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

Bug#836250: marked as done (transition: gloox)

Your message dated Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:19:37 +0200
with message-id <5b52e6f4-8a56-179d-20be-dd82cfa8c8e7@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#836250: transition: gloox
has caused the Debian Bug report #836250,
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.)


-- 
836250: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=836250
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 2 source packages affected, both of which aren't
in testing so this bug report might be completely unnecessary (I guess
this bug could be considered a binNMU request for 0ad instead):

0ad (not in testing due to RC bug in dependency, #811612)
uwsgi (FTBFS, #828785 and #833055)

Ben file:

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

Regards,
Vincent

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 01/09/16 09:23, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 01/09/16 05:48, 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 2 source packages affected, both of which aren't
>> in testing so this bug report might be completely unnecessary (I guess
>> this bug could be considered a binNMU request for 0ad instead):
> 
> Go ahead.

And it's done. Closing.

Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: