Bug#852938: marked as done (nmu: botch_0.21-2)
Your message dated Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:37:40 +0100
with message-id <20170129073740.e662zq5nt2vfmhgn@seneca.home.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#852938: nmu: botch_0.21-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #852938,
regarding nmu: botch_0.21-2
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.)
--
852938: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852938
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 botch_0.21-2 . mips mips64el mipsel ppc64el s390x . unstable . -m "rebuild against dose3 (5.0.1-8)"
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.utf8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 10:42:20PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Ralf Treinen (2017-01-28 12:48:08)
> > nmu botch_0.21-2 . mips mips64el mipsel ppc64el s390x . unstable . -m "rebuild against dose3 (5.0.1-8)"
>
> it might be best to close this bug without taking action.
>
> botch was reported as FTBFS today (#852917), so triggering a binNMU right now
> would only lead to build failures across all arches.
Closing, since there was a new upload of botch anyway. -Ralf.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: