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

Bug#976344: marked as done (RM: ruby-diaspora-federation/0.2.6-2)

Your message dated Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:31:14 +0100
with message-id <2aebaf15-a73d-176d-2317-3aabec9bd6eb@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#976344: RM: ruby-diaspora-federation/0.2.6-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #976344,
regarding RM: ruby-diaspora-federation/0.2.6-2
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.)


-- 
976344: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976344
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: rm
This package is blocking ruby-faraday 1.0 migration to testing (#976343). Its only reverse dependency is ruby-diaspora-federation-rails, which in turn has only one other reverse dependency diaspora.
Both diaspora and ruby-diaspora-federation-rails is not in testing (because they don't work with rails version 6).
Please remove this package from testing to allow migration of ruby-faraday 1.0 to testing. 

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
 APT prefers testing
 APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.9.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_IN:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Pirate,

On 03-12-2020 19:26, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 03-12-2020 19:20, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> Are you saying we should not be proactively helping packages to migrate
>> to testing?
> 
> What I'm saying is that it helps to include such details in the original
> request.

And also, it really depends. This is additional work for us (it requires
processing of these reports and it requires some checks before
execution). So regularly it better to just wait unless that's going to
be too long, or things aren't automatically removed.

Done anyways.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: