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

Bug#699624: marked as done (unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1)

Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:24 +0100
with message-id <1366396584.23177.7.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#699624: unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #699624,
regarding unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1
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.)


-- 
699624: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699624
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 blcr

0.8.5-1 is the official upstream release that adds support for more recent kernels and fixes a number of other bugs which were discovered. This version fixes #638339 in the preferred way. #638339 was originally closed with a less than ideal interim workaround which disabled the kernel module. It was subsequently reopened. 0.8.5-1 is a proper, upstream supported complete fix which has seen extensive testing in experimental and more widely in the community that use it

unblock blcr/0.8.5-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.6
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 13:15 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 12:30 +0000, Alan Woodland wrote:
> > I'm confident that this is the right version to release with.
> 
> A couple of comments, having read back through the earlier discussion
> regarding the proposal to remove the package.
> 
> In <CAD2JkJeRD5fZHdiL1tmc4OqTM=gdGt=NN+u6OqffuTpUramu9g@mail.gmail.com>,
> you indicated that "[t]he library behaves sanely without the kernel
> module". If that's the case then I'm a little dubious about the merits
> of re-adding the module package at this late stage of the freeze.

In the absence of any feedback, I've unblocked the package in the hope
that doing so better serves users and that it will survive happily for
wheezy's stable cycle.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: