Your message dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:58:50 +0000 with message-id <1364417930.22071.10.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> and subject line Re: Bug#697078: tpu: xdotool/1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u1 has caused the Debian Bug report #697078, regarding tpu: xdotool/1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u1 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.) -- 697078: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697078 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: tpu: xdotool/1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u1
- From: Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:13:10 +0100
- Message-id: <20121231201310.3ae9480b@midna.rag.lan>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: tpu Hello, I would like to upload xdotool/1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u1 to testing-proposed-updates to fix #680824 in wheezy. At the moment, 1:2.20100701.2961-3 is in wheezy and 1:2.20110530.1-6 (many changes) is in unstable. The debdiff is attached. May I go ahead? -- Best regards, MichaelAttachment: xdotool.debdiff
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 697078-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#697078: tpu: xdotool/1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u1
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:58:50 +0000
- Message-id: <1364417930.22071.10.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1364412792.22071.9.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- References: <x6bod9ptuw.fsf@midna.zekjur.net> <1357165878.28716.26.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <1358548361.12995.21.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <1360184047.4494.8.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <x66225jepu.fsf@midna.zekjur.net> <5112D861.8090405@fifthhorseman.net> <87txpn33b4.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <a8fdf4b4d63259d7fd222731f14a833e@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org> <5115260C.3020301@fifthhorseman.net> <8738x1m1sl.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <[🔎] 20130327173619.GA11394@sym.noone.org> <[🔎] 5153459B.1020109@fifthhorseman.net> <[🔎] 1364412792.22071.9.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 19:33 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 15:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > I was able to replicate (some of?) the buildd failures manually by > > building under a buildd-similar set of constraints: > > > > env -i PATH=/usr/bin:/bin SHELL=/bin/sh dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us > > </dev/null > > > > (from: https://wiki.debian.org/buildd#buildd_differences) > > > > The attached debdiff from -3+deb7u2 to -3+deb7u3 makes the package build > > fine even under those constraints. > > I'd prefer to keep the testsuite enabled in a stable release if > possible. With the distribution fixed as per your follow-up, please go > ahead; thanks. -3's looking good and I've updated my hint; thanks. Regards, Adam
--- End Message ---