at some point).
Cheers
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Alessandro Ghedini <ghedo@debian.org>
- Cc: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>, 690680-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#690680: RM: libzeromq-perl -- ROM; deprecated, low popcon
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:37:39 +0000
- Message-id: <1355945859.15294.3.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- In-reply-to: <20121017144047.GA5758@dexter>
- References: <20121016111141.4397.56199.reportbug@dexter> <20121016112209.GP4116@urchin.earth.li> <20121016115858.GA5677@dexter> <20121016140027.GR4116@urchin.earth.li> <20121017144047.GA5758@dexter>
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:40 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On 10/16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > Ah, if it's a question of removing it from testing that's a different
> > matter. Maybe let it stay in unstable for time being in case anyone
> > is relying on it indirectly?
>
> I guess that for the time being removing the package from testing would be
> enough, though I still think that the disruption would be minimal and doing
> the removal in two parts is not really worth it.
>
> Feel free to reassign this to release.d.o (I can't right now).
That happened, but not with anything useful like an explanatory mail
ending up on -release. Removal hint added.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
Reply to: