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

Bug#710699: marked as done (nmu: xjig_2.4-14)

Your message dated Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:13:22 +0100
with message-id <cc049525a5a03ae14beffd0726c5da11@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#710699: nmu: xjig_2.4-14
has caused the Debian Bug report #710699,
regarding nmu: xjig_2.4-14
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.)


-- 
710699: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=710699
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: binnmu

nmu xjig_2.4-14 . i386 . -m "Rebuild in a clean environment"

It seems the xjig maintainer upload (with an i386 build) was not done
in a clean (or up-to-date) environment, and it uses libjpeg62 instead
of libjpeg8 (current libjpeg-dev provider).

Dave, please make sure to build your packages in clean and up-to-date
build environment.

Thanks,
-- 
Pino

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2013-06-01 17:37, Pino Toscano wrote:

nmu xjig_2.4-14 . i386 . -m "Rebuild in a clean environment"

It seems the xjig maintainer upload (with an i386 build) was not done
in a clean (or up-to-date) environment, and it uses libjpeg62 instead
of libjpeg8 (current libjpeg-dev provider).


Scheduled.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: