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

Bug#771680: marked as done (unblock: fish/2.1.1.dfsg-1)

Your message dated Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:57:57 +0000
with message-id <20141201205757.GS23644@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#771680: unblock: fish/2.1.1.dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #771680,
regarding unblock: fish/2.1.1.dfsg-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.)


-- 
771680: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=771680
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 fish

The package was blocked because of security issues which were 
fixed by this version. The new upstream version is focused on 
these fixes and the package if pretty leafy, not causing issues
to other packages (there are no rdepends). It would be better
to have the package on the release than not in my opinion.

unblock fish/fish_2.1.1.dfsg-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.7
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Control: tag -1 wontfix

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:49:53PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> The package was blocked because of security issues which were 
> fixed by this version. The new upstream version is focused on 
> these fixes and the package if pretty leafy, not causing issues
> to other packages (there are no rdepends). It would be better
> to have the package on the release than not in my opinion.

Sorry, but it's too late for re-entries that were removed six months ago.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: