Bug#769681: marked as done (nmu for binutils update: tulip_4.6.0dfsg-2, ggcov_0.9-6)
Your message dated Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:04:49 +0100
with message-id <20141115180449.GC23324@ugent.be>
and subject line Re: Bug#769681: nmu for binutils update: tulip_4.6.0dfsg-2, ggcov_0.9-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #769681,
regarding nmu for binutils update: tulip_4.6.0dfsg-2, ggcov_0.9-6
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.)
--
769681: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769681
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 tulip_4.6.0dfsg-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils."
nmu ggcov_0.9-6 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils."
As usual, newer binutils require some binNMUs.
There should be a permanent transition tracker for binutils, too.
Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Andreas,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:18:03PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> nmu tulip_4.6.0dfsg-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils."
> nmu ggcov_0.9-6 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils."
>
> As usual, newer binutils require some binNMUs.
Something like this was still in my shell history. Scheduled.
> There should be a permanent transition tracker for binutils, too.
Or the maintainer could try to understand what 'freeze' means...
Cheers,
Ivo
--- End Message ---
Reply to: