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

Bug#822744: marked as done (transition: gloox)

Your message dated Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:07:52 +0200
with message-id <577dd46f-e126-d7d0-6804-f110e272c0f3@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#822744: transition: gloox
has caused the Debian Bug report #822744,
regarding transition: gloox
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.)


-- 
822744: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=822744
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Severity: normal

Hi,

I'd like to request a transition slot for src:gloox. This is a relatively small
transition, with only 3 source packages affected (tested builds against newer
gloox, currently in experimental, results are as follows):

licq (FTBFS not related to gloox, #820106, pending autoremoval)
0ad (build ok, needs binNMU)
uwsgi (build ok, needs binNMU)

Ben file:

(https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gloox.html is accurate)

Regards,
Vincent

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 28/04/16 01:20, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>
>> On 27/04/16 03:59, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: transition
>>> Severity: normal
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to request a transition slot for src:gloox. This is a relatively small
>>> transition, with only 3 source packages affected (tested builds against newer
>>> gloox, currently in experimental, results are as follows):
>>>
>>> licq (FTBFS not related to gloox, #820106, pending autoremoval)
>>> 0ad (build ok, needs binNMU)
>>> uwsgi (build ok, needs binNMU)
>>
>> Go ahead.
> 
> Uploaded, built and installed on all archs. Thanks in advance for
> scheduling binNMUs!

This is now finished.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: