Bug#735088: marked as done (nmu: sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-8)
Your message dated Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:06:52 +0100
with message-id <52D2D9BC.8080302@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#735088: nmu: sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #735088,
regarding nmu: sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-8
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.)
--
735088: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735088
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 sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-8 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against glew 1.10"
This was missed during the glew transition, probably because the package
is not up to date on a few architectures. But let's make it installable
again on the remaining ones while the other get analyzed and maybe
removed.
Verified buildability on sid/amd64.
Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2014-01-12 18:26, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> nmu sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-8 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against glew 1.10"
>
> This was missed during the glew transition, probably because the package
> is not up to date on a few architectures. But let's make it installable
> again on the remaining ones while the other get analyzed and maybe
> removed.
>
> Verified buildability on sid/amd64.
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
For a package that has FTBFS on 2-3 release architectures for over 150
days with no reaction from the maintainer and no reaction to its
uninstallability so far, I wonder if we should not be asking its
maintainer if they are still interested in that package.
I see no reason to restore the package partially, if it will just slowly
bitrot from there. Admittedly, I assume you noticed this case via
piuparts (or some other archive-wide QA tool). If you are/were acting
on behalf of (or as) the maintainer, I am willing to reconsider this.
~Niels
--- End Message ---
Reply to: